You Can’t Pay for Engagement
Why choice, capability, and belonging matter more than incentives in volunteer-led organizations.
Wouldn’t it be easier if we had the money to just “pay” for volunteers? It sometimes feels like pulling teeth when trying to fill the volunteer roster. Gosh, what a dream.
Where am I going to get that money?
Now that we’ve woken from my daydream of “what if we had a big bag of money,” when we look at volunteer-led organizations like Rotary, the struggle remains. I’m talking about volunteers, but also about membership numbers in service-based organizations.
How do some organizations always seem to have volunteers available? I know they’re volunteers — so they’re not getting “paid.” So what’s their secret? Is it free cookies?
Does money, or something tangible, motivate volunteers — or anyone? Isn’t that why we work?
But then we go back to the question: why do some organizations never seem to have volunteer issues?
The Surprising Research
Funny enough, money does not motivate people in the way we think. In fact, for purpose-driven non-profit organizations, money can actually do harm.
Richard Titmuss, in The Gift Relationship, argued that voluntary, unpaid blood donation systems outperform paid ones in both supply and quality.
That idea was later tested experimentally. In a field study, Mellström and Johannesson (2008) randomly assigned potential Swedish blood donors to three conditions: no payment, a small monetary payment, or a choice between accepting the payment or donating it to charity. They found:
Offering payment reduced willingness to donate among women compared with no payment.
When participants could donate the payment to charity instead, the negative effect disappeared.
In other words, introducing money shifted the frame from altruism to transaction.
If money isn’t the answer for purpose-driven work, what is?
If Not Money, Then What?
Let’s look at Self-Determination Theory (SDT).
Developed by Deci and Ryan, SDT suggests — and decades of research continue to support — that people engage more deeply when three basic psychological needs are met:
They have choice — members feel they choose their involvement.
They feel capable and effective — members feel useful.
They feel belonging and connection — members feel known and part of something meaningful.
In SDT language, these are autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Increasing participant engagement is explicitly part of Rotary’s strategic plan.
But engagement isn’t something we can demand.
It’s something we design for.
I’ve seen many clubs and Rotarians talk about improving engagement. There are lots of ideas:
More opportunities of different types and at different times — choice
Better connection between members’ skills and project needs — capability
More social events to build relationships — connection
These are all good ideas.
But we may be thinking about them in isolation.
A Practical Example
Your club is about to launch a project. You have a great team of Rotarians ready to get started, but the project needs to build a budget. No one on the team has experience with budgeting, so the group approaches another member — an accountant — and recruits (begs) them to join.
In theory, this should be great. The accountant is skilled (capable), and the project team creates a strong sense of belonging.
So what’s the issue?
Did the accountant have a real choice?
Guilt is a powerful motivator. Of course they can’t be forced. But two out of three — capability and connection — isn’t the same as three out of three.
Real life isn’t always as black and white as this example. And there will be times when hitting all three needs perfectly isn’t possible.
But trying to increase engagement while consistently missing one of the three is not a long-term solution.
A Club Engagement Checklist
If engagement is a strategic objective, maybe we need to evaluate it more intentionally.
Here’s a simple checklist clubs could use.
1️⃣ Choice (Autonomy)
Do members have real input into projects and decisions?
Are ideas coming from many members or mostly from a small core?
Are volunteers asked what they’re interested in — or simply assigned?
Do members feel comfortable saying “not right now” without guilt?
Are there multiple ways to participate (short-term, long-term, leadership, support roles)?
Practical Ideas:
Survey members annually about interests.
Offer “project menus” instead of single sign-up sheets.
Build smaller, time-bound roles (micro-volunteering).
2️⃣ Capability (Competence)
Do members feel their skills are actually used?
Do new members know how to contribute meaningfully?
Are there clear expectations for project roles?
Are members supported when trying something new?
Is feedback constructive and encouraging?
Practical Ideas:
Map member skills against club needs.
Offer simple onboarding for project leads.
Create mentorship pairings for first-time chairs.
Celebrate progress, not just outcomes.
3️⃣ Belonging (Relatedness)
Do members feel known beyond their classification?
Are relationships deeper than meeting attendance?
Do projects create connection, or just task completion?
Are newer members integrated socially?
Do people feel safe sharing ideas or concerns?
Practical Ideas:
Build intentional social time into service projects.
Rotate seating or small-group discussions at meetings.
Create cross-generational project teams.
Check in personally with members who step back.
Leadership Matters
A club can’t just flip a switch and activate choice, capability, and belonging everywhere at once. Some areas will be stronger than others.
Leaders can’t — and shouldn’t — force these concepts. Micro-managing or chaotic leadership can do just as much harm as ignoring choice, capability, and belonging altogether.
Engagement isn’t something we demand.
It’s something we need to design for.
A Personal Reflection
Going forward, I’ll be thinking more about SDT. I’ll be self-evaluating the areas I’m involved in to see whether we can introduce — or improve — these three elements.
If money truly motivated service, Rotary would look very different.
Instead, people give their time because they believe.
Maybe our job as leaders isn’t to push harder.
Maybe it’s to protect the conditions that make people want to show up.