Voluntarism in the Species Survival Commission Executive Summary

The origins of this study of voluntarism lay in the opinion that, with specific reference to SSC and IUCN:

The study was generalised into looking at voluntarism in the context of culture and networks in general.

A behavioural approach was taken, with the emphasis, first, on who are SSC's members (including in this term both the Chairs and members of Specialist Groups), and what do they do for SSC. The second line of enquiry was what do they know about SSC, and what do they feel about it.

Sampling tried to be inclusive of diverse cultures and Specialist Groups, but could not be totally representative. The aim was to understand voluntarism in SSC, and sampling was designed to continue until no significant or novel information was collected. This stage was felt to have been reached after obtaining varying amounts and types of information from 68 Chairs, 41 members, 12 staff of SSC and the Sustainable use Initiative, and 9 associates with diverse roles on behalf of SSC.

A detailed picture emerges on both who SSC members are, and how they accommodate time for SSC. Differences between Chairs and members are very striking and combine to give a very consistent picture of each class. Chairs, in general, give 10 hours per week to SSC, while members give less than 3 hours. Chairs emerge overall as more committed to SSC, more energetic and proactive, less likely to have competing draws on their disposable time, and more likely to give SSC precedence over other activities.

Both groups feel their enabling environments are inadequate: Chairs feel strongly about lack of resources, while members regret not being enabled by SSC to undertake conservation actions, and feel they do not know enough of what is expected of them.

Specialist Group Chairs gave detailed information about the operations of these groups. The extent to which members are known personally by Chairs is very high, but many Chairs assess high proportions of their memberships as passive. Over 60% Chairs bear some group costs personally, and the Secretariat has helped only 21% Chairs with fund-raising.

The level of knowledge of SSC is particularly poor in members, complementing their point that they do not know what is expected of them. Individuals who are both a Chair and member of further Specialist Group(s) appear most knowledgeable.

Recognition of efforts by SSC was explored because recognition is a paramount motivator for volunteers. In general, and especially for Chairs, it was found wanting. The most highly committed SSC members do not care about recognition: for them the cause is of such importance that they will contribute without any recognition. However, they are a small minority. SSC needs to develop creative ways of recognising its members, and an internal culture that this is important. This will be more difficult by virtue of the fact that Specialist Groups' members view SSC as a hierarchy, and their dealings and indeed focus is their Specialist Group and not SSC as a body. There is much evidence that the Secretariat is not well known to them, and is a remote body.

Evidence from both Chairs and members supports the theory that network effectiveness is greatly promoted by personal knowledge between individuals. Indeed, the impact of single meetings between Chairs and Secretariat staff persisted for over a decade.

Exploration of motivation and demotivation showed that SSC members mostly contribute effort for the cause of the Specialist Group, and not for the Specialist Group itself, for SSC or IUCN; the bodies are the means to the end. Factors that motivate and demotivate are partly common to both Chairs and members. But, Chairs are driven by higher level, and relatively selfless motives. Members seek esteem and recognition from their peers. Chairs are demotivated most by lack of resources and the professional cost to them of being Chair. Many members are not demotivated at all for they give to SSC all the time that they are asked to: this complements exactly their lesser proactivity for SSC. The contribution that both groups would most like SSC to make to them is help with fund-raising and grants to help Specialist Groups.

In addition to the answers to structured questions, all respondents were encouraged to give comments on any other aspects of SSC. This yielded hundreds of observations that were categorised into subject topic, analysed and condensed. The conclusions are reported here.

Volunteers
A fundamental conclusion is that SSC's members are not volunteers in the conventional sense; they make voluntary contributions, usually when called upon. Thus, it is recommended that SSC moves away from regarding them as volunteers, and markets itself as collaborating with the world's best professional, technical expertise. This will enhance both the image and prestige of SSC and the members.

Attitudes
SSC members demonstrated that their attitudes and behaviours are consistent with several theories of motivation. This is evident in Chairs being more selfless in their attitude towards helping SSC than were members. Both are driven through the affiliation with SSC. Both classes show a strong sense of expectation of reward from SSC. Bad experiences in dealing with SSC are demotivating, while the content of what they are doing is motivating.

The difference in attitudes and commitment between Chairs and members, and the fact that volunteer motivation can be developed, leads to the recommendation that SSC should learn how to identify potentially high performers in order to bring them into SSC, and provide the incentives and opportunities for them to develop into becoming Chairs.

Motivating Factors
A number of aspects are clearly demotivating to SSC members: apart from the lack of fundraising assistance for Chairs from SSC, the lack of funds for conservation activities by both groups is stated. The latter is the main object of expectation from members, and represents a major conundrum for SSC when its Strategic Plan specifically excludes it collectively from implementing conservation actions.

SSC can reduce demotivation by ensuring its members know more about itself: what they are part of, and what is expected of them; more Specialist Groups need to become more purposive. Demotivation for Chairs would be reduced by lessening the high administrative cost of renewing membership every three / four years, which meets IUCN statutory requirements but serves little constructive purpose for them.

Recognition
The study data confirm for SSC members the paramount importance of recognition as a motivator and reward for volunteers. Consistent with their greater commitment and inputs to SSC than members, Chairs, especially, feel recognition is inadequate. There are many ways in which volunteers can be recognised by organisations, which are appropriate and personal. They need not cost much nor be tangible. IUCN and SSC offer many potential ways to recognise high-performers. The challenge for SSC is to first develop an internal culture of recognition, which is largely lacking in staff, and then to find the means of identifying and recognising achievers within the large and scattered membership. Suitable forms of recognition that meet the expectations of SSC members will improve motivation greatly.

Available Funds
Financial compensation is not a major concern of respondents. On the other hand, SSC already occasionally pays for work over and above what volunteers can be expected to contribute, and there are examples where members are offered payment for specific tasks by other bodies. Given the dynamics of people's decreasing capacity to give time in general, SSC should start developing its criteria and means for paying for some work through systems that are equitable. The results of this study do not confirm the predictions for volunteer capacity around the world in external reviews of IUCN and the Commission. SSC members have huge goodwill and desire to help SSC. The greatest pressure for compensation comes from factors in the environment external to SSC, but in which it has to survive competitively.

Chairs
The study confirms the great significance of the Specialist Group Chairs - as intellectual leaders, and as the contact point for members, who have little contact or communication with the Secretariat. Chairs are also looked to as motivators for their members, which they can fulfil in different ways. It was surprising to learn that 80% of members had met their Chairs, and 90% said that this made a difference to doing business effectively, confirming the value of face-to-face meetings

Thus, opportunities should be afforded for Chairs to be able to know their members, and to travel. Chairs are in the best position of becoming linchpin individuals for SSC as a whole: their more senior professional status should be used to enable them to travel, and be encouraged to bring new thinking, disciplines, individuals and institutions into the sphere of SSC activities. This is part of professionalising the network, irrespective of any solution to the issue of whether Chairs should be paid in this role. The majority view from the study was that Chairs should not sacrifice their independence through being paid, but they should have as much paid technical assistance as they need or the group can afford. If extra resources are brought in for such uses, and the network is professionalised, then it will be possible to introduce more rigorous evaluation of Chairs' performances.

Members
Many groups have some criteria for inviting new members. But, even though Chairs may purge their membership at the end of each triennium, some Chairs admit that up to 100% members are inactive. It is recommended that SSC adopts a more proactive policy about membership of Specialist Groups, and explores graduated memberships for different levels of expertise or interest, commitment and effectiveness; but, this would have to be paralleled by gradated returns of recognition and reward. In this connection it is notable that groups with small memberships have a higher percentage of active members, and more attend meetings

Network
Specialist Group members said emphatically that they wish to be enabled to take part in local conservation actions. Yet, members are extremely unaware of who their local, fellow SSC members are. They also look to IUCN's country or regional offices to take initiatives on conservation actions, with confidence in their ability to understand local issues, but these offices cannot even obtain a reliable list of SSC members in their geographic area of responsibility. There are serious disconnects here, and it also true that IUCN offices do not know what SSC is doing in their areas. IUCN offices should use SSC members in ways that cut across taxonomic specialist group boundaries, for purposes that would represent significant return contribution to members through local conservation impacts.

Secretariat
The SSC Secretariat is, in general, a distant and unknown body for Specialist Group members. Most Chairs, on the other hand, know one or more members of the Secretariat, and this helps them in their work. It is evident that staff meet relatively few of the member body in any year, or those that they do tend to be linchpin individuals who all attend many different events in common. Chairs only were asked about assistance received from the Secretariat. The responses indicate assistance where the issue was topical if related to policy. The inference is that the Secretariat will help when the matter is related to its own programme; Chairs get no or little help with their own activities, such as trying to arrange meetings, and dealings over the production of Action Plans came in for particular criticism.

Management and Internal Communciation
Management of the membership body is bearing the costs of a strategic decision a few years back, namely that headquarters expertise should be redirected primarily to development of the Secretariat's own programme. While this may have been strategic in the sense of maximising the chance of bringing fresh resources into SSC, the cost has been high. This shift, and perhaps combined with change of personnel, has meant great reduction in the capacity to manage and nurture the volunteer members. The sense of service by the Secretariat is also diminished.

The remoteness of the Secretariat from the membership encourages mistrust: the membership knows very little about the Secretariat programme- its activities may comprise ways in which value is added to the data provided by members and leads to conservation impact, but this is not seen as a direct enough return to the members for their investments in SSC. Furthermore, ignorance about the Secretariat programme leads to suspicions that it is using funds which should be directed for the benefit of members and Specialist Group activities.

Networks need nurturing to maintain them in working order, and volunteers need "stroking". Both show signs of neglect in SSC at the moment; hence, it is recommended for these reasons, and others below, that SSC takes on a professional network developer and coordinator, rather than sharing this task out inadequately between several conservation professionals. This would only be part of the action needed to revisit the allocation of effort by SSC staff between looking outwards for its own programme and looking down and inwards to the interests of its members who provide the information that is the basis of the Secretariat programme. Members have expectations of a level of service from the Secretariat, and hence the quality of service received impacts on motivation.

Structure
Members have learnt very well the hierarchical structure in SSC: they rarely engage with anyone but their SG Chair, whom they expect to deal with the Secretariat. Great hopes are pinned on the Chairs as the only people able to influence the higher levels of SSC because of their proximity and hence ability to gain access. This stems from members' feelings that too much is handed down from the decision-making bodies of SSC; too little feeds up, and so communication is not adequately two-way. One consequence of this is that members see evidence of an inner circle or elite in SSC's governance and in invitations to be involved in SSC tasks; associates within these decision-making bodies half confirm this by pointing out that recently SSC has brought few radical or innovative thinkers into its governance bodies, as happened 10-15 years ago with great benefits for SSC.

Consequently, SSC must develop means for more open consultation throughout its membership, identifying individuals for specific tasks and roles and testing them, with the prospect of future roles in SSC's governance. Improved governance should, therefore, include systematic talent-spotting and development opportunities. Further, Chairs should be enabled to meet together, and then select their own representatives to sit on the Executive or Standing Committees.

The study results clearly demonstrate how a hierarchy of the upper levels of SSC - necessary as IUCN statutes must be observed - rests against the numerically dominant network of members. Theory and comparative illustrations show that SSC is a classic case of both a network and a virtual organisation. One potential strength of the latter is the ability for individuals in an entrepreneurial network to create their own linkages in support of development of social capital for the benefit of the organisation. If successful, the network has its own corporate strength and durability that will persist as individuals come and go. But, SSC's potential as a network is handicapped by many factors: the strong hierarchy is not conducive to formation of multiple social connections; the rigid Specialist Group view, of like-minded experts, does not encourage lateral vision; third, as the membership is scattered round the world, and its inputs part-time and voluntary, it is not a closed society, so that group identity is weak, and members have little means by which to learn of each others' existence; in addition, the scope for meeting face-to-face suffers because of this distribution; finally, the high level of ignorance of SSC, its mission and goals by members diminishes their potential sense of belonging to SSC (which is otherwise rated as an important motivator).

These points are at the crux of SSC being able to maintain itself as an effective and productive network. It must give attention, and more resources, to the process side of its activities, with incentives for entrepreneurial individuals to proliferate connections and make the network dynamic. There are examples of this already happening within SSC through the particular inclination or skills of individuals; the mindset however has to be adopted within the corporate culture. This area is so important that it is recommended that SSC studies or takes professional advice on contemporary thinking and methods to assist its development as a network taking effective advantage of accumulating social capital.

SSC is a knowledge-based organisation. Looked at in another way, it is in the business of accumulating intellectual capital. Capital must be invested productively - largely to create and take a profit, which is then used for future expansion and creation of further profits, and for distribution as income to shareholders. It is evident that SSC is not performing optimally here. Members suspect that much of the data they contribute is not being used fully, the equivalent of hoarding cash, and this demotivates them. Further, although the quality of SSC outputs is ever improving, especially with the Red List products, there is not a rush of profits into SSC from sources willing to invest further in SSC based on the usefulness and quality of products so far.

This analogy also suggests that what profits are realised by SSC are used by the Secretariat programme; they are not being returned to the members, as shareholders, either adequately or in forms that they demand. Thus, SSC is not rewarding its shareholders in ways that are sustainable in the long run.

This observation has implications for the future of SSC. While the survey showed many respondents felt the need for a body of taxonomic expertise was assured (if only because conservation can never afford to pay for what it now receives through voluntary contributions), SSC lives in a world where it does not have a monopoly in the biodiversity information business. There are many competitors, who have been able to attract funding and include sources of technical expertise that SSC has not captured. SSC staff have justified pride in the technical quality of their products, but are at the same time complacent about the future viability of SSC. Associate respondents are more challenging here, alert to trends within biodiversity conservation and the ways in which such work is funded. There are warnings that the standing army that is the SSC membership may be too expensive to maintain; further, if the Red List approach is the main thrust for SSC, then information traditionally provided up from SSC's members can now be sourced quickly and effectively through targeted responsibilities and contracts. Nothing could be in greater contrast to the traditional Specialist Groups' attachment to narrowly taxonomic Action Plans, which have been the ultimate goal for many years.

Thus, SSC must examine its role in the biodiversity information constellation, be sure of its core business and market very saleable products, maximising its intellectual profit. This will lead to re-assessment of the shape and size of the membership, and the type and size of the groups and other bodies such as task forces or working groups that have limited lifespan and / or are task-oriented, or are multi-disciplinary problem-solvers and trail-blazers. Such evolution would take SSC away from the perception that, while it was the model for conservation needs 30 years ago, it has not evolved in parallel with conservation approaches and needs.

Full report