A Critique of The Extraordinaries' Model

Thanks to Beth Kanter for Tweeting about this critique of our model by Jayne Cravens, a noted expert in the field of volunteerism. Find it here:

http://blogs.forumer.com/jcravens/43587/My+skepticism+re:+crowd-sourcing+%26amp;+volunteering

What do you think? Love to hear your thoughts.

My quick reaction: 

A lot of valid points here - and we're keenly aware of some of these - and are trying to shape the service around the kinds of things that crowdsourcing does well (and stay away from those that are better performed by a trained/vetted volunteer). Think Wikipedia and Open Source Software. These have been created by crowdsourced volunteers and offer undeniable value to nonprofits and social causes. Funny, just noticed that Cravens points to this Wikipedia page to reference problems with the crowdsourcing model. She's using a product of crowdsourced volunteerism to critique crowdsourced volunteerism. Love it.

Some of these arguments are reminiscent of those heatedly debated on the fascinating Crowdsourcing Panel at SXSW (Twitter hash tag #specwork09), organized by Jeff Howe. David Carson (mega famous designer) denounced Crowdspring.com - purveyor of crowdsourced design. Lots of great points made on each side. My quick takeaway: there's room in the marketplace for more than one kind of design. I think the same thinking can be applied to volutneerism. Let's experiment with the models that have proven so effective in other domains. Will it work? I don't know. But worth a college try.

Comments

[Michael Lewkowitz]

First... did I miss something? That post didn't even allow comments.

Crowd-sourcing requires a different mode of engagement. Command and control - the mode used for 'effective' volunteer engagement - doesn't work. It requires developing and nurture social capital and facilitating mutual interest that can be applied to things that will advance the organization seeking the support/engagement.

"Crowd-sourcing" isn't an answer to everything and often 'doesn't work well' but I believe that's more of a reflection that we try and forge connections and collaborations around 'soul-less' things like tasks. Action can thrive when connections form on mutual interest/shared passion and values. From there, value building actions can happen and the potential of crowd-sourcing can really be experienced.

[justin massa]

I agree with some of her points, but largely think they are simply problems to be solved rather than insurmountable obstacles. The one challenge I might make on the crowdsourced projects like open source software or wikipedia is the relatively consistent nature of the task volunteers take on. Replicating that common experience thru the app is going to be critical (imho)...

[Kermit]

Volunteers are never free. Ms. Cravens is correct about that point. Most people show up to volunteer at many of the different opportunities that she mentions and they only see what is happening on that day, hour or minute. Volunteers don’t realize the amount of work that goes into creating an exceptional experience. However, the exceptional experience is most likely a 50-50 crapshoot or sometimes even less. I will admit I’m not an expert on the “volunteer experience” nor do I have the experience consulting and setting up nonprofits, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), civil society, & public sector agencies as Ms. Cravens. What I do have is nine years of experience organizing and managing over forty political campaigns and I’ve also spent half my life volunteering for a plethora of organizations in multiple states.

From my personal and professional experience I can say that Ms. Cravens has a very narrow view of volunteers, their abilities and the volunteer coordinators at non-profits. Although she is correct about the need to recruit, train and supervise volunteers, she fails to recognize the reason that volunteers show up. What motivates the volunteers to show up and what do they get out of it? What is the need that is fulfilled within the volunteer that drives them to show up? It seems to be a simple question but the answers are varied and diverse as the non-profit community and their constituents.

On political campaigns, the motivations and needs of the volunteers are varied. The simplest answer is that they support the candidate, the issues, the values, want a job, etc. There are others such as students show up because they are offered credit or volunteer hours, some people just show up because they have no other interaction with people, the list continues on and on. With each volunteer the coordinator needs to figure out what the motivation is and vary the volunteers degree of training and supervision. Why spend a limited amount of time and energy with a volunteer who is motivated and can be trusted to complete the task?

This group, the one that has the correct motivation, whose personal desires will be met by the volunteering is the one that “crowdsourcing” and online volunteerism helps non-profits maximize. For example, if you are inclined, you can watch the southern border of the US from anywhere in the world (BlueServo.net). It is not for everyone, it is not for every organization but like the computer, internet, cellphone and every other technological development, it is a tool that helps with efficency.

As for the “potential pitfalls” that Ms. Craven’s point too.

• There can be added costs to bring a project to an acceptable conclusion, costs that you wouldn't have had if you had traditional outsourced the job to a qualified professional
o This is a question of what you outsource. Only if volunteering and volunteer coordination was like customer service. You can’t outsource those jobs to India.
o Obviously people have to think things out and see if it makes sense for them. Like everyone else they have a choice to adopt and adapt.
• Workers aren't screened and aren't always qualified or appropriate to take on an assignment, which increases the chances of them turning in sub-standard or unusable work
o Again, it depends on what you give them to do. I don’t think crowdsourcing will be able to replace a volunteer who comes into the office to take care of your accounting, grant proposals, fix computers, i.e. highly technical work. However, simple tasks such as cataloging, finding graffiti, finding potholes, simple tagging of documents with what you the volunteer find interesting, etc.
• No written contracts, non-disclosure agreements, or employee agreements, which means workers often don't feel their work is a real commitment.
o Really? I have never walked into my local community non-profit and asked to fill out a contract, non-disclosure agreement, employee agreement. I will bet that I can walk into the office of any National non-profit or International NGO in Washington DC and not be barraged with forms and documents. Again, this is about “outsourcing” not volunteering.
• Difficulties maintaining a working relationship with crowd-sourced workers throughout the duration of a project.
o Again, it depends on what you give them to do. This point is more about “outsourcing” and for-pay work than volunteer work.
• Susceptibility to faulty results caused by targeted, malicious work efforts.
o This is not new. Volunteers will mess up. Volunteers will go from one place to another messing things up. It is always a potential when someone offers to help.

In conclusion, the idea of crowdsource volunteering is something that needs to be questioned, debated and explored. There are a lot of questions that Ms. Cravens asks however she doesn’t seem open to the idea. Labeling people as “snake oil salesmen”, “unrealistic” and saying it will lead to “failure” doesn’t do anything to move discourse.