Volunteer-dependent organizations face a particular kind of vulnerability that rarely gets discussed openly: what happens when the person causing problems is also the person the organization cannot easily replace.
The unpaid nature of volunteer relationships shapes everything about how leaders may or may not be managing volunteers. There is a pervasive and understandable instinct to tread lightly: this person is donating their time, presumably out of genuine commitment to the cause, and pushing back too firmly risks losing them entirely. In organizations that already struggle to recruit and retain volunteers, that risk can feel unaffordable.
The result is a familiar and corrosive pattern: A volunteer who is difficult, who overrides decisions, dismisses input, or creates an uncomfortable working dynamic, continues operating largely unchecked, because no one has the structure in place to manage the situation any other way. The leader absorbs the friction personally, indefinitely, because the alternative feels like organizational self-sabotage.
This is not a personality problem. It is a structural one, and it has a structural solution.
Why Goodwill Is Not a Management System
Most volunteer-dependent organizations operate, whether they acknowledge it or not, on an informal trust model: people show up because they care, contribute in good faith, and the relationship sustains itself through shared commitment rather than formal process.
That model works well until it doesn't. The moment an organization has even one volunteer who does not operate in good faith (someone who uses their position to push a personal agenda, undermine leadership, or create an unpleasant environment for others) the absence of structure becomes a serious liability. There is no agreed-upon standard to point to. No process for addressing the behavior. No precedent for what happens next. The leader is left negotiating the situation entirely through personal relationship management, often while holding far less institutional power than the volunteer's tenure, expertise, or personality might suggest.
This imbalance can show up in different forms. Sometimes it is a function of how long someone has been involved with the organization. Sometimes it reflects differences in professional background or perceived authority. Sometimes it tracks with major donor status, or simply forceful personality colliding with a leader's discomfort with conflict. Whatever its source, the imbalance is real, and it is precisely the kind of dynamic that informal goodwill-based management cannot resolve. Power imbalances do not get smaller through avoidance. They get smaller through structure.
What Structure Actually Looks Like
The fix is not complicated, but it does require building infrastructure before it's needed, which is exactly the step many volunteer-dependent organizations skip.
A written volunteer agreement. Every volunteer role should come with a basic document outlining expectations: scope of responsibilities, communication norms, decision-making authority, and standards of conduct. This does not need to be a legal contract. It needs to exist, be reviewed with every volunteer at onboarding, and be referenceable later if a conflict arises. Without it, any conversation about behavior becomes a matter of opinion. With it, the conversation becomes a matter of comparing behavior to an agreed standard. And that is a much easier conversation to have.
A clear decision-making structure. Organizations that rely heavily on volunteers need explicit clarity about who has authority over what. If a volunteer's role is advisory, that should be stated plainly, and "advisory" should mean the organization considers their input without being obligated to act on it. Ambiguity about decision rights is exactly what allows a strong-willed volunteer to behave as though their preferences carry more weight than they formally do.
A defined escalation and exit process. Organizations need an answer, decided in advance, to the question: what happens when a volunteer relationship is not working? This includes a process for addressing concerns directly, a defined point at which a role might be modified or ended, and clarity about who has the authority to make that call. Without this, leaders are forced to invent a process in real time, under pressure, often while being the target of the very behavior they are trying to address.
Defined behavioral standards that apply to everyone. A code of conduct that explicitly covers how volunteers are expected to treat staff and each other gives leadership something concrete to point to. It also normalizes the idea that volunteer status does not exempt anyone from basic standards of respectful conduct. This is particularly important in addressing dynamics rooted in seniority, expertise, or personality. A clear standard applies regardless of who is bigger, louder, older, or more established.
Leadership support that does not require justification. In organizations with a board or a layer of leadership above the person managing volunteers day to day, that leadership needs to explicitly back the use of these structures when conflicts arise. A volunteer coordinator or program leader who has to fight for institutional support every time they enforce a basic standard will eventually stop trying. Structure only works if it is backed.
Having the Conversation, Once Structure Exists
Building policy does not eliminate the need for a direct conversation. It makes that conversation possible to have well. Once expectations are documented, a few practices make the actual discussion more productive and less personally costly for the leader having it.
Separate the behavior from the person. The conversation goes better when it is framed around specific, observable actions rather than character. "In the last two meetings, the proposal you brought forward was implemented even though the group had agreed on a different direction" is a discuss-able fact. "You don't listen to anyone" is an accusation, and accusations invite defensiveness rather than change.
Anchor the conversation in the document, not in personal opinion. This is where the written agreement earns its value. The conversation is far easier to have as "here is what we agreed to at onboarding, and here is where the gap is" than as "here is how I personally feel about your behavior." The first is a comparison to a shared standard. The second is one person's word against another's, and in a power-imbalanced dynamic, that framing rarely favors the person with less institutional standing.
Bring a witness or co-leader when possible. A difficult conversation conducted one-on-one, especially across a power imbalance, leaves the person with less authority isolated and without support if the conversation goes poorly. Having a second leader, board member, or volunteer coordinator present, by agreement beforehand, changes the dynamic considerably and protects against the conversation being relitigated afterward as a matter of differing accounts.
State the specific change being requested, not just the complaint. "This isn't working" gives the other person nothing to act on. "Going forward, decisions in this program area will be made by the team as a group, and individual proposals will go through that process before being implemented" gives a concrete behavioral target and a clear basis for follow-up if it isn't met.
Decide the consequence before the conversation happens, not during it. Leaders who enter a difficult conversation without having already decided what happens if the behavior continues tend to either avoid the conversation altogether or get talked out of their position in real time. Knowing the answer in advance (a formal warning, a change in role, an end to the volunteer relationship) makes it far easier to hold the line if the conversation does not go as hoped.
Keep a written record afterward. A brief follow-up note, even a short email summarizing what was discussed and what was agreed, protects everyone involved and creates the paper trail that may be needed if the situation escalates or repeats.
None of this guarantees an easy conversation. Difficult volunteers are, well, difficult. Some will respond to a clear, well-supported conversation by changing their behavior, and some will not. But a leader who has done this groundwork is no longer negotiating from personal discomfort alone. They are applying a standard the organization has already agreed to, with backing already secured. That distinction is often what makes the conversation survivable.
When the Relationship Needs to End
Sometimes the conversation does not produce a change, and the organization has to make the harder decision: ending the volunteer relationship altogether. This is, understandably, the step most leaders dread. It can feel disproportionate, personal, or likely to cause real disruption to a program. A few practices make it more manageable.
Make the decision on documented grounds, not in the moment of frustration. The strongest position is one where the volunteer agreement, the prior conversation, and any written follow-up already establish what was expected and where the gap occurred. Ending the relationship should be a logical conclusion drawn from that record, not a reaction to a single bad interaction. This protects the organization and gives the leader confidence that the decision is fair and defensible if questioned later, including by other volunteers, board members, or the person themselves.
Loop in leadership or a co-decision-maker before acting, not after. Whoever holds organizational authority above the person managing the relationship (a board chair, an executive director, a program supervisor) should be informed of the decision in advance and ideally agree to it. This is both a protection for the leader doing the difficult work and a way of ensuring the decision reflects organizational judgment, not just one person's tolerance threshold.
Deliver the news directly, briefly, and without relitigating history. The conversation itself should be short. It is not the moment to re-explain every prior incident or seek the volunteer's agreement that the decision is fair. That conversation, if it was going to happen productively, already happened earlier. A clear, calm statement of the decision and the immediate practical next steps (return of any materials or access, conclusion date, how any ongoing work will transition) is usually sufficient. Over-explaining tends to invite negotiation, which is rarely productive at this stage.
Decide in advance how to handle pushback. Some volunteers will accept the decision. Others will argue, appeal to other leaders, or attempt to continue showing up informally. Having an agreed answer ahead of time which includes, if necessary, instructions to staff or other volunteers about access and participation going forward, prevents the ending from becoming a prolonged, ambiguous standoff.
Protect organizational access immediately. Depending on the volunteer's role, this can mean updating shared account access, removing them from communication channels, or notifying relevant staff and other volunteers of the change in a neutral, factual way. This is not about punishment. It is about making sure the end of the relationship is actually the end of the relationship, operationally as well as socially.
Resist the urge to over-justify the decision to others. When other volunteers or stakeholders ask what happened, a brief, calm, non-detailed answer protects everyone's dignity and avoids turning the departure into an organizational controversy. Something general such as “the role and the person were not the right match going forward” is usually sufficient and avoids airing specifics that serve no one.
It is worth naming directly: ending a volunteer relationship rarely feels good, even when it is clearly the right call. Leaders sometimes delay this decision far longer than they would with a paid staff member precisely because the absence of payment makes the relationship feel more personal and the ending feel more like a rejection than a professional decision. But an organization's obligation is to its mission, its staff, and its other volunteers. There is no obligation to preserve any single relationship indefinitely out of discomfort with conflict. A respectful, well-documented ending is not a failure of the relationship. It is the structure doing exactly what it was built to do.
Why This Matters Beyond the Individual Case
It is tempting to treat a difficult volunteer as an isolated personnel issue. That is, it is tempting to treat it as something to be managed quietly and resolved through patience or eventual attrition. But the absence of structure to handle one difficult volunteer usually means the absence of structure to handle the next one, too. Organizations that build these systems are not just solving a current problem. They are removing the need for every future leader to personally absorb the same kind of friction, indefinitely, with no institutional backing.
There is also a retention cost on the other side of the ledger that is easy to overlook. Difficult volunteers who go unmanaged do not just create friction for leadership. They often drive away other volunteers and staff who are uncomfortable with the dynamic but have even less standing to address it. An organization that tolerates one disruptive volunteer in the name of avoiding conflict may be quietly losing several good ones in the process.
The Reframe Worth Making
Treating a volunteer like staff, in terms of structure and expectations, is not ingratitude for their unpaid contribution. It is what allows the relationship to function sustainably for everyone involved, including the volunteer.
Clear expectations benefit good-faith volunteers as much as anyone, since ambiguity is uncomfortable for people trying to do the right thing too. The volunteers who resist structure most are often the ones whose behavior depends on the structure not existing.
Building these systems before a crisis arrives is far easier than building them in the middle of one. For organizations currently navigating a difficult volunteer relationship without any structure in place, the path forward starts there: not with the individual conversation, but with the policy that should have existed before the conversation became necessary.
Contact The Nonprofit Snapshot
The Nonprofit Snapshot exists to help organizations move from reactive governance to intentional leadership. Please share your questions and comments on our Nonprofit Snapshot page on LinkedIn.
Nonprofit Snapshot publishes perspectives from across the nonprofit sector. Views expressed are illustrative of common organizational dynamics and do not represent any single organization or individual.