Communicating with Volunteers: Why Channel Choice Is a Leadership Decision (Not a Tech One)
- Roseanna Galindo, CCBA, CAVS
- 7 hours ago
- 6 min read
Volunteer leaders today have no shortage of ways to communicate. Email platforms, texting tools, scheduling systems, kiosks, portals, dashboards—technology has made sending messages fast, scalable, and convenient.
And yet, many leaders still find themselves asking the same questions.
Why didn’t anyone act on this?
Why did this land as confusing when the message felt clear?
Why did something meant to feel supportive come across as transactional?
When that happens, the instinct is often to rewrite the message, resend it, or send it again through the same channel—just louder, longer, or more frequently. But more often than not, the issue isn’t the wording. It’s the channel.
Channel choice isn’t a technical decision. It’s a leadership one.
In this article, we’ll look at why channel choice matters so much when communicating with volunteers, walk through a realistic organizational scenario, and introduce a practical decision lens—along with a comparison table you can reference as you think through your own communication choices.
A Familiar Theory That Keeps Showing Up in Practice
As an undergraduate studying communication design, I was introduced to the idea that communication isn’t just about content—it’s about experience. The way a message is delivered shapes how it’s received, interpreted, and remembered.
Years later, while earning my master’s degree in organizational communication, I encountered that same idea again, this time formalized in research on media richness—the notion that some communication channels are better suited for complexity, ambiguity, and emotional weight than others.
Recently, while preparing to co-present a webinar on technology and communication for leaders of volunteers hosted by VSysOne, I was struck by how often this “old” theory explains very modern frustrations. Despite all our tools, leaders are still grappling with misalignment between message intent and message impact.
Not because they’re poor communicators—but because channel choice is often treated as an afterthought in the communication process.
Communicating with Volunteers Is a Process, Not a Tool
One of the most persistent misconceptions in organizations is the belief that communication happens when information is sent.
In reality, communication happens when meaning is shared. Effective communication is an audience-centric act best summed up by Rothwell (1998) as being “a transactional process of sharing meaning with others.”
When communicating with volunteers, the goal isn’t simply to deliver information efficiently, but to create shared understanding that supports confidence, trust, and follow-through.
Technology can transmit information efficiently, but it cannot guarantee understanding, alignment, or connection. Those outcomes depend on how well the channel supports the purpose of the message, the needs of the audience, and the context in which the message is received.
This distinction matters deeply in volunteer programs, where engagement is built not on obligation, but on clarity, autonomy, and relationship.
A Scenario from a Multi-Site Hospital Volunteer Program
Imagine a regional hospital system we’ll call NorthRiver Health.
Over the past two years, NorthRiver Health has grown rapidly through mergers and acquisitions. What was once a single hospital with a unified volunteer program is now a multi-site system with campuses spread across several counties.
Each site brought with it not just a different culture, but different volunteer practices—different schedules, different expectations, and in some cases, different technology altogether.
At one campus, volunteers had been signing up for shifts on paper binders for years. At another, a homegrown spreadsheet system worked well enough because “everyone knew how things ran.” A third site had already adopted a commercial scheduling platform and was proud of how efficient it felt.
From a system perspective, this patchwork created problems leadership could no longer ignore. Reporting was inconsistent. Coverage was uneven. Volunteers who worked across sites were confused. From an operational standpoint, consolidation made sense.
So NorthRiver Health made the decision to move all volunteer programs onto a single scheduling platform.
On paper, it was a smart move.
Where the Friction Started
The rollout began the way many do: with a carefully written email explaining the change, outlining the benefits, and providing instructions for accessing the new system. The message was sent to all active volunteers across all sites.
Technically, it worked.
The email was delivered. Open rates were strong.
But almost immediately, volunteer leaders began to feel the friction.
Questions started coming in—not just logistical ones, but emotional ones.
Some volunteers were confused. Others were frustrated. A few were openly resistant. Comments like “This worked just fine before” and “Why are we fixing something that isn’t broken?” became common refrains.
For long-tenured volunteers in particular, the change felt less like an improvement and more like a loss. They had mastered “their” system. They knew who to call. They knew how things worked at their hospital. Now they were being asked to relearn routines they had relied on for years, often in service of a system-wide efficiency they couldn’t immediately see or feel.
This wasn’t just a scheduling change. It was an identity and trust issue.
What the Data Helped Reveal
When the team steps back and looks at the situation more holistically, patterns begin to emerge.
At sites where communication relied almost exclusively on email, confusion lingered longer. Volunteers reported reading the messages but not feeling confident they were “doing it right.” At sites where leaders reinforced the change at volunteer sign-in kiosks with brief, reassuring messages—reminding volunteers why the change was happening and where to get help—adoption improved.
Why This Matters When Communicating with Volunteers
The most successful transitions occurred where leaders recognized that some volunteers needed more than instructions. They needed acknowledgment.
Nothing about the policy itself changed. What changed was the channel mix.
NorthRiver Health didn’t struggle because it chose the wrong scheduling platform. It struggled because early communication treated a complex, emotionally charged change as a simple technical update.
Volunteers who were most “set in their ways” weren’t being difficult; they were being asked to let go of systems they trusted without first being reassured that their experience and commitment still mattered.
Once leaders adjusted the channels the transition began to stabilize.
For leaders of volunteers, especially in healthcare systems navigating growth and consolidation, this scenario is increasingly common. Mergers don’t just combine systems; they combine histories, habits, and deeply held ways of working.
Recognizing that reality, and choosing communication channels accordingly, is not just good change management. It’s good leadership.
Why Channel Choice Changes the Experience
This is where leadership judgment comes into play.
Different channels shape attention differently. They carry different expectations. They invite different levels of interpretation and response. A lean channel may be efficient, but it offers little room for nuance. A richer channel may take more time, but it allows for questions, clarification, and emotional cues.
When leaders default to a single channel, often email, it’s easy to mistake information delivery for communication success. But engagement depends on how messages land, not how quickly they’re sent.
From Theory to a Practical Decision Lens
In the webinar that prompted this reflection, I introduce a simple decision lens to help leaders be more intentional before choosing a channel.
Rather than asking, “What’s the easiest way to send this?” the lens encourages leaders to consider the nature of the message itself. How urgent is it? How complex? Does it carry emotional weight? How large and varied is the audience?
These aren’t technical questions. They’re leadership questions.
They help prevent over-communication in some moments and under-communication in others. They reduce the tendency to default to a single channel and instead support consistency, clarity, and connection across teams and sites.
Choosing a communication channel is closely related to choosing a data story format, both require leaders to think beyond content and consider how purpose, audience, and context shape whether a message is understood and acted upon.
What This Means for Volunteer Engagement
Volunteers experience an organization largely through its communication touchpoints.
Channel choice influences whether volunteers feel informed or overwhelmed, supported or processed, connected or managed.
Technology does not replace good communication. It amplifies it.
When used intentionally, technology reinforces purpose, culture, and trust. When used without reflection, it creates noise—even when messages are well-intended.
Summary
Channel choice is rarely neutral. It shapes how meaning is made, how change is received, and whether people feel informed or simply managed.
In volunteer programs—especially those navigating growth, consolidation, or system-wide change—the question is not which tool is most convenient, but which channel best supports clarity, connection, and action in that moment. Effectively communicating with volunteers requires leaders to think intentionally about how messages will be received, not just how quickly they can be sent.
When leaders treat channel selection as a leadership decision rather than a technical one, communication becomes less about sending messages and more about designing experiences that people can trust.
Want more tips on how to communicate effectively? Browse our latest data and communication articles or explore the Data Storytelling Essentials on-demand programs for hands-on learning tools you can use today.
If you have found this article insightful, please share on social to help other like-minded business leaders to find their way here.
Comment. Share. Like. Subscribe. Thank you!
Roseanna Galindo is Principal at Periscope Business Process Analysis, specializing in organizational learning and development. She is dedicated to advancing data literacy, enhancing healthcare experiences, and empowering nonprofit leaders.
Explore Roseanna’s expertise and insights on her blog, The Periscope Insighter, starting with the opening post.
Roseanna offers a range of professional development services, including training workshops, keynote speaking, and executive coaching.
Visit PeriscopeBPA.com for more information or click on the button below to schedule a time to talk