Handling conflict between volunteers and staff members

Conflict management

Photo: Pixabay

Authority works best when it is clearly understood. Roles and responsibilities should be outlined in writing, and revisited regularly.

Conflict between volunteers and staff is a fairly common dilemma.

Volunteers invest their time and passion. Staff carry accountability and responsibility. When those two things collide, as they often do, tension is inevitable. The challenge is how to deal with it when it happens.

Most disagreements centre on roles and decision-making. Volunteers often feel their experience gives them authority. Staff know that, regardless of experience, they are ultimately accountable. An organization I’m working with learned this the hard way. Long-serving volunteers excluded the newly-appointed executive director (the only staff member) from meetings and decision-making. The volunteers felt they were just doing their roles in the way they always had done. The ED felt undermined and out of the loop. This problem is usually caused by one or more of the following issues.

The first is authority. In this case, there were no documented role descriptions or lines of authority. Authority works best when it is clearly understood. Roles and responsibilities should be outlined in writing, and revisited regularly. This isn’t busywork, it’s a protective measure for both staff and volunteers. When roles are distinct and plain, boundaries rarely need enforcing. If the lines are obvious, the volunteers have no excuse for overstepping them.

Timing also matters. Trouble can start if authority is only asserted when things go wrong. At that point, it feels personal. Waiting until frustration builds usually leads to sharper language and damaged relationships. A quiet, private conversation is almost always more effective than a public correction. Think of it like steering a boat. Small adjustments early prevent dramatic turns later.

Consistency is critical. If one volunteer is allowed to overstep while another is not, authority feels arbitrary, which breeds resentment. Predictable boundaries are actually comfortable for people. Volunteers may not always agree with your decisions but they are more likely to accept them when enforcement is fair.

It’s also worth remembering that enforcing authority doesn’t mean cutting off collaboration. Inviting volunteers into problem-solving can strengthen relationships rather than weaken them. For example, if a volunteer disagrees with a new process, ask for their input in shaping the solution within your established framework. This way they feel heard and their insights are used but you still maintain control over final decisions.

Communication also affects conflict between volunteers and staff. Language can either inflame or settle a situation. Staff can acknowledge a volunteer’s commitment while still being firm.

“I appreciate your suggestion. I will take it into consideration when I make my decision” does two things at once. It shows respect for the volunteer and it establishes your authority. Volunteers are far more likely to accept boundaries when they feel heard and valued.

Explaining the reasoning behind decisions also helps. Volunteers are often unaware of constraints, such as funding agreements, legal obligations or organizational policies. Sharing the “why” does not mean opening every decision to debate. It simply acknowledges volunteers are partners, not children.

Don’t expect a conversation to solve everything. Even well-handled conversations can leave an emotional residue. A follow-up check-in, a thank-you for continued commitment or an invitation to contribute in meaningful ways helps restore balance.

The final challenge is historic relationships. The organization above was a small, grassroots agency. The new ED was the first they had ever had and prior to that, the volunteers ran the show. A few of them were around since its inception and had served on the board of directors. The organization was their baby. Its success was tied very closely to their personal sense of accomplishment and purpose.

While the volunteers were fine with the idea of having an executive director, their view of the role was limited. They felt the operation of the organization would remain with them, while the ED would deal with finances and “government stuff”. When they learned the ED had full authority over programming, and she wasn’t going to leave everything in their hands, they baulked. That’s when the trouble started.

It took months of patient, empathetic effort to both establish clear boundaries and reassure the volunteers that the organization wasn’t going to either collapse or completely change its mission. The issue isn’t solved yet, it’s a work in progress but there is progress.

Situations similar to this happen all the time. Conflict between volunteers and staff usually happen because volunteers are passionate, often deeply knowledgeable and sometimes set in their ways. Staff, on the other hand, are ultimately responsible for the organization’s smooth operation and have to enforce policies, roles and boundaries.

The challenge is asserting authority without alienating volunteers who are otherwise committed and valuable, developing a communication style that is both empathetic and firm and building relationships that acknowledge the volunteers’ experience and passion while also establishing the right of staff to make decisions.

It’s not easy but it can be done. Call me if you need help.

This article is written by or on behalf of an outsourced columnist and does not necessarily reflect the views of Castanet.