The reliability conversation nobody has

Unpaid does not mean unaccountable, and saying so is kind.

When a volunteer is repeatedly late, does not turn up, or does the work poorly, organisations frequently say nothing, because it feels wrong to criticise somebody who is giving their time. The consequence falls on other volunteers, who cover, and on the people the service exists for.

It is also unkind to the volunteer, who is not being told that something is wrong and will eventually sense disapproval without knowing its cause. Most people, told plainly and early that a shift matters and their absence had a consequence, respond well.

The conversation works when it starts from the effect rather than the failing: when you were not there, this did not get done and somebody else stayed late. That is a fact rather than a judgement and it is difficult to dispute.

Occasionally the right outcome is that the arrangement ends, and having that available makes every other conversation possible. A programme where nobody can ever be asked to stop cannot maintain any standard.

There is a related conversation about capacity that should be revisited rather than had once. Circumstances change, and somebody who committed to two shifts a week eighteen months ago may now be managing something difficult and unable to say so. Asking periodically gives permission to reduce without leaving.