Through years of study, we learned that waitlisting often leaves some needs unmet or makes volunteer sign-up overly complicated. So, we left it in the rear-view mirror and haven’t found a good reason to re-incorporate it in our product.
Here are the four most popular, debunked reasons for offering waitlists.
1. Our roles/positions are too popular.
Some volunteer positions are more popular than others. So, if their preferred role is “full,” a volunteer could join a waitlist to see if someone backed out and take their spot. We learned that this actually encourages a volunteer to hold off on selecting an alternate position or role when the needs have not been met, leaving other needs unfulfilled. Instead, we enable organizations to offer alternate volunteer roles should the most popular needs fill up. As a result, we see higher participation rates and a higher percentage of needs reaching the minimum required staffing levels. Additionally, fostering a culture of “getting your favorite assignment” rather than “meeting the current needs of the organization” encourages people to switch assignments, which cascades into changes in volunteer schedules and assignments.
2. We have too many no-shows.
We also discovered that organizations used waitlists because they had a high rate of people canceling or not showing up for their assigned positions. They wanted a backup list of volunteers they could call on to fill those vacant slots. In this case, waitlisting treated the symptom rather than the root cause. There should not be a high rate of drop-outs and no-shows in the first place. Instead, let’s improve the volunteer sign-up process to communicate the commitment better AND reinforce it through confirmation and reminder texts and emails. Also, with every assignment reminder, provide a simple way for them to withdraw their assignment should their plans change. This makes it easier to open slots during the recruitment phase and allows someone else to take their spot.
3. We need more flexibility for staffing.
\We have also found that some organizations want to staff certain roles/positions at a minimum level to ensure they meet minimum staffing requirements and allow a waitlist in case things change. In this case, in an effort to provide greater flexibility to staff/administrators, they introduced more uncertainty for the volunteer. They discouraged them from volunteering for tasks where a need had not yet been met. Instead, for each role/position, we should define the minimum and maximum headcount required. The minimum headcount is for staff so they know when to stop recruiting, and the maximum headcount is to let volunteers know when the sign-up is “full”. This encourages your organization to provide a range between being understaffed (which is never good) and the maximum number of volunteers we can absorb, where each volunteer still feels they have contributed (too many volunteers can be just as troublesome as not enough).
4. We’ve always done it this way.
This is usually the strongest point of resistance to accepting an alternative to waitlisting. We get it. This is a strong pull for many people. However, we must recognize that in many cases, the reasons we did something a certain way in the past are that there wasn’t a better way at the time. Waitlisting originated because organizations didn’t have sound systems for tracking staffing levels, recruitment, self-withdrawal from assignments, or practical tools for confirming and reminding. They also lacked the tools staff needed to feel confident about who would show up to do what. We have all of that now!
In summary, waitlisting complicates the heck out of everything and discourages volunteers from signing up for their second or third option. The metrics in our studies have proven this to be true. If you think we’re wrong, we’d love to hear from you.
