When Feedback Doesn’t Happen — Seeing Volunteer Management from the Other Side
One of the most frequent coaching requests from nonprofit leaders is some version of the same question: How do I say no to a volunteer — or let someone go — without making things worse?
Our guidance is usually straightforward. During screening, organizations do not need to provide detailed explanations for why a volunteer is not accepted. And when it’s time to release a volunteer, fewer words are often best — avoid debating details or escalating emotions. Clear, respectful communication protects the organization while maintaining dignity for the volunteer.
But there’s an important caveat:
When an organization promises a learning environment with feedback and growth — and fails to deliver on that promise — “less is more” no longer applies. That breakdown isn’t just disappointing. It undermines trust, creates confusion, and can seriously damage the volunteer’s experience — sometimes in ways leaders never see because they’re only hearing the story from their side of the table.
This case study offers that rarely shared volunteer perspective.
(Names and identifying details have been changed to protect anonymity, but the experience and sentiments are real.)
The Opportunity
“John” joined an organization offering mediation services. Volunteers are trained to serve as mediators for individuals who opt to resolve disputes outside the court system. This work requires a strong commitment to learning, professionalism, and clear adherence to ethical and procedural standards — all of which John welcomed.
After researching the organization and speaking with current volunteers, John applied. He was thrilled to be accepted into the program, which promised an apprentice program with structured training and support, as explained in the volunteer handbook:
- Observe several mediation cases
- Serve as a co-mediator with an experienced mentor
- Act as a solo mediator under mentorship and evaluation
- Once approved, operate independently
The handbook also emphasized that the apprentice process offered “a supportive learning environment” with honest feedback and clear guidance for improvement. Volunteers could expect coaching and professional development along their journey. Notably, however, the handbook made no mention of what would happen if concerns arose — there was no outlined process for corrective action or dismissal.
Still, John felt confident. This was exactly the growth environment he was looking for.
Early Progress
The early weeks went as planned. John met his mentor, observed cases, and participated in co-mediations with experienced volunteers. After one successful session, his mentor asked if he felt ready to begin solo work under supervision. John agreed.
Before his first scheduled solo mediation, nearly a month passed. When the day arrived, the case presented a complex scenario John had not encountered before. Wanting to ensure quality service and respect for the clients involved, he asked if his mentor could join him in this session rather than fully stepping back as they helped finalize the agreement the clients had already reached.
The session went well. John left feeling more confident and grateful for the opportunity to continue learning. After the session, there was only brief conversation — no feedback about what had gone particularly well or what he needed to work on.
And then came the shock.
The Email
Several days later, John received an email informing him that he was being released from the program. The message cited concerns about his performance — including issues such as integrity, professionalism, and punctuality that had never been raised with him previously. From John’s perspective, the statements were not only new, but inaccurate. He describes himself as “chronically early” and could not recall any prior conversation that might have signaled concern about his professionalism.
Most troubling to John was this: all of the issues outlined in the email came as a surprise. None had been documented. None had been presented in the context of improvement or training, despite the program’s explicit commitment to learning and growth.
With no prior warning or chance to improve, the email read as a final decision: program participation terminated, case closed.
Seeking Clarification
Wanting to understand what had gone wrong and what, if anything, he might learn from the experience, John reached out to staff leadership requesting clarification.
He received no reply.
He then contacted a board member, hoping for acknowledgment if nothing else. When the board member did reply, he did not address the issues raised.
Left without explanation, John spent weeks feeling confused, frustrated, and hurt. Eventually, he concluded that the issue was no longer about whether he could remain a volunteer. It was about learning to process a leadership experience that felt profoundly one-sided.
While he remains committed to civic service (and fortunately has found a different organization with whom he shares his time and skills), he does not recommend the mediation organization and was let down by what might otherwise have been a meaningful volunteer partnership.
What Could Have Been Done Differently?
This situation could have improved through clearer processes, consistent adherence to them, and better communication.
- Feedback should have been shared early and documented.
If the mentor or staff had concerns, those should have been discussed directly with John. A follow-up email documenting the conversation and action steps would have created shared clarity and accountability. - A Performance Improvement Plan (PIP) could have been used.
Because the organization promoted itself as a learning environment, offering additional training or a structured improvement plan would have honored that commitment. - Leadership should have responded to the volunteer’s inquiry.
Even when a dismissal decision remains unchanged, volunteers deserve acknowledgment. A brief, respectful response recognizing the inquiry and explaining next steps would have helped prevent unnecessary emotional harm and reputational fallout.
Key Takeaways for Volunteer Leaders
Volunteer engagement is a two-way partnership. We expect volunteers to honor commitments, follow procedures, and seek growth. In return, organizations must uphold their side of that agreement by designing realistic roles, clearly communicating expectations, providing training, offering coaching, and delivering honest feedback.
Organizations absolutely have the right to release volunteers who are not a good fit. However, when feedback is promised and never delivered — and dismissal becomes the first real communication — the organization, not the volunteer, has broken the partnership.
The solution is not lengthy explanations or legal risk-taking. It is consistent, proactive leadership:
- Set expectations early.
- Coach continually.
- Document concerns.
- Provide improvement opportunities.
- Communicate respectfully — even when the relationship must end.
When these building blocks are in place, releasing a volunteer becomes what it should be: a thoughtful organizational decision rather than a painful personal surprise — preserving dignity while protecting the mission and strengthening trust in the volunteer program overall.