Should a manager interview candidate volunteers? And if not, what's the alternative?

I argue for a rational stepwise approach. The manager has both search and selection criteria and can work with their marketers to publicise the jobs. They can task agents to search, whether on LinkedIn, on existing databases, or by asking existing volunteers to recommend friends. They can advertise in magazines and local radio or wherever they identify that success will be likely. And if they elect to use conventional interviews, they can use those criteria to select.

But should they? Should they interview?

Surely interviewing is normal? Effective? Surely you must enter the relationship having formed some view about whether the volunteer will do well in the job? Why is there any doubt about the need for interviews?

The answer is complicated. A quick look on Volunteer Scotland and Reach Volunteering shows a host of volunteer jobs. Repeated viewing over a period also shows that many of the organisations continually have those same or similar vacancies. It’s like nothing moves. Like the advertising-interviewing process is stalled suggesting that there's a systemic problem.

We discuss the issue of declining volunteering in other blogs, but here's one possible answer related to recruitment.

By telling candidate volunteers they must face an interview, the manager puts a roadblock in the volunteers’ paths. Just read a few adverts to see what I mean. They are sending the message to the candidates that volunteering is just like work; like employment, with its stress, competition, and rejection. Perhaps that’s something that the manager might want to find an alternative to?

The answer to this question about whether to conduct selection interviews depends on the number of viable candidates that the manager thinks they will have following search – and how keen those volunteers will be to join the CSO. If the job is a key stepping stone to greater things, perhaps the attraction of the job will outweigh any roadblocks. It also depends on how certain the manager is on finding recruits and how cavalier the manager feels they can be. If the candidate volunteers look at the prospect of an interview, scowl, and decline to be tested in this way, perhaps an alternative is needed.

And of course, the manager will never know if it's the good candidates that are put off, resulting in selection of the 'best of a bad bunch'.

The simplest alternative is to have the candidate volunteers start volunteer work, maybe after a light, pre-selection activity, perhaps with a buddy – an existing volunteer. Perhaps they can be monitored in their work, and their ability to meet the selection criteria assessed. Perhaps the interview can be spread across several weeks of volunteer work? It might suit both parties for the volunteer to work for a period under probation. Then there’s no need for the tensions of interview and the volunteer can learn if the job is for them.

Starting under probation has merit, but it demands a very competent manager. It takes much greater skill to run a longitudinal monitoring and assessment activity over several weeks than to make a one-time assessment decision. Volunteers under probation are volunteers and be must be treated as if permanently engaged. We discuss throughout this site what’s needed. It also takes skill and empathy to tell unsuitable volunteers that the job’s not for them – to let them down gently at the end of the assessment period.

Arguably, starting under probation is a much more effective approach to selection than interviewing, but it takes more manager competence and effort.