Paid vs. Volunteer (Internal Contribution Market)

Paid vs. Volunteer (Internal Contribution Market)

How do they fit together?

Theoretically, there should be no problems.

Practically, the absolutely necessary tasks end up being paid.

So far, there is nothing wrong with this. On the contrary. It’s good that we have people we can rely on to do certain activities necessary for the functioning of the organization.

What happens next?

Can the organization function only based on the contribution of the people who are paid to do something?

I guess not. It seems to me that the work of those who offer their contribution voluntarily is also needed.

What activity would the paid ones have to do if the rest of us, the unpaid ones, did not exist?

Is there an “internal market” for the contributions provided in the organization?

How is financially quantified (measured) the contribution of those who do not ask for money?

Unfortunately it seems to me that what is not paid is not really appreciated or it is seen as a “second-hand” item.

What happens when a volunteer offers too much for free? Doesn’t it spoil the “internal contribution market” for those who expect money for their services?

Do paid people feel in danger when the volunteers are too active?

What do people do when they feel in danger?

Some “flee” (abandon) and others “attack” expressing their dissatisfaction and trying to limit the contribution of the volunteers.

What’s next?

With a high probability, some will give up their contribution.

In the end, the organization has something to lose.

Instead of progressing, it will stagnate or involute.

Is such a scenario desirable?

In my opinion, it is a losing scenario for everyone.

However, beyond what is said, this seems to me to be the reality.

When some are paid and others are not, it seems to me that tensions (conflict of interests) appear and manifest.

It seems to me that some of those who receive money are interested in keeping the volunteering activity at a minimum level so that they somehow do not lose their “advantages”, be they even temporary.

What would be the right solution?

Probably any activity (contribution) should be classified, measured with an internal unit of measure (value point), established by consent and thus everyone’s contribution should be valued.

Of course, each internal value point will be valued financially depending on how much money has entered the organization.

If what I say has nothing to do with reality, you can very well ignore it and move on. It means that everything is fine and that there is no problem around.

However, isn’t much of the voluntary contribution disregarded, undervalued, unappreciated and ultimately lost?

Of course, all these words are my voice and do not represent anybody else but me.

What does your voice have to say on this subject?

Fortunately, making our voice be heard is a right, not an obligation. Or not?

Adrian, your friend.

p.s. I also invite you to read what SoFA Genius has to say here:

In Sociocracy, why do not we just let people volunteer?