Double Standards And Volunteer Behavior

Response and repair [🔗]

But I weigh participation history ("how long has this person been active in the group?" and "how much have they contributed?") the opposite way when responding to the misbehavior. Because, if we know someone, if they've accumulated a history of contribution, then we may have more incentive to repair, and we likely have more ability to repair.

First, incentive: I'll be ruthlessly pragmatic for a moment. We have a limited amount of time and energy to do this emotionally exhausting work. So if we notice destructive behavior by an utter stranger, versus by someone who has already demonstrated a commitment to the group and its goals, then it does make sense to prioritize spending our time talking with and healing the relationship with the known person.

I distinguish more, here, between an utter stranger and someone who has at least a little history of good-faith, healthy group activity.

And it's important here to balance both retaining seasoned, committed contributors and nurturing newer contributors, to work towards succession and sustainability. If the long-time volunteer is burning out, or otherwise on a trajectory towards less contribution, the group has less incentive to find a mutually agreeable way to keep them around. Conversely, if the new volunteer holds significant promise aside from this one misstep, the group has more incentive to repair.

And as for ability: We more likely have a relationship with a better-known person (so, we know how to contact them and are more likely to be able to have a difficult but productive conversation), we have context for why they've misstepped, and we have some knowledge of their motivations and goals.

In the fictional example I created, if other members of the group decide they want to hold the long-time volunteer accountable, they won't have trouble finding a way to contact him, and they can figure out who among them has the most rapport and credibility with him. They can think ahead of time about what he's good at and what he values, and privately work on ideas about how to reorganize the group's work to preserve those while reducing what's not working. This sort of strategizing makes it easier (not easy) to repair, and is much harder to do with a stranger. It takes time and compassion.

This depends on relationships and recalcitrance. Sometimes the long-timer has absolutely no friends in the group, and is so obstinate that they're not willing to ever entertain the possibility that they ought to change. But don't assume. I've succeeded several times at getting folks like this to listen and apologize and start on the road to change, even when others thought there'd be no getting through to them. Skill and patience can do a lot.

(There's one more thing that I'm not addressing at all here: the thorny labyrinth of obligation. What do we owe to each other? To what extent does the group owe the individual a responsibility for repair, and does that responsibility differ toward the newcomer and toward the long-timer? If you are eager for an unsatisfying conversation where I gesture a lot and say things like "what even is a community?!?!" then you can ask me about this the next time we talk synchronously - Jacob enjoyed it, anyway.)

This is all relative to a lot of other factors, for sure. But I do think it can make sense to respond to misbehavior with context of the person's other actions, and spend more effort on repair and coaching with people who have greater experience or who have contributed a lot.