Managing Talented but Unreliable Employees or Volunteers: Advice and a Real Framework
- Lee Domaszowec
- 2 days ago
- 6 min read
When I was younger, I was an absolutely awful employee.
That's when I was paid, not even a volunteer! The reasons, among several, were that I was much better at what I did than everyone around me, I was certain my way was the only way that would work, and I never had a leader who guided me.
I acted that way for years without ever considering the impact on the people next to me or on the organization as a whole. I didn't understand how to think organizationally until I was in my early 30s.
I bring that up because if you can learn to manage a talented but underperforming or unreliable volunteer well, you can manage anyone... but the conversation you're about to have with that person is the one most nonprofit leaders get wrong.
The conversation that prompted this
We were recently talking with an executive director we support, who runs an organization that helps young women. She came to us with a familiar problem. One of her volunteers is sharp, capable, clearly committed to the mission, and routinely drops the ball on the work she's been asked to do. The ED was frustrated and wondering whether it was time to have a performance conversation or just let the volunteer go.
It's the kind of question most leaders eventually face, and most leaders handle it badly.
What standard advice gets wrong
When a team member underperforms, the default move is to tighten the grip. More check-ins, more reporting, smaller tasks with shorter deadlines, reduce the scope until you can supervise every piece.
That advice keeps getting recommended because it feels like management, it looks responsible, and it's defensible to a board or a funder if things go sideways.
And for a certain kind of person, it backfires completely.
Manage the relationship before you manage the performance
The most important thing a leader can do is recruit, hire, onboard, train, and retain great people who are a good cultural fit for the organization and who contribute positively to the chemistry of the team.
Everything else trails that.
So the first move with the ED I mentioned wasn't to coach her on a performance script. It was to remind her how important the team relationships are, and to suggest she frame the conversation in a way that doesn't make her volunteer feel ambushed. You can address this with the individual directly, or you can raise it with the whole team as a relationships-and-expectations conversation so the one person doesn't feel singled out. Either can work. What doesn't work is sitting down across a table with a list of grievances.
The counterintuitive move: give them more responsibility
The second move is the one most leaders won't try. Consider giving the underperformer more responsibility.
Some people thrive under pressure and deadlines. If you make me do tasks, I get bored. I want to lead. I want to work on strategy and high-level things. I want to be building relationships that pay off in the long run. But I do very poorly with things in the middle of NOW and DESIRED OUTCOME.
That's a real personality type, and it's overrepresented among the kind of high-potential people who volunteer for mission-driven work. They didn't sign up to be a task rabbit. They signed up because they care about the mission and want to contribute at the level of their capability. When you give them tasks in the murky middle, they drift. When you give them ownership of a strategic outcome, they show up.
It's a paradoxical strategy. Give someone unreliable more responsibility. For some people, it's what works best.
You won't know which kind of person you have until you have the conversation.
How to run the performance conversation
Whenever you're having any performance management discussion, almost always:
Have it sooner than later.
At the beginning, state what your intent of the conversation is, something like "by the end of this conversation my goal is for us to be on the same page about this report and the timelines, and for you to feel supported in doing that."
Honor the concept that clear is kind. Vague feedback leaves the person guessing about what you actually want.
Focus on the facts, not the feelings. The specific missed deadlines are what matters and not your frustration about the person missing them.
Recognize their contributions and positive impact on the mission. Name what they've done well, specifically, not generally. Just like you gave a concrete example of something they missed you need to give an equally concrete example of something they did well. Otherwise the entire conversation will feel like you're attacking them.
Discuss the minimum expectations of the organization, what it needs, not what you need.
Discuss the current state, what happened specifically. Have a solid example that is inarguable, not something opinion based.
Ask them questions to figure out what's happening, and ask with the genuine intent to understand them and the situation.
Always bring it back to your mission, which you know they care about.
Ask them what they need from you to meet the minimum expectations of the organization. Sometimes the answer reveals something you needed to know.
Leave with a solid agreement on something very specific.
If you make it about the mission, they don't feel attacked, they understand their responsibility, they understand their positive impact on the mission if they do well, they understand the consequences to the mission if they don't, and they feel valued.
You'll be good 80% of the time.
When it doesn't go well
If they do not respond well to you even when you execute the above well, ask them why not. If they have valid questions or concerns, take it seriously and do your best to address them.
If they're not aligned with what you and the organization need, plan to make a clean cut sooner than later.
Most leaders and organizations keep people who aren't a good fit for much longer than they should. I have done that many, many times. Sometimes the best thing you can do for a team is to cut loose a high performer even if it seems like it will hurt, but you know that it's the best thing for the business side of your mission.
Frequently asked questions
How do you have a performance conversation with a volunteer?
Always do it privately. Find a quiet place and invite them to talk instead of summoning them for a reprimand. Then use the points we shared above.
Should you give an underperforming employee more responsibility?
That depends. Are they a high-value asset to your organization who makes your life easier and moves your mission forward? Do they perform better when they "own" something? Have you ever asked them if they like responsibility or leadership and they said yes? If so, then yes. If not, no.
When should you let a high-performing volunteer go?
This is a hard thing to do but important. When someone is culturally toxic, hurts the team overall, or when their misses hurt more than their wins help, you have to separate from the relationship. You can't keep people who make the organization overall worse because you want to avoid conflict. Leaders have to make hard decisions, and if you do it right, you'll separate cleanly and the rest of the team will be better off.
Where to take this next
The conversation that prompted this blog happened inside our PhoenixFire SPARK Community. SPARK is where nonprofit leaders bring the questions they can't post on LinkedIn and get them answered by our entire team of experts, weekly live sessions with our team, and with a peer community of leaders facing the same pressures.
We're here to help you change the world, faster.
About Lee Domaszowec
Lee is the Founder and Chief Strategist of PhoenixFire Strategic Consulting, a husband and father, and leader of a PhoenixFire team that operates across three continents and ten time zones with deep expertise in production-grade AI systems for nonprofits and small businesses, work that's years ahead of standard sector practice. He was banned from entering Russia for PhoenixFire's humanitarian work with Ukraine. With nearly three decades in nonprofit development, strategic planning, and operations, and a team that's raised more than $225 million for cause-driven organizations, Lee writes about what actually works in the real world. That includes AI, fundraising, volunteer management, leadership, and the messier stuff like leading an organization through difficult times, raising kids, and chasing time zones as a digital nomad. He splits his time between his home in Rhode Island and Malaga, Spain.
Comments