Authority in a volunteer network

I would like to reflect on my comment about shame in an earlier post. A response to a disaster by a large group of volunteers (when most do not know each other), depends on accepting a chain of command. Some volunteers are supervisors who depend on those they supervise to respond to their directives. Leadership and followership are critical to prevent chaos. Discipline is critical.

When I drove away from the elderly man with money we had given him, I felt personal shame. Why?

The mistake was not of his doing.
He did not intend to deceive us.
The amount was essentially insignificant to us (but not necessarily to him)
I had strong reservations about doing what I was told to do.
I was insecure in my position.
I did not stop and express clearly my reservations to my supervisor.

The experience taught me an important lesson in personal responsibility. Under stressful circumstances, I am (as we all are) vulnerable to loss of perspective. If I could go back in time, what should I have done? Stop and insist on a quiet conference with the superivisor who gave me the task. Could I have have been convinced of its importance? Possibly. If not, I'd have a decision to make. What would be the risk of refusal? Would I be willing to take the risk of saying "No" to make my point? I don't know for sure.

A few days later, I took a risk in saying no to putting caseworkers into a hot room. That was worth whatever consequence I might face. In this case, a different supervisor did not disagree with me after hearing about the conditions.

If you have not been in the stressful and chaotic circumstance of disaster relief, you don't understand the difficulty in navigating the environment of case management. I wonder how many Red Cross volunteers who went to the Gulf Coast last summer would do so again?