Should a manager interview candidate volunteers?

We argue for a rational stepwise approach. The manager has search 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 as friends of candidates. 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 or assessment centres, they can select.

But should they? Should they interview?

Surely interviewing is normal? Effective? Surely you must enter the relationship having formed some view 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 as two samples of several jobs boards 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.

By telling candidate volunteers they must face an interview, the manager puts a roadblock in the volunteers’ paths. They are sending the message to the candidates that volunteering is just like work; like employment, with its competition and rejection. Perhaps that’s something that the manager may want to play down?

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 in joining the CSO. If the job is a key stepping stone to greater things, perhaps the attraction of the job will diminish any blockage experienced. It’s all down to 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.

The simplest alternative is to have the candidate volunteers start volunteer work, maybe after the pre-selection stage, perhaps with a buddy – an existing volunteer. Perhaps they can be monitored in their work and their ability to meet the selection criteria required. 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 volunteer 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 must have the same treatment 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.

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