Coordinate Volunteers

Proof required

Submit: (1) a 200-word description of the initiative, including its goal, timeline, and what 'done' looks like; (2) a volunteer brief (written or email) showing the role you asked each volunteer to play, the time commitment, and the expected outcome; (3) evidence of at least 5 confirmed volunteers — confirmed means they replied to the brief or attended a kick-off meeting, not just that they said yes to an informal question. Include first names or role descriptions of the 5+ volunteers.

What gets checked

• Initiative has a defined end-state — 'organise some events' is not a defined initiative; 'run a monthly skills-exchange session for 3 months with at least 15 attendees per session' is
• Volunteer brief specifies: what they will do, when, and how much time it will take — a brief that says 'help out when you can' has not set the expectations that allow honest commitment or honest decline
• 5+ confirmed volunteers, documented with evidence — a WhatsApp group with 5 names does not confirm; replies, attendance at a kick-off, or a signed-up volunteers list does

Common mistakes

• Recruiting volunteers before defining the role — a vague ask ('I'm starting a community thing, want to help?') produces vague commitment; the brief must come before confirmation to filter genuine commitment from polite agreement
• Counting people who 'might help' as confirmed volunteers — the GOVERNANCE proof standard requires demonstrated commitment, not expressed interest; confirmed means they took a concrete action (replied, attended, signed up)
• Setting up a hierarchy of authority — assigning 'team lead' and 'sub-team roles' in a volunteer context replicates institutional management structures that depend on obligation, not on the real-time value creation that volunteer leadership must provide

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Initiative definition check: 'run a community event' is not a defined initiative; look for a specific outcome, a timeline, and a measurable success standard — ask the submitter to clarify if the definition is vague
• Volunteer confirmation evidence: a WhatsApp group, email thread, or kick-off attendance record showing named individuals is acceptable; an unverified claim that '5 people agreed to help' is not
• Brief quality: the brief should specify role, time commitment, and expected outcome per volunteer; a brief that only describes the initiative without assigning specific roles to specific people has not completed the M1 setup
• For in-person initiatives: a kick-off meeting attendance list with 5+ named attendees constitutes confirmed volunteers if the initiative was explained at the meeting

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) a coordination log covering the execution period — at minimum one entry per volunteer per week, noting whether they completed their agreed tasks; (2) documentation of at least one specific incident where a volunteer underperformed or did not show up, and how you handled it without any authority to compel; (3) evidence of initiative progress at the mid-point — event records, output produced, or attendance records showing the initiative is on track.

What gets checked

• Coordination log covers all 5+ volunteers across the full execution period — not just the most active volunteers; gaps and absences must be documented alongside completed tasks
• The incident documentation describes an actual underperformance or absence, not a hypothetical; it describes what you did that was specific to having no authority to compel performance
• Initiative progress evidence shows real-world activity, not just planning artefacts — an event record, a produced output, or an attendance list from a session that has already occurred

Common mistakes

• Creating the coordination log retroactively — a log written at the end of the initiative to satisfy the milestone requirement does not demonstrate real-time coordination; the log must be dated throughout the execution period
• Handling volunteer underperformance with appeals to obligation — a response to a missing volunteer that says 'you committed to this, you need to show up' is an authority claim, even if unenforceable; the GOVERNANCE approach is to understand why they stepped back and renegotiate their role accordingly
• Not adjusting the initiative when volunteers step back — if 2 of 5 volunteers disengage mid-execution and the leader simply does their tasks themselves, the coordination skill has not been demonstrated; the GOVERNANCE response is to adjust scope, recruit replacements, or redistribute tasks with consent

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Coordination log date integrity: check that entries are dated throughout the execution period — a log where all entries share the same date or were clearly written after the fact does not demonstrate real-time coordination
• Incident response quality: the incident documentation should describe what the leader actually said or did, not what they wish they had done; a response that includes 'I reminded them of their commitment' reflects an authority claim; a response that includes 'I asked them what had changed and whether they could take on a smaller role' reflects GOVERNANCE-level coordination
• Initiative progress evidence: a planning document showing what was going to happen does not satisfy the milestone; the evidence must show something that has already occurred — an attended event, a delivered output, a produced artefact
• If all 5+ volunteers delivered everything on time with no incidents, the initiative may have been scoped too conservatively — this is acceptable, but the verifier should note that M3 may need to reflect on what the leader would do differently to test their coordination under more realistic conditions

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.

Proof required

Submit: (1) initiative completion evidence — the specific deliverable produced, event completed, or outcome achieved, with dates and attendee/participant counts; (2) a list of all volunteers who participated from start to finish and those who disengaged mid-initiative, with a one-sentence honest account of why each departing volunteer left; (3) a 400-word reflection covering: what you did that sustained volunteer motivation, what you would do differently in terms of role design or commitment setting, and whether you believe the initiative could have continued without your direct involvement at any point.

What gets checked

• Initiative completion evidence shows a real-world outcome — the deliverable or event occurred, with dates and participation counts; a plan for what was going to happen does not satisfy completion
• Volunteer attrition account names each departing volunteer's reason — not grouped as 'they got busy'; the GOVERNANCE reflection standard requires honest specificity about why each person left
• Replaceability answer addresses the question directly — 'yes, and here is who would have sustained it and what they would have done' or 'no, and here is why not' are both acceptable answers; 'I think it would have been fine' without naming who and how is not

Common mistakes

• Presenting only successful outcomes and omitting attrition — a coordination proof that claims every volunteer delivered everything perfectly is suspicious unless the initiative was trivially short; the GOVERNANCE proof standard specifically requires honest attrition documentation
• Reflection that praises the team without self-critique — 'the volunteers were incredible' is a team compliment, not a leader's self-reflection; the M3 reflection must address what the leader would do differently
• Conflating completion with success — an initiative that produced its deliverable but where 4 of 5 volunteers found the experience draining has a completion record but a weak GOVERNANCE proof; the reflection should honestly address the volunteer experience, not just the output

Resources

What a verifier looks for

• Completion evidence: a completed deliverable or event with dates and participant counts is required; a description of what the initiative aimed to achieve is not completion evidence
• Attrition specificity: 'some volunteers became unavailable' does not satisfy the attrition documentation standard; each departing volunteer should have a specific named reason (they moved, they had a family commitment, they found the role less interesting than expected, etc.)
• Replaceability answer: both 'yes it could have continued' and 'no it couldn't' are acceptable outcomes; the verifier is checking whether the leader has thought honestly about their own role vs. the community's self-sustaining capacity, not whether the answer is positive
• Reflection self-critique quality: a reflection that identifies one specific thing the leader would do differently in role design or commitment-setting demonstrates genuine learning; a reflection that says the leader would 'communicate more' without specifying what miscommunication occurred is too vague

You'll sign in first, then come straight back here.