We know from research that people are motivated to engage in volunteer activities for a variety of reasons. Altruism, concern for others and egoism, concern for self (Ostwald & Runge, 2004) have long been regarded as two of the primary motivational forces that drive individuals into volunteer involvement. Volunteers frequently report they are volunteering out of concern for the needs and well being of others, yet they also indicate they enter into volunteer work with expectations of improving their own well being. The Four Factor Model identifies egoism, altruism, collectivism - the desire to make change and improve the whole or the community - and principlism - supporting essential moral beliefs - as the primary motives for volunteering (Ostwald & Runge, 2004).
A study released in 2003 by two Belgium researches documents the gradual decline of collectivism as a motivational force over the past fifty years and an increased emphasis on egoism (self-focused) as the primary motivational force for volunteering (Hustix & Lammertyn, 2003).
To gain a better understanding of the today's self-focused motivations, consider the Open Source community as an intriguing model of volunteer engagement. Open Source refers to a community of volunteer systems developers and programmers from all over the world who are committed to developing and delivering non-proprietary (free) software. Open Source, an initiative originally started by Richard Stallman in 1983 as part of the GNU Project, is most widely associated with Linux, a free operating system for computers. When Linus Torvalds released Linux as open source software in 1991, a wonderful synergy occurred: people flocked to Linux because it was free, and Linux users started embracing the freedoms of the GNU Project.
As a 21 year old living at home, Linus Torvalds created Linux [software] in 1991 in Finland. He offered it free to the world and made the source code available to anyone who wanted to alter it - as long as the tinkerer was willing to make the new additions available to the public as well. The result is a product embraced with religious fervor by the geek community and even penetrating the mainstream, running servers and other hardware. (Roberts, 2003, p.1)
This Open Source community may have much to teach us about creating models for engaging a new generation of volunteers. This "disorganized" system has attracted a worldwide corps of volunteers dedicated to the mission, vision, and principles of Open Source.
Business Week/Online recently rated Linux wealthier than Microsoft because "Torvalds can muster more creativity from his far-flung rank and file [volunteers] than Bill Gates can from his corporate monolith."
Microsoft uses money to motivate. And no doubt about it, that's a powerful incentive. But others exist. The community of Linux users and developers is held together by pride and the thrill of working toward a common goal of a universal, free, elegant, bug-free or bug-resistant alternative to Windows. . . .Does Torvalds or Gates have more resources at his disposal? Gates, right? But that answer assumes that money is the most important asset. Even if money trumps idealism as a motivator, Torvalds has a bigger team - the millions who use Linux and continue to tinker with it. Potentially, he has more brainpower on his team.
Torvalds has another advantage. His organization is less organized than Microsoft. It's really a disorganization. Torvalds is just Linux' gatekeeper. He's not really in control - he's called the project leader. . . .Being disorganized can actually leverage that knowledge more effectively than a command and control hierarchy. Innovation must rely on creativity generated by the mass of folks underneath. In a dynamic system, trial and error is a powerful force for change. A bottom-up system with a gatekeeper can be more innovative than the hierarchical system over which Gates reigns. (Roberts, 2003, 1-2)
The Open Source movement is an amazing example of the volunteer structure - or lack of structure - and the incentives that are attracting and engaging a new generation of creative, innovative people.
In 1993 Sue Vineyard wrote about the need to shift from managing volunteers to facilitating the environment in which volunteers work. The Open Source community is a great example of a facilitated environment. There is a free-flow exchange of ideas and products within the community. There is the challenge of creating a better product/service. There are opportunities for both individual and team creativity and innovation. There is the opportunity to share in common vision with like-minded people. There is an environment in which volunteers can work as equal partners with some of the best and brightest in the field. There are opportunities for dialogue and community. Though much of the activity takes place as part of a vast online community, many local communities have monthly face-to-face meetings, creating technical support groups and open source communities that foster the exchange of knowledge and opportunities to build skills and connections.
There are no external recognition systems. No coffee mugs, certificates or annual banquets. No pin for 500 hours of volunteer service. Reward is the intrinsic value of being a part of this unique community that reflects personal values and beliefs. There are no officers or committees. There is the flexibility to move in out of the project as personal time requires.
The Open Source community thrives on individual contribution to the collective whole, innovation, creativity and the exchange of knowledge. Volunteers are passionate about the work and the product. The Open Source model taps into the egocentric and collectivism motivations of volunteers. There is great self-satisfaction in being a contributing member of this worldwide community dedicated to the development and distribution of a free software. These volunteers are about making significant change through collective action based on individual contributions.
It is certainly worth thinking about how this model can appeal to all four of the motivations identified in the Four Factor Model. Can this model work for other volunteer programs? For many organizations it would require a major cultural shift. Volunteers would be encouraged to not simply do the tasks, but to find new and better ways to do the tasks. Innovation and creativity would be welcomed and implemented. Reward systems would be built around egocentric and collective motives, and must be designed to recognize creativity and innovation, not conformity and tenure. Managers of volunteers would have to adopt the role of gatekeeper or project leader and become comfortable with facilitating environments that foster bottom up creativity, innovation and change.
The Open Source Community of volunteers raises interesting issues about the future of structured volunteer programs. Over the past 50 years we have tended to move away from collectivism as a motivating force for volunteerism (Putnam, 2000; Hustix & Lammertyn, 2003). But there seem to be small clues, such as Open Source, to suggest collectivism happens in new ways and can be a powerful force for harnessing volunteer effort.
For additional information on Open Source, check the following sites.
http://www.opensource.org/
http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
The following note was received in response to this article and speaks to the number and impact of these online volunteers.
I read your article, Being a Gatekeeper, with much interest as I am currently part of what could possibly be the largest open source all volunteer project...Dmoz or the Open Directory Project. The Open Directory Project is the most widely distributed database of web content edited by humans. The information that is gathered (i.e. the best web content available on a subject) is then used by search engines such as Netscape Search, AOL Search, Google, Lycos, HotBot, DirectHit, and hundreds of others. While I have just begun my duties as a volunteer editor, I am amazed at the impact volunteers are having. To date, 62,562 volunteers have added 4,585,806 sites in over 590,000 categories. For a good description of the effort, please visit http://www.dmoz.com and read the About Dmoz page.
Celeste
Corrigan, M. & Martin, M. (2004). Volunteerism: The Rewards and Costs Expected and Experienced. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 22:1, pp. 22-26
Hustinx, L. & Lammertyn, F. (2003). Collective and Reflexive Styles of Volunteering: A Sociological Modernization Perspective. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, Vol. 14:2, p. 167-187, June 2003.
Liao-Troth, M. & Drumm, H.M. (2004) The Psychological Contract, Part I: What Motives to Anticipate in Your Volunteer Firefighters. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 22:1, pp. 12-17.
Roberts, Russ (2003). Why Linux is wealthier than Microsoft. Business Week/Online, November 19, 2003 [downloaded November 19, 2003, http://yahoo.businessweek.com]
Ostwald, S. & Runge, A. (2004). Volunteers speak out: Motivations for volunteering. The Journal of Volunteer Administration, 22:1, pp. 5-11.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling Alone: The collapse and revival of American community. Simon and Schuster.
Stallman, R.M. (1983). Initial Announcement. [Downloaded March 30, 2004, http://www.fsf.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html]
Vineyard, S. (1993). Megatrends and Volunteerism. Heritage Arts Press.