I’m not really sure if this is a desired addition after Steam’s summary; but I had a couple of thoughts on role ambiguity and volunteering that came out of reading this thread which might be relevant... but maybe not. I can only speak in the vaguest of terms – I’ve not been here long enough, and I see little, due to the veil structure. However I have volunteered in many roles, and my life experience might offer something – no-one will know if I don’t say something!
Big aspects of volunteer leadership are recruitment and retention. If I put on my “complete outsider” hat; TotJO has a funny system which, perhaps unintentionally, makes potentially useful people less useful to its self. It’s called “knighthood”. You’ve got to retain your members through a years-long process which, yes, might genuinely be selective for the traits you are looking for; but in all honesty; those traits were probably in the people before they on the process, even if those skills weren’t so refined and polished. Not many knighthoods teach a passion for HTML and documents. Once in a blue moon, an apprenticeship might unlock someone’s hidden talents in such; but I imagine most of the people who could be interested in a role are already coding archivists when they first arrive. I have explained this phenomenon to myself as a rather beautiful understanding that it’s not so important that the job is done, as much as when it is done, it is done with a certain aesthetic. If TotJO is short of volunteers there may be ways of tapping current resources (my apologies – people are not “resources”) while ensuring the aesthetic is maintained.
On the retention side, a huge part in my experience is fun. A part of fun for many people is creativity, as it allows for self-expression and fulfilment. A fully voluntary group I worked with, campaigning debt relief, handled it in a way I can best briefly summarise as: “You think creatively on how you contribute to this organisations’ mission and you can take the role you invent on as a volunteer; else we are pleased to welcome you as a member.” Members were informed of events in which they can participate to show support of the organisations’ aims. People oscillated in and out of the “member” and “volunteer” categories all the time. Members would become volunteers, running a project either in a group or alone that they’d created for the purpose of achieving the organisation goals. No role persisted except in senior leadership – and they were the ones who would select projects from the membership body. Senior Leadership would support volunteers in running their projects (resources, finances), but they also handled conflict between volunteers. When you had an unresolvable issue with another volunteer, you took it to your senior leader. They would listen to both parties in private – which was great; because if anyone felt the need to go Kylo Ren (and they did) then it was in the hands of someone who was trusted to handle it – not at/on another volunteer. If they felt it was a miscommunication; you’d talk together as a 3. If there was ultimately a decision to be made, it was made by the senior leader; not by either “volunteer” EVEN IF the decision was in their self-defined “role”. Senior leadership’s responsibility was safeguarding the interests of the group that you yourself had chosen to serve as a volunteer, so their judgement, after listening, was generally accepted. If you disagreed, you were effectively disagreeing with the organisation’s direction, but you could stay on as a member if you felt strongly about committing to the purpose of debt relief, even if the model and direction of the organisation was not to your taste. So trust from the volunteers in the senior leadership was essential. But equally essential is the leaderships’ ability to handle the splashy emotions of the volunteers, and make good judgements with a clear sense of vision for the organisation’s direction as a whole.
I’ve also worked in teams where roles have been super closely defined. That worked too! That was probably one of the most efficient places I’ve worked (there was a lot more “wasted time” in the previous working model I described – but there was also more fun for that) but people complained a lot about their roles, and even then, people don’t work to script. Conflict still occurs based on role definitions – and that’s in an organisation where the roles have been defined and in use for many years and they’re full time with training that is extremely hands on. Unfortunately, that’s not something a person can hope for in an web-forum based temple. However well a role is defined; you’re going to have conflict, so my thought is that defining roles will not necessarily make a huge amount of difference, when compared to a culture shift when it comes to conflict resolution.
