One of the strongest findings from the research is deceptively simple: volunteers thrive when they understand exactly what they are there to do. Roles with clear beginnings and endings—where volunteers can see a task through from start to finish—consistently generate higher satisfaction and lower emotional exhaustion.

In many events, volunteer work is fragmented into micro-tasks designed for operational efficiency. A volunteer may check tickets for two hours, then be redeployed without explanation, then finish their shift unsure whether they completed anything of consequence. From a systems perspective, the job is done. From the volunteer’s perspective, the experience is incomplete.

Task identity (clarity) changes this dynamic. When volunteers know when their role starts, what success looks like, who hands over to whom, and when their contribution is finished, confidence increases and anxiety decreases. This clarity matters more than variety. Contrary to assumptions drawn from paid employment, rotating volunteers through multiple tasks or exposing them to diverse responsibilities does not automatically enhance engagement. For many, it creates uncertainty and cognitive overload.

A practical example illustrates the difference. Compare a volunteer role described as “support crowd flow across Zone C as needed” with one framed as “welcome arrivals at Gate 3 from 9:00–11:00, manage queue flow until peak entry subsides, then hand over to the afternoon team lead.” The second role provides structure, purpose, and closure—without increasing workload. It is not more exciting, but it is more intelligible. That distinction matters.

Across all models tested (e.g., Humphrey et al., 2007), social characteristics emerged as the most influential factor in shaping volunteer outcomes. Volunteers who felt part of a team, had access to peer support, and knew who they were working with reported higher satisfaction, stronger motivation, greater innovativeness, and significantly lower emotional exhaustion.

This is not incidental. Unlike paid staff, volunteers are rarely motivated by career progression or financial reward. Their return on investment is social and symbolic: belonging, contribution, and shared experience. When roles are designed in isolation—solo shifts, unclear reporting lines, minimal interaction—the core value proposition of volunteering is undermined.

Importantly, social connection does not happen by accident. Simply placing volunteers in the same space is not enough. Design choices matter: pairing volunteers rather than assigning individuals, structuring work around small teams, building in brief pre- and post-shift huddles, and ensuring visible supervision all strengthen social embeddedness.

Consider two scenarios. In one, a volunteer is assigned alone to a peripheral zone with minimal contact and no check-ins. In the other, volunteers are assigned in pairs, introduced at the start of the shift, and debrief briefly at the end. The tasks may be identical. The experience is not. The latter design actively reduces social-related frustration and increases the likelihood that volunteers will return.

Perhaps the most counterintuitive finding concerns knowledge characteristics. In paid work, roles that demand problem-solving, specialised skills, and information processing are often associated with challenge and growth. In event volunteering, these same characteristics can increase emotional exhaustion—particularly for genuine episodic volunteers.

For first-time or one-off volunteers, complexity is not stimulating; it is risky. They operate in unfamiliar environments, with limited training, high public visibility, and little margin for error. Asking them to navigate complex decision-making or specialised tasks increases stress without providing commensurate rewards.

The research shows that knowledge-intensive roles were positively associated with emotional exhaustion, especially among episodic and former long-term volunteers. This does not mean volunteers lack capability. It means the cost-benefit balance is misaligned. Volunteers did not sign up to manage systems, solve structural problems, or absorb organisational complexity. They signed up to contribute.

This has direct implications for role allocation. Complex or specialised tasks should be optional, clearly supported, and reserved for experienced volunteers who actively seek them out. For most volunteers, simplicity is not a weakness; it is a design strength.

Events often celebrate adaptability and innovation, yet volunteers are rarely positioned as contributors to improvement. When they are, the risk is overreach—expecting volunteers to “do more” under the banner of innovation. The research suggests a different pathway.

Positive attitudes towards innovation were found to reduce emotional exhaustion and increase innovativeness—but only when innovation was framed as low-risk and voluntary. Volunteers felt more energised when they were invited to suggest small improvements, adapt tasks slightly, or share feedback, without being burdened by responsibility for outcomes.

This points to the value of micro-innovation. Simple practices—asking what worked well today, inviting suggestions for tomorrow, allowing minor adjustments—create a sense of agency without increasing workload. Volunteers feel heard, trusted, and capable, which in turn buffers against burnout.

Crucially, innovation did not increase job satisfaction or motivation directly. Those outcomes were driven by psychological states such as meaningfulness and responsibility. Innovation works best as a complement to good job design, not a substitute for it.

The final argument concerns differentiation. Not all volunteers experience the same role in the same way. The study distinguishes between genuine episodic volunteers, current long-term committed volunteers, and former long-term volunteers—and shows that job design affects them differently.

For genuine episodic volunteers, well-designed roles significantly reduced emotional exhaustion and enhanced positive psychological states. Clear tasks and strong social support lowered perceived costs and increased the likelihood of future volunteering. For long-term volunteers, however, the same roles could feel underutilising or misaligned with prior experience—particularly when roles appeared unnecessarily constrained or repetitive.

This does not imply that episodic volunteers are “easier” to manage, or that long-term volunteers are less valuable. It means role design must be intentional. A one-size-fits-all approach risks satisfying no one.

A tiered system offers a solution. Simple, clearly bounded roles for newcomers. Optional, more complex or autonomous roles for experienced volunteers who opt in. Clear progression pathways for those who wish to deepen involvement. Matching roles to people—not people to gaps—reduces exhaustion, improves satisfaction, and strengthens the overall volunteer ecosystem.

Together, these five arguments point to a fundamental shift: volunteer engagement is not primarily a function of goodwill or motivation. It is a consequence of design.