People aren't supporting Moon Plan

>
> > Over the years I've been involved in the management of non-profit
> > organizations, some of which were entirely volunteer run. Let me
> > tell you that getting volunteers to actually work was often more
> > time consuming than doing the work yourself. Further, the task
of a
> > leader in the type of schemes we're talking about here, would be
> > heavily centered on maintaining volunteer enthusiasm and
comraderie,
> > for the human element and social environment will play a larger
part
> > in the success than the goal and the technical achievements of
the
> > group.
>
> I think the best approach is to choose the right problem, namely
one
> where a single person can make progress, so that additional people
can
> join or leave without bringing everything to a halt. In addition,
the
> role of the 'leader,' if there is one, should be to *do* stuff
directly
> related to the project, not just supervise. In other words, the
person
> whose in the driving seat should be there because he or she is
moving
> things along in concrete ways, and people should follow the lead
> because the leader is in front, breaking ground, not in the rear
giving
> orders.
>
> Many projects are poorly suited to this kind of approach. I
suggest
> that those projects are unsuited for volunteers/hobbyists.
>
> ......Andrew

Yes indeed, many projects are not suited for the approach you
advocate. If the volunteers are self-selected then a subset of such
volunteers will be competant and have a self-motivating character.
In such a case, then a leader, as you correctly point out, if one is
needed, should lead by earning the respect of the other volunteers
and his imprimatur should be from the work and not past laurels.

However, in my experience, such high calibre volunteers are few and
far between. The next best level are those who have the skills but
need to be coaxed, motivated, flattered, into performing to their
full potential. Further, much of their satisfaction may come not
from the elegance of their work, but from the social interaction,
and it behooves the *leader* to monitor the satisfaction levels of
the volunteers to insure that their psychological needs are being
met.

Lower on this totem of volunteers suitability are those who are
stellar technical wizards but are capable journeymen who may be
involved for a variety of reasons. You can get valuable product from
them but they require more handholding than the above.

The most difficult to work with are those who need to be coaxed into
involvement, perhaps because they have unique skill sets or limited
time, and the leader and other team members need to make an active
effort to keep their interest levels high.

Of course, I've left out the whole task of determining which
category each person falls into :)

Further, the work tasks need to be divided and monitored and there
needs to be some coherent logic to the division. Such logic doesn't
spring forth organically.

Keep in mind that some workplaces are filled with self-motivating
people (e.g. univ. faculties filled with Ph.Ds who wouldn't have
their position if they couldn't complete their dissertations and
fill their time with self-directed research and scholarship) and
others are not (e.g. construction site, where the hourly workers may
slack off if the foreman isn't keeping things hopping), so the ideal
character traits that one hopes for may not be as universal as it
appears if one is immersed in a particular group. I'm not saying
that you're not aware of this, just that this must also be factored
into the analysis.

TangoMan