Post your analysis of three aspects of motivation
ashe.a
SourcesofVolunteerMotivation.pdf
Sources of Volunteer Motivation
Transformational Leadership and Personal Motives Influence
Volunteer Outcomes
Patrick C. Dwyer,1 Joyce E. Bono,2 Mark Snyder,1 Oded Nov,3 Yair Berson4
1University of Minnesota, 2University of Florida, 3Polytechnic Institute of New York University, 4University of Haifa
We examined the separate influences of volunteers’ personal motives and their team leaders’ behaviors on volunteer satisfac- tion and contributions, along with mediating processes sug- gested by self-determination theory. Participants were 302 volunteers who worked in teams at various sites through a cen- tral agency. As predicted, both personal motives for volunteer- ing and transformational leadership influenced volunteer satisfaction through enhanced work meaningfulness and higher- quality team relationships. However, motives that predicted vol- unteer contribution were different from those that predicted satisfaction. Whereas satisfaction was positively associated with motives concerning esteem enhancement and value expres- sion, contribution was positively associated with motives to gain understanding and negatively related to motives pertaining to esteem enhancement and social concerns. Transformational leadership was positively associated with volunteer satisfaction, but not with volunteer contributions. The theoretical ramifica- tions of these findings are discussed, along with practical impli- cations for the recruitment and retention of volunteers.
Keywords: volunteers, motivation, leadership
Correspondence to: Patrick C. Dwyer, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, 75 E. River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email protected]
NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 24, no. 2, Winter 2013 © 2013 Wiley Periodicals, Inc 181 Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21084
182 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
M OST AMERICANS BELIEVE THAT volunteerism helps create a better world (Independent Sector 1988). In addition to benefiting its direct recipients, volunteerism can also
benefit the volunteers themselves and society as a whole (Snyder and Omoto 2007; Wilson 2000). Considered in economic terms, the dollar value of volunteerism in the United States was calcu- lated to be $169 billion in 2009 alone (Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Develop- ment 2010). Moreover, it has been argued that volunteerism and other forms of citizen participation play an essential role in com- bating problems that face the world. Because many of these prob- lems are caused by human action, they require further human action in order to be successfully managed (Snyder 1993).
Because volunteers give their time without formal reward, it is important to consider factors that motivate volunteers. Volunteer- ism may be motivated by both internal and external influences. For example, Clary and Snyder (1991) proposed a functional approach to volunteer motivation, suggesting that volunteering provides opportunities to satisfy personal needs and drives. Researchers have also focused on how social factors such as the expectations of others can foster and sustain volunteerism (Grube and Piliavin 2000). However, surprisingly little research has focused on the effect of leadership on volunteer outcomes. Despite a large literature on the consequences of effective leadership behaviors on employee out- comes, little research has examined how leadership influences vol- unteers’ attitudes and behaviors.
Our first aim was to examine the separate roles of leadership and personal motives in the volunteer process. Although a consider- able body of research has investigated the influence of leadership on employee outcomes in the business world, little work has system- atically examined the effect of leadership on volunteerism. It may be that internal, autonomous volunteer motivation substitutes for effective leadership in a volunteer setting (Podsakoff and MacKenzie 1997). Alternatively, because volunteers can withhold their service from an organization more easily than paid employees can, leader- ship may play an even greater role in sustaining individuals’ involve- ment within the volunteer context (Catano, Pond, and Kelloway 2001). Our study makes an important contribution by simultane- ously considering the effects of both individual factors (personal motives for volunteering) and contextual factors (behavior of vol- unteers’ leaders) on volunteer outcomes.
Our second aim was to examine the process by which personal motives and team leader behaviors affect volunteer outcomes. Our consideration of potential mediators was guided by self-determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), an approach toward understanding motivation that suggests social-contextual conditions under which behavior will be self-motivated and thus sustained over time.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 183
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
According to self-determination theory, self-motivation is facilitated by conditions that satisfy an individual’s innate psychological needs for personal autonomy and interpersonal connection. Researchers have shown that when individuals view their work as personally meaningful, or autonomously motivated, they are more likely to be satisfied with their work and to help others (Judge, Bono, Erez, and Locke 2005; Purvanova, Bono, and Dzieweczynski 2006; Sheldon and Elliott 1999). It has also been shown that certain leadership behaviors can be supportive of an employee’s need for autonomy (Bono and Judge 2003). Thus, we examined the extent to which personal motives and leadership behaviors influence volunteers’ per- ceptions of the how meaningful their work is, which may subse- quently affect higher levels of satisfaction and contribution. Furthermore, because effective leaders may also support a person’s need for interpersonal connectedness and relatedness through their influence on interworker relationships (Jung and Sosik 2002), we examined the extent to which volunteers are more satisfied and con- tribute more when they have high-quality relationships with other volunteers. Thus, we examined both personal autonomy and inter- personal relatedness as potential mediating mechanisms.
Personal Motives for Volunteering The fact that considerable planning and deliberation often precedes an individual’s decision to volunteer suggests that personal needs and desires are important sources of volunteer motivation. For this reason, Clary and Snyder (1991) took a functionalist approach to the study of volunteerism, which is concerned with the motivational bases underlying the plans that people make and act on in pursuit of certain goals. A central tenet of this approach is that people may volunteer in pursuit of different goals. For example, whereas one person may volunteer to gain career skills, another may volunteer to make himself feel better or to avoid personal problems. Volunteer behaviors that appear similar on the surface may reflect different motives for different individuals. Clary et al. (1998) identified six broad functions that might potentially be served by volunteerism and that can be reliably and validly measured with a Volunteer Functions Inventory: expressing humanitarian values; searching for understanding; obtaining career benefits; gaining protection from feel- ings of guilt about being more fortunate than others; enhancing feelings of self-esteem or self-worth; and fitting in with important so- cial groups. The relative importance of each of these functions varies from person to person. Each of these six functions is identified by some people as their most important reason for volunteering, and by other people as their least important reason for volunteering, with considerable individual-to-individual variability in scores along the continuum of each motive (Snyder, Omoto, and Lindsay 2004).
184 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Furthermore, the functionalist approach has suggested that vol- unteer outcomes are influenced by the extent to which the experi- ence of volunteering satisfies, or “matches,” a person’s underlying motives (Clary et al. 1998). For instance, people who become vol- unteers in order to further their careers will be more satisfied with their service and more likely to continue if they believe that volun- teering has provided them with new business contacts. Alternatively, people who become volunteers in order to gain greater understand- ing will be more satisfied with their service and more likely to con- tinue if they believe that volunteering has provided them with opportunities to learn new skills and gain knowledge about the world. Motivationally matched (versus mismatched) appeals have also been shown to be more effective in recruiting new volunteers (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Miene, and Haugen 1994).
Of the six functions identified, the motive to express one’s humanitarian values is arguably the most easily expressed over a range of volunteer activities and contexts. Almost by definition, vol- unteering represents an opportunity to express humanitarian values and altruistic concerns by giving one’s time and energy to helping others. Therefore, across a range of activities and contexts, the values motive may be most likely to be satisfied by, or “match,” a person’s experience of volunteering. However, the extent to which volunteer- ism affords opportunities for the fulfillment of other functions may depend more on the context in which volunteering occurs and the specific activities that are involved. Accordingly, it follows from this line of reasoning that:
Hypothesis 1a: Volunteering to express humanitarian values will predict volunteer satisfaction over and above all other personal motives.
Hypothesis 1b: Volunteering to express humanitarian values will predict volunteer contributions over and above all other personal motives.
Leadership of Volunteers Although a wealth of research has addressed the role of leadership in formal business and government organizations, little work has systematically examined the role of leadership in voluntary organi- zations (see Catano et al. 2001 for an exception). Moreover, be- cause volunteers can withdraw their service from an organization at will, the relationship between leaders and volunteers may play an even greater role in fostering commitment within the volunteer context (Catano et al. 2001). Therefore, it is surprising that little research has focused on the influence of leadership on volunteer outcomes.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 185
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Introduced by Burns (1978), the distinction between transfor- mational and transactional leadership has received substantial empir- ical attention within the organizational domain. Whereas transactional leadership refers to the exchange relationship between leaders and followers and is aimed at controlling followers through reward or punishment, transformational leadership inspires followers to move past their own self-interests to achieve more than what they thought possible (Arnold, Turner, Barling, Kelloway, and McKee 2007; Bass 1999; Bono and Judge 2004). Transformational leaders are inspirational, and theory suggests that they influence employees by (1) linking work to employee values so that employees see their work as self-expressive, (2) increasing confidence, and (3) increasing group identification and cohesion (Shamir, House, and Arthur 1993). In a volunteer setting with little tangible exchange between organiza- tions and volunteers (no salary, bonuses, or health benefits), trans- formational leadership, with its focus on engaging employees in their work at a personal level, may be particularly relevant.
Although transactional leadership is the most common form of leadership found in organizations (Avolio, Waldman, and Yammarino 1991), transformational leadership has been more closely linked to positive organizational outcomes. Employees whose leaders engage in transformational leadership behaviors are happier with their supervi- sors (Judge and Bono 2000), happier with their jobs (Bono and Judge 2003), more committed to their organizations (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, and Bommer 1996), and more likely to engage in citizenship behav- iors (Purvanova et al. 2006). Furthermore, a recent meta-analysis indicates a positive relation between transformational leadership and employee motivation and job attitudes (Judge and Piccolo 2004).
Catano et al. (2001) conducted a rare study that directly exam- ined the link between leadership behaviors and volunteer outcomes and found that transformational leadership predicted Lions Club vol- unteers’ psychological involvement with and commitment to the organization. Although these findings emphasized the importance of leadership in the volunteering context, the researchers focused on leadership’s effects on volunteer perceptions (that is, commitment). More research is needed to establish the role of leadership on more objective volunteer contributions. Furthermore, given earlier find- ings that leadership has differential effects on attitudes and more objective outcomes, such as performance (Judge and Piccolo 2004), we sought to examine the separate effects of leadership on volunteer attitudes (for example, satisfaction) and their contributions. There- fore, based on existing research that consistently has documented a positive relation between transformational leadership behaviors and employee attitudes, we make the following hypothesis:
Hypothesis 2a: There will be a positive association between volunteer team leaders’ transformational leadership behav- iors and volunteer satisfaction.
Although transactional
leadership is the most common
form of leadership found in
organizations . . . transformational leadership has
been more closely linked to positive organizational
outcomes.
186 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Although the effect of transformational leadership on employee attitudes is stronger than its effect on employee behaviors (Bono and Judge 2003), some studies have revealed a link between this type of leadership and employee contributions. Barling, Weber, and Kelloway (1996) found that bank managers trained to use transformational leadership behaviors saw an increase in personal loan sales made by their staff. Also, Bono and Judge (2003) found that transformational leadership behaviors predicted both employee effort and creative performance. Additionally, meta-analyses document a link between transformational leadership and both employee effectiveness (Lowe, Kroeck, and Sivasubramaniam 1996) and job performance (Judge and Piccolo 2004), although most studies included in these meta- analyses used supervisory ratings of employee performance rather t h a n d i r e c t a s s e s s m e n t s o f e m p l o y e e b e h a v i o r ( s e e Barling et al. 1996; Bono and Judge 2003, for exceptions). It is important to note that, although meta-analyses clearly establish a positive association between transformational leadership and perfor- mance, not all studies have shown a positive association. In some cases this may be due to sampling error, but in others it may be due to substantive factors, such as the context in which the study was conducted or the way performance or effectiveness was measured.
Catano et al. (2001) attempted to link transformational leader- ship to participation in a volunteer context but did not find a signifi- cant direct association. They suggested that leadership affects volunteer participation indirectly through commitment, which is then positively associated with participation. Although their research provided initial promise in examining the association between trans- formational leadership and volunteer contributions, they were lim- ited by their use of self-reports of participation, which are often subject to bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, and Podsakoff 2003), instead of more objective assessments of volunteer contribution gath- ered from organizational records. Nonetheless, based on substantial evidence from the organizational literature, we expect the following:
Hypothesis 2b: There will be a positive association between volunteer team leaders’ transformational leadership behav- iors and volunteer contributions.
Processes Linking Personal Motives and Leadership to Volunteer Outcomes
In addition to examining the direct links between motives and lead- ership and volunteer outcomes, we investigated the processes through which they exert their influence. We were guided by self- determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), which suggests that be- havior will be sustained over time when it is internalized into one’s sense of self. According to self-determination theory, internalization
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 187
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
is more likely to occur when a person experiences a sense of auton- omy as well as feelings of relatedness, or connection, with other people. Past empirical work has suggested that transformational leadership affects employees’ sense of autonomy by enhancing per- ceptions of the meaningfulness of their work (Piccolo and Colquitt 2006), and that these perceptions help explain the link between leadership and job attitudes and performance (Bono and Judge 2003; Purvanova et al. 2006). We expected a similar pathway be- tween leadership and volunteer outcomes. Indeed, because volun- teers receive little economic reward, the influence of psychological rewards, such as engaging in personally meaningful work, might be particularly strong in the volunteer context. Therefore, we expected the following:
Hypothesis 3a: The positive association between transforma- tional leadership and volunteer satisfaction and contribution will be partially mediated by perceptions of meaningful work.
Regarding relatedness support, successful leaders can influence employees in a business context by creating conditions necessary for positive team relationships (Bass 1985). Transformational leaders foster group identification and cohesion (Shamir et al. 1993). For example, Jung and Sosik (2002) found that, when transformational leadership was high, employees had more confidence in the other members of their team, felt that other group members would pro- vide help when needed, and reported higher levels of group cohe- sion. Therefore, we expected the following:
Hypothesis 3b: The positive association between transforma- tional leadership and volunteer satisfaction and contribu- tion will be partially mediated by high-quality team relationships.
Moreover, when a person volunteers to express humanitarian values, he or she is likely to view the work as more meaningful because it is self-concordant (Sheldon and Elliot 1999), representing the volunteer’s authentic interests and values. According to self- determination theory (Ryan and Deci 2000), engaging in behaviors that are linked to basic needs facilitates self-motivation. Consistent with this notion, a substantial body of research has shown that when individuals pursue goals that are concordant with their values, they put in more effort, are more likely to attain such goals, and are more satisfied with goal achievement (Sheldon and Elliot 1998; 1999). Therefore, we expected the following:
Hypothesis 3c: The positive association between the values motive and volunteer satisfaction and contribution will be partially mediated by perceptions of meaningful work.
188 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Methodology To test our hypotheses, we surveyed a large number of active volun- teers. The study participants are described below, and we provide an overview of the survey procedure. We also provide a detailed descrip- tion of the measures that participants were asked to complete.
Participants and Procedure Participants were active volunteers with a large mobilization agency that links community needs with volunteers. Similar to other large volunteer clearinghouses in cities and towns through- out the United States, the agency we partnered with follows the same model used by agencies within the HandsOn Network, the largest volunteer network in the nation (HandsOn Network 2012). This agency, located in a large northeastern U.S. city, pro- vides volunteer services to 1,000 organizations such as nonprofits, city agencies, and public schools. The agency and the organizations it supports jointly develop and deliver volunteer-based projects tar- geting a range of social issues, including education, homelessness, unemployment, and others. Volunteering opportunities through the agency include both flexible, episodic opportunities, and longer-term projects that require continued participation and com- mitment. Of the 302 participants in our study, 129 were committed volunteers, 153 were episodic volunteers, and 20 were missing this information. In order to control for the commitment variable in our regression analyses, committed volunteers were coded as 1, and episodic volunteers were coded as 0.
Overall, 30,000 volunteers are registered with the agency, out of which 1,559 were active volunteers at the time of the study. Active volunteers were individuals who took part in the activities of the agency at least once in the six-month period prior to the administra- tion of the survey. Our survey was distributed online to all active volunteers by staff members from the agency. A reminder was sent to those who did not respond one month after the original survey was distributed. We received 302 responses (19 percent). It should be noted that our response rate is a lower bound estimate, because there are many single-episode volunteers who would have received our survey because they were involved in a single volunteer episode in the previous six months but who might not consider themselves active volunteers. The mean age was 33.6 (SD = 11.7), with 74.3 percent of participants being women. At the time of the survey, 79 percent of the agency’s active volunteers were women, much in line with the response rate we obtained. Participants represented a wide variety of occupations. Most were in fields requiring a college education, which is consistent with data we have on the agency, according to which 81 percent of the agency’s volunteers had col- lege degrees.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 189
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Measures Leadership. We used the Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire (MLQ–Form 5X)1 to measure transformational leadership. The items assessed the extent to which leaders displayed the four di- mensions of transformational leadership (idealized influence, inspi- rational motivation, intellectual stimulation, and individualized consideration). Volunteers rated their team leaders using a 1 (“Not at all”) to 5 (“Frequently, if not always”) scale. We created a score of transformational leadership by averaging scores on the twenty MLQ items for each volunteer.
Personal volunteer motives. The Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI; Clary et al. 1998) consists of six subscales, each containing five items rated on a 1 (“Not at all accurate/important for you”) to 7 (“Extremely important/accurate for you”) scale. The six subscales assess personal motives to volunteer pertaining to values (“I am con- cerned about those less fortunate than myself”), understanding (“I can learn more about the cause for which I am working”), social (“My friends volunteer”), career (“Volunteering can help me get my foot in the door at a place where I’d like to work”), protective (“No matter how bad I’ve been feeling, volunteering helps me to forget about it”), and enhancement (“Volunteering makes me feel impor- tant”). We formed a score for each motive by averaging the scores across the five items of each scale.
Team relationship quality. Team relationship quality was assessed with the six-item Team Member Exchange (TMX) scale developed by Seers (1989), adapted to fit the volunteer context. This scale measures perceptions of reciprocal exchange relationships that exist between individuals on a team (sample item: “Other members of my team frequently provide support and encouragement to me”). Items were rated on a 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”) scale. We formed a team relationship quality score for each participant by averaging scores across the six items.
Meaningful work. We asked volunteers to rate the extent to which their volunteering activities were meaningful to them, using three items from the Spreitzer (1995) measure (sample item: “My work activities are personally meaningful to me”). Items were rated on a 1 (“Strongly disagree”) to 7 (“Strongly agree”) scale and were averaged to form a score for each participant.
Volunteer satisfaction. We assessed the extent to which individuals were satisfied with their volunteering activities with the measure used by Omoto and Snyder (1995), which asks respondents to rate their experience as volunteers on nine dimensions: satisfying, rewarding, exciting, interesting, important, disappointing, enjoyable, challeng- ing, and boring. Each dimension was assessed using a single item. Participants responded using a 1 (“Not at all”) to 7 (“Extremely”) scale. Ratings were averaged across all nine dimensions to form a sat- isfaction score for each participant.
190 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Volunteer contribution. We obtained the total number of hours each volunteer worked and the total number of projects in which each volunteer participated from existing records at the central agency where volunteers were registered. Number of volunteer hours ranged from 1 to 400, with an average of twenty-five hours per par- ticipant. Number of projects ranged from 1 to 182, with an average of thirteen projects per participant. An exploratory factor analysis of these two measures of contribution (using maximum likelihood extraction with promax rotation) revealed a single-factor structure in that only one eigenvalue (of 1.94) greater than 1.0 was obtained. Both indicators of volunteer contribution were also highly correlated (r = 0.94). Therefore, we averaged these two measures to form a single volunteer contribution score for each participant.
Results We report the results of our analyses below, which were used to test our hypotheses regarding the effects of motives and leadership, through our hypothesized mediators (that is, personal meaning and team relationship quality), on volunteer satisfaction and con- tribution. Our analysis plan consisted of descriptive analyses, hier- archical regression analyses, and structural equation modeling.
Descriptive Statistics Correlations among variables are shown in Table 1, along with means and standard deviations for each measure. Cronbach’s alpha coefficients reached acceptable levels of reliability for each measure and are shown along the diagonal.
Volunteer Satisfaction We conducted hierarchical regression analyses to test the influence of personal motives and leadership on satisfaction as well as poten- tial mediation processes (see Table 2). In step 1, we regressed vol- unteer satisfaction on the six volunteer motives (Table 2, step 1). We controlled for whether or not participants were committed or episodic volunteers, a variable that did not emerge as a significant predictor of volunteer satisfaction (β = 0.00, n.s.). Results revealed a significant effect of volunteer motives on volunteer satisfaction (R2 = 0.20, p < 0.01). Specifically, volunteers motivated by the op- portunity to express their humanitarian values were more likely to be satisfied (β = 0.28, p < 0.01), supporting hypothesis 1a. We also found that individuals motivated by the opportunity for self-esteem enhancement were more likely to be satisfied (β = 0.21, p < 0.05).
In step 2, we added transformational leadership to the model to test hypothesis 2a. Results (Table 2, step 2) revealed a significant association between team leaders’ transformational leadership
T ab
le 1
. M
ea n
s, S
ta n
d ar
d D
ev ia
ti o n
s, C
ro n
b ac
h ’s
A lp
h a
C o ef
fi ci
en ts
, an
d C
o rr
el at
io n
s am
o n
g A
ll V
ar ia
b le
s
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 1 0
1 1
1 2
1
. L
ea d
er sh
ip (0
.9 6
)
2
. P
ro te
ct iv
e m
o ti
ve 0
.0 7
(0 .8
1 )
3
. V
al u
es m
o ti
ve 0
.1 5
* 0
.1 7
* *
(0 .8
0 )
4
. C
ar ee
r m
o ti
ve 0
.0 8
0 .3
8 * *
0 .0
9 (0
.8 4
)
5
. So
ci al
m o
ti ve
0 .0
9 0
.2 9
* *
0 .1
2 *
0 .3
8 * *
(0 .8
3 )
6
. U
n d
er st
an d
in g
m o
ti ve
0 .1
7 * *
0 .4
6 * *
0 .5
0 * *
0 .4
1 * *
0 .2
9 * *
(0 .8
2 )
7
. E
n h
an ce
m en
t m
o ti
ve 0
.1 1
0 .6
8 * *
0 .2
7 * *
0 .4
5 * *
0 .2
4 * *
0 .5
3 * *
(0 .8
1 )
8
. Te
am r
el at
io n
sh ip
s 0
.4 8
* *
0 .1
8 * *
0 .0
7 0
.1 1
0 .1
8 * *
0 .2
8 * *
0 .2
4 * *
(0 .9
2 )
9
. M
ea n
in gf
u l
w o
rk 0
.2 3
* *
0 .0
9 0
.5 6
* *
− 0.
0 1
0 .0
5 0
.3 3
* *
0 .2
0 * *
0 .1
6 *
(0 .9
1 )
1 0
. Sa
ti sf
ac ti
o n
0
.3 2
* *
0 .1
6 * *
0 .4
4 * *
0 .1
1 0
.0 8
0 .3
5 * *
0 .2
7 * *
0 .3
6 * *
0 .5
4 * *
(0 .8
9 )
1 1
. C
o n
tr ib
u ti
o n
0 .0
3 −
0. 1
2 0
.0 6
− 0.
0 4
− 0.
1 4
* 0
.0 5
− 0.
1 9
* *
0 .0
1 0
.0 6
0 .1
0 (0
.8 2
)
1 2
. C
o m
m it
te d
( 1
) vs
. ep
is o
d ic
( 0
) vo
lu n
te er
− 0.
0 6
− 0.
1 4
* 0
.0 1
− 0.
0 1
− 0.
0 6
− 0.
1 3
* −
0. 1
7 * *
− 0.
1 9
* *
− 0.
0 7
− 0.
0 6
0 .1
7 * *
(N /A
)
M 3
.6 7
4 .4
7 6
.3 9
3 .8
8 4
.0 8
5 .8
0 5
.2 3
4 .7
6 6
.2 1
5 .8
7 1
8 .5
9 0
.4 6
S D
0 .9
4 1
.2 1
0 .5
8 1
.2 9
1 .2
7 0
.7 8
0 .9
6 1
.2 0
0 .7
7 0
.8 6
2 2
.6 7
0 .5
0
* p
< 0
.0 5
; * *
p <
0 .0
1 .
192 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Table 2. Regression Analysis Predicting Volunteer Satisfaction
β
Predictor Variable Step 1
Volunteer Motives Step 2
Leadership Step 3
Mediators
Values motive 0.28** 0.27** 0.11
Social motive 0.00 −0.01 −0.02
Protective motive −0.08 −0.07 −0.05
Career motive −0.06 −0.07 0.00
Understand motive 0.13 0.11 0.04
Enhance motive 0.21* 0.20* 0.13
Committed vs. episodic volunteer 0.00 0.02 0.06
Leadership 0.25** 0.07
Meaningful work 0.37**
Team relationships 0.26**
R2 0.20** 0.26** 0.40**
ΔR2 0.06** 0.14**
F(df) 7.89 (7, 223)** 9.60 (8, 222)** 14.51 (10, 220)**
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
behaviors and volunteer satisfaction (β = 0.25, p < 0.01), supporting our hypothesis. Even after controlling for the effects of volunteer motives, leadership added to the explanation of volunteer satisfaction (ΔR2 = 0.06, p < 0.01).
Next, we carried out a series of analyses, outlined by Baron and Kenny (1986), in order to test our mediational hypotheses. First, we established an association between our predictors (motives and leadership) and vol- unteer satisfaction (Table 1). Second, we established an association between our predictors and our hypothesized mediating variables (mean- ingful work and team relationship quality; Table 1). We then conducted a regression (Table 2, step 3) in which we entered the predictors and the hypothesized mediators. Results supported mediation in that (1) both mediating variables were significant predictors of volunteer satisfaction (β = 0.26, p < 0.01, and β = 0.37, p < 0.01, respectively for team relation- ships and meaningful work), and (2) the effects of volunteer motives and leadership on volunteer satisfaction were reduced in size (values, β = 0.11, n.s.; enhancement, β = 0.13, n.s.; leadership, β = 0.07, n.s.).
Although the results in Table 2 show significant mediation for motives and leadership in the same model, we decided it would be practically and theoretically useful to examine them separately to more fully understand the nature of the mediational processes for each. Therefore, we conducted an analysis in which the values and enhancement motives and the media- tors were entered into a hierarchical regression similar to that in Table 2, but without leadership in the model. Results showed that the effect of the
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 193
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
values motive on volunteer satisfaction was fully mediated by per- ceptions of meaningful work. Once meaningful work was entered in the regression, the effect of the values motive on satisfaction was no longer significant (from β = 0.35, p < 0.001, to β = 0.11, n.s.), sup- porting hypothesis 3c. Although the beta for enhancement was reduced from 0.17 to 0.14, there was no change in significance level with the addition of meaningful work as a mediator. However, once team relationships was entered into the regression, the association between the enhancement motive and volunteer satisfaction became nonsignificant (β = 0.10, n.s.). We also performed Sobel tests (Sobel 1982) to determine whether the indirect mediation effects were sta- tistically significant, which Baron and Kenny’s (1986) method does not address. These tests indicated that meaningfulness significantly mediated the relation between values and satisfaction (z = 5.93, p < 0.05), and team relationship quality significantly mediated the relation between enhancement and satisfaction (z = 3.17, p < 0.05). Considered together, these supplemental analyses suggested that individuals who volunteer to express their humanitarian values are more satisfied because they view their work as more meaningful. In contrast, those who volunteer to maintain or enhance positive affect are more satisfied because of high-quality relationships that they form with other volunteers.
We repeated the supplemental analyses for leadership, entering both leadership and the mediators into a hierarchical regression sim- ilar to that in Table 2, but without motives in the model. Results indicated that the effect of transformational leadership on volunteer satisfaction is fully mediated by meaningful work and team member relationship quality. The positive association between leader behav- iors and volunteer satisfaction was no longer significant (β = 0.07, n.s.) when the mediators were included in the regression, suggesting that team leaders’ transformational leadership behaviors influence volunteer satisfaction because they affect the quality of team rela- tionships and influence the extent to which volunteers see their work as personally meaningful. Sobel tests confirmed significant mediation for both meaningful work (z = 3.36, p < 0.05) and team relationship quality (z = 3.99, p < 0.05), supporting hypothesis 3a and hypothesis 3b.
Volunteer Contribution To test our hypotheses regarding volunteer contribution, we con- ducted a hierarchical regression similar to that performed for vol- unteer satisfaction (see Table 3). Again, we controlled for whether or not participants were episodic or committed volunteers, a variable that emerged as a significant predictor of volunteer contributions (β = 0.13, p < 0.05). As one would expect, committed volunteers made greater contributions than did episodic volunteers. The social (β = −0.16, p < 0.05), understanding (β = 0.22, p < 0.05),
Those who volunteer to maintain or
enhance positive affect are more
satisfied because of high-quality
relationships that they form with
other volunteers.
194 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
and enhancement (β = −0.31, p < 0.01) motives all emerged as significant predictors of volunteer contribution, accounting for ap- proximately 10 percent of the variability in volunteer contribution. Volunteers who were motivated to volunteer to gain understanding of others contributed more than those who were not motivated to understand others. Results also indicated that volunteers contrib- uted less if motivated by esteem enhancement and social concerns. Team leaders’ transformational leadership behaviors were unrelated to volunteer contributions, and thus mediational tests were not significant.
Structural Equation Modeling A structural equation model was used to further test the direct and indirect effects of motives and leadership, through our hypothesized mediators (that is, personal meaning and team relationship quality), on volunteer satisfaction and contribution. Using AMOS software, we conducted structural equation modeling (SEM) in order to de- termine whether our hypothesized model fits the data observed. All of the variables in our model were included as measured constructs in the SEM. Specifically, using AMOS 18.0 software, we estimated (1) the predicted indirect effect of transformational leadership on satisfaction and contribution, through the mediating variables of personal meaning and team relationship quality, (2) the predicted indirect effect of the values motive on satisfaction and contribution,
Table 3. Regression Analysis Predicting Volunteer Contribution
β
Predictor Variable Step 1
Volunteer Motives Step 2
Leadership Step 3
Mediators
Values motive 0.04 0.04 0.01
Social motive −0.16* −0.16* −0.16*
Protective motive 0.01 0.02 0.02
Career motive 0.06 0.06 0.07
Understand motive 0.22* 0.22* 0.21*
Enhance motive −0.31** −0.31** −0.32**
Committed vs. episodic volunteer 0.13* 0.13* 0.14*
Leadership 0.02 0.01
Meaningful work 0.06
Team relationships 0.05
R2 0.12** 0.12** 0.12**
ΔR2 0.00 0.00
F(df) 4.28 (7, 223)** 3.77 (8, 222)** 3.10 (10, 220)**
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 195
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
through the mediating variable of personal meaning, and also (3) the indirect effect of the enhancement motive on satisfaction, through the mediating variable of team relationship quality, which emerged in the analyses reported earlier. We also estimated the di- rect effect of each of the remaining motives (that is, understanding, career, protective, and social) on satisfaction and contribution. Bidi- rectional effects were allowed to exist across all six motives for volunteering.
Model fit indices reached the recommended level of 0.90 or higher (normed fit index = 0.96; Tucker-Lewis Index = 0.93; com- parative fit index = 0.98; Hu and Bentler 1999). Also, we obtained a root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value of 0.054, which falls below 0.10, and is also thus an acceptable indicator of fit (Schumaker and Lomax 1996). The overall chi-square was signifi- cant (chi-square (18, N = 302) = 33.55, p < 0.05), as is typical for samples of this size (that is, N > 200). When the sample size is large, as in the present study, Hu and Bentler (1999) recommend instead using the ratio of the chi-square value to degrees of freedom as an indicator of model-to-data fit, with ratios of 5.0 or less considered acceptable. The ratio obtained for our model was 1.86, suggesting good model fit.
Our SEM results mirrored those from the hierarchical regres- sions reported earlier (see Figures 1 and 2). We looked first at effects on volunteer satisfaction; the values motive (β = 0.54, p < 0.05) and transformational leadership (β = 0.16, p < 0.05) were both signifi- cant predictors of meaningful work, which in turn significantly pre- dicted satisfaction (β = 0.38, p < 0.05). Transformational leadership (β = 0.47, p < 0.05) and the enhancement motive (β = 0.20, p < 0.05) were significant predictors of team relationship quality, which significantly predicted satisfaction (β = 0.25, p < 0.05). The remaining four motives were not significant predictors of satisfac- tion. We looked next at the effects on volunteer contribution; the understanding motive was again a significant positive predictor of contribution (β = 0.18, p < 0.05), and the social (β = −0.16, p < 0.05) and enhancement (β = −0.32, p < 0.05) motives were significant negative predictors of contribution. Transformational leadership, meaningfulness of the work, and team relationship qual- ity were not significant predictors of contribution.
We also ran a set of follow-up analyses to address concerns that some participants may be giving high (or low) scores on measures such as leadership, the values motive, meaningfulness, team relation- ship quality, and satisfaction because they have generally positive (or negative) attitudes toward the whole volunteer enterprise, or, in other words, that a more general “halo effect” might explain our pattern of associations concerning volunteer satisfaction. These generally positive or negative feelings could be creating the appearance of correlation between our measures that are really due to a respondent’s broader feelings about volunteering or a respondent’s general affective state
196 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
**p < 0.01.
Figure 1. Standardized Beta Weights Obtained through Structural Equation Modeling to Predict Volunteer Satisfaction
Volunteer
Satisfaction
Meaning
Protective
Motive
Career Motive
Social Motive Understanding Motive
Values
Motive
Enhancement
Motive
Transformational
Leadership
Team
Relationship
Quality
0.20**
0.47**
0.16**
0.54**
0.25**
0.38**
−0.02
0.05
−0.04 0.03
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01.
Figure 2. Standardized Beta Weights Obtained through Structural Equation Modeling to Predict Volunteer Contribution
Volunteer
Contribution
Leadership Meaning
Team Relationship
Quality
Understanding
Motive
Social Motive
Career Motive
Protective
Motive
Enhancement
Motive
Values Motive
0.01
0.05
0.05
0.18*
−0.16*
0.07
0.01
−0.32**
0.04
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 197
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
(Podsakoff et al. 2003). To address these concerns, we estimated a CFA measurement model (Anderson and Gerbing 1992) in which we compared the fit of a model in which each item loads on its intended latent construct (for example, leadership, satisfaction, meaningfulness, and so on) to a one-factor model in which all the items, across measures, were loaded on a single factor. The five- factor model was a better fit to the data (RMSEA of 0.13 for the one-factor and .08 for the five-factor), and the difference in chi- square was significant (chi-square change (13, N = 302) = 2584.19, p < 0.001), suggesting that our data are not best explained by a single halo factor representing the respondent’s more general atti- tude or mood state.
Discussion We examined the influence of volunteers’ personal motives and their leaders’ behaviors on volunteer satisfaction and contribution, along with the processes mediating these influences. As hypothe- sized, higher levels of transformational leadership were associated with greater volunteer satisfaction, with evidence that this link was mediated by enhanced meaningfulness of the work and higher- quality team relationships. However, transformational leadership was not associated with volunteer contributions in this study. More- over, as hypothesized, volunteering in order to express humanitar- ian values predicted greater volunteer satisfaction, and this link was found to be mediated by enhanced meaningfulness of the work.
Although personal motives for volunteering also predicted con- tributions, one of our most striking findings was that different motives predicted volunteer contribution versus satisfaction. Whereas satisfaction was positively associated with motives con- cerning esteem enhancement and value expression, contribution was positively associated with the motive to gain understanding and negatively related to motives pertaining to esteem enhancement and social concerns. Furthermore, individuals who were more satisfied with their volunteer experience were not more likely to contribute. Although there is a tendency to assume that highly satisfied workers are productive workers, our results are consistent with empirical evi- dence suggesting that this association is modest, without specific evidence of a causal direction between satisfaction and productivity (Judge, Thoresen, Bono, and Patton 2001). There are several reasons why volunteer satisfaction and contribution may not be related in this sample, or among volunteers more generally. For instance, it is pos- sible that because volunteerism is typically performed in addition to paid work, situational constraints (job hours, travel, family responsi- bilities) may limit volunteers’ abilities to contribute more, even when they are very satisfied with their experiences. Or, it may be that volun- teer satisfaction matters only at one point in time—immediately fol- lowing the first episode. That is, it may be that satisfaction with the
Volunteering in order to express humanitarian
values predicted greater volunteer satisfaction, and
this link was found to be mediated by
enhanced meaningfulness of
the work.
198 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
initial volunteer experience has an impact on whether or not the volunteer returns and continues to volunteer over time. Clearly, these are important issues to be addressed in future research. Despite the fact that administrators in volunteer organizations tend to be con- cerned about volunteer satisfaction, studies of the relation between volunteer satisfaction and volunteer contributions have yielded mixed results. Although the results of some studies have suggested that satisfaction sustains volunteers’ contributions over time (for example, Omoto and Snyder 1995; Penner and Finkelstein 1998), other studies, like ours, have found satisfaction to be unrelated to volunteer persistence and length of service (for example, Davis, Hall, and Meyer 2003; Finkelstein, Penner, and Brannick 2005).
This study makes a key contribution by examining leadership of volunteers, an area that has received little research attention. Lead- ership, and in particular transformational leadership, may be espe- cially important to consider in a volunteer context because monetary rewards are absent (Snyder and Omoto 2004). Our results indicate that volunteers are more satisfied with their service when team leaders are inspirational, show concern about their develop- ment, involve them in decisions, and focus on the meaning of the work (that is, the four key components of transformational leader- ship assessed in this study). Transformational leadership was associ- ated with volunteers viewing their activities as more meaningful and having more positive relationships with other volunteers. This sug- gests potential practical benefits of cultivating transformational leadership among volunteer coordinators and volunteer team lead- ers. Indeed, it is interesting to note that, although the mean level of transformational leadership among volunteer team leaders was sim- ilar to those in work organizations (mean transformational leader- ship = 3.7 in this sample and in Bono and Judge 2003), there was more variability among team leaders in this sample (SD = 0.94 and 0.52 for this sample and Bono and Judge, respectively). This may be because little training is provided for volunteer team leaders as com- pared with training provided to leaders in traditional workplaces. This difference in variability suggests that there may be important differences in the consistency of leadership quality between work organizations and volunteer organizations. Whereas leaders in work organizations are paid employees, those in volunteer organiza- tions may be paid workers or volunteers themselves. The heteroge- neity of organizations for which a person may volunteer, and the diversity of activities they may engage in, could also have implica- tions for the role of leadership. For example, volunteers engaged in more solitary activities may come in contact with their leaders on a less frequent basis. These differences, in addition to those men- tioned previously (that is, the lack of monetary reward in voluntary organizations), highlight the importance of specifically investigating the influence of leadership on volunteer outcomes rather than solely relying on research on employees.
Volunteers are more satisfied
with their service when team leaders are
inspirational, show concern about their
development, involve them in decisions, and focus on the
meaning of the work.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 199
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Beyond their implications for volunteerism, the differential effects of leadership we observed on volunteer satisfaction and con- tributions also enrich our understanding of transformational leader- ship. Bass (1997) argued for the universality of transformational leadership as an effective pattern of leadership across different con- text dimensions. Others, such as Pawar and Eastman (1997), have suggested that certain contexts are more receptive to transforma- tional leadership than others. The present findings suggested that context plays a more complicated role with regard to the effects of transformational leadership. Although transformational leadership is highly relevant in a volunteering environment (Catano et al. 2001), its effects on followers may differ from those found in non- volunteering contexts. Rather than their traditional role of instilling motivation in followers, transformational leaders in volunteerism contexts may act more as role models who affect followers’ percep- tions of their work and ability to work together. Future research should further establish the influence of varying contexts on the extent to which transformational leadership behaviors affect indi- vidual and organizational outcomes.
Another contribution of this research is our examination of the processes linking motives and leadership to volunteer satisfaction. Our consideration of these processes was guided by self-determination theory, which suggests that self-motivation is facilitated by condi- tions that satisfy a person’s psychological needs for autonomy and interpersonal relatedness (Ryan and Deci 2000). Accordingly, our results indicated that volunteers are more satisfied when they feel their work is personally meaningful and when they have high-quality relationships with other volunteers on their team. Our mediational analyses also provide one possible explanation for why we did not observe an association between volunteer contribution and satisfac- tion. It is plausible that because they bond with team members on a particular project, volunteers in this large clearinghouse agency may not be willing to take on additional projects or activities because the specific work and people involved may change. In other words, the meaningful work and high-quality team relationships that make vol- unteers more satisfied may also make them reluctant to take on additional projects, especially if those projects involve a different team or type of volunteer work.
Across many types of volunteering, the best predictor of satisfac- tion in our sample was the motivation to express humanitarian val- ues. As suggested earlier, this is likely because the values motive is most likely to be satisfied by, or to “match,” a person’s experience of volunteering. However, as has been suggested by past research (for example, Omoto and Snyder 1995), our results also indicate that volunteering to express one’s values does not necessarily lead to greater volunteer contributions. It may be that wanting to express humanitarian values gets a new volunteer started but does not sus- tain long-term volunteer activities. Rather, we found that volunteers
200 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
who are motivated to learn and gain greater understanding were more likely to contribute to multiple projects, perhaps because each project provides them with a fresh opportunity to develop a new perspective or skill. Our results also revealed that social motives and motives for esteem enhancement were negatively associated with volunteer contributions. We can only speculate as to why this was the case, but one possibility is that individuals who volunteered for these reasons did not experience the esteem enhancements or social relationships that they hoped for from their volunteer experience. Alternatively, given that the esteem enhancement motive was posi- tively associated with satisfaction, it may be that such volunteers, because of the positive relationships they formed with other volun- teers, were reluctant to join new projects, which could involve a different team of people than those with whom the volunteer is cur- rently working. That contributions were found to be negatively asso- ciated with the social motive is consistent with this logic. Organizational administrators seeking to increase the contributions of their volunteers would, therefore, be wise to consider their motives of those volunteers. In particular, such administrators might be well served to match or align volunteer motives with specific assignments. For example, if motivated for social or esteem enhance- ment reasons, opportunities to bond with the same group of people through volunteering on a single project should be emphasized. Alternatively, if motivated to gain understanding, then opportunities to work on multiple projects or activities, with different groups of people, should be encouraged.
Despite the contributions of this study, there were several limita- tions. First, although we obtained organizational records of contribu- tion in terms of number of hours and number of projects, our data were limited in that we were not able to get specific information about a volunteer’s longevity with a particular project. Thus, we can- not speak to the issue of whether or not a satisfied volunteer might be more likely to continue for a longer period of time with a particu- lar project. Nor can we be sure that the individuals who agreed to participate in our research were fully representative of all volunteers in the agency we worked with. It may be the case that more satisfied volunteers were more likely to participate in our study, thus biasing our sample such that more satisfied volunteers were overrepresented. The average satisfaction score in our study was high (M = 5.87 on a 1–7 scale), but it is quite similar to means reported in other research (that is, M = 5.67 among volunteers at AIDS/HIV service organiza- tions, Omoto and Snyder 1995; M = 5.78 among college student volunteers, Nygard, Dwyer, and Snyder 2010, and M = 5.6 among a sample of Americorps volunteers, Maki, Dwyer, and Snyder 2011).
We have made a causal interpretation of our results based on theory, suggesting that volunteer motives and team leader behaviors influence volunteers’ team relationships and perceptions of their work, which in turn influence volunteer outcomes. Although this
Organizational administrators
seeking to increase the
contributions of their volunteers would, therefore,
be wise to consider their
motives of those volunteers.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 201
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
sequence of events is plausible and consistent with extant literature, we cannot rule out reverse or reciprocal causality. It may be that perceptions of one’s leader are affected by variables that we treat as outcomes (for example, satisfaction and contribution), although pre- vious experimental work has demonstrated that transformational leadership does, in fact, causally influence outcomes (Barling et al. 1996; Bono and Judge 2003; Dvir, Eden, Avolio, and Shamir 2002; Howell and Frost 1989). Although we cannot demonstrate causality in the present study, the causal ordering of constructs that we put forward is consistent with existing theory and empirical work.
Finally, our assessment of transformational leadership, which is widely considered to be the benchmark instrument for assessing transformational leadership, was still a subjective measure of volun- teers’ perceptions of their leaders’ behaviors. That is, we did not assess leaders’ behaviors directly. This approach, however, was con- sistent with the notion that leaders vary their behavior with indi- viduals (Bono, Hooper, and Yoon 2012), and thus leadership can be thought of as occurring “in the eye of the beholder” (Yammarino and Dubinsky 1994). Indeed, there is no objective way to assess leader- ship behavior outside of experimental manipulations, which tend to occur in the absence of real leader–follower relationships, or through direct observation by multiple objective (nonfollower) observers over time, which is not feasible in organizational research.
In summary, this study contributes to our knowledge of the fac- tors that lead to volunteer satisfaction and service. Our results sug- gested that volunteer outcomes are not interchangeable, with satisfaction and contribution of volunteers each being predicted by different constructs. Likewise, volunteer motives are not inter- changeable, and there are important associations between particular motives and particular outcomes that need to be recognized, for both theoretical and practical benefit. Based on these results, we are able to make specific recommendations to organizations that rely on vol- unteer efforts. In order to promote satisfaction among volunteers, organizations should cultivate transformational leaders and empha- size how volunteering benefits others and makes volunteers feel good about themselves. Spotlighting the ways in which volunteering affords an opportunity to express one’s humanitarian values may be particularly effective, because this motive was found to be the strongest predictor of satisfaction. In order to increase volunteer contributions, however, organizations may want to stress how volun- teering offers opportunities for gaining understanding, while down- playing social and esteem-enhancement functions.
Note 1. The Multifactor Leadership Questionnaire, Form 5X (copyright 1995 by Bernard Bass and Bruce Avolio), was used with the permission of Mind Garden, 1690 Woodside Road, Suite 202, Redwood City, CA 94061. All rights reserved.
Organizations should cultivate transformational
leaders and emphasize how
volunteering benefits others
and makes volunteers feel
good about themselves.
202 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
References
Anderson, J. C., and D. W. Gerbing. 1992. “Assumptions and Com- parative Strengths of the Two-Step Approach.” Sociological Meth- ods Research 20:321–33.
Arnold, K. A., N. Turner, J. Barling, E. K. Kelloway, and M. C. McKee. 2007. “Transformational Leadership and Psychological Well-Being: The Mediating Role of Meaningful Work.” Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 12:193–203.
Avolio, B. J., D. A. Waldman, and F. J. Yammarino. 1991. “Leading in the 1990s: The Four I’s of Transformational Leadership.” Journal of European Industrial Training 15:9–16.
Barling, J., T. Weber, and E. K. Kelloway. 1996. “Effects of Transfor- mational Leadership Training on Attitudinal and Financial Out- comes: A Field Experiment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 81:827–32.
Baron, R. M., and D. A. Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Var- iable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51:1173–82.
Bass, B. M. 1985. Leadership and Performance beyond Expectations. New York: Free Press.
Bass, B. M. 1997. “Does the Transactional-Transformational Leader- ship Paradigm Transcend Organizational and National Bound- aries?” American Psychologist 52:130–39.
Bass, B. M. 1999. “Two Decades of Research and Development in Transformational Leadership.” European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology 8:9–32.
Bono, J. E., A. Hooper, and D. J. Yoon. 2012. “The Impact of Person- ality on Leadership Ratings.” Leadership Quarterly 23:132–45.
Bono, J. E., and T. A. Judge. 2003. “Self-Concordance at Work: Toward Understanding the Motivational Effects of Transforma- tional Leaders.” Academy of Management Journal 46:554–71.
———. 2004. “Personality and Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:901–10.
Burns, J. M. 1978. Leadership. New York: Harper and Row. Catano, V. M., M. Pond, and E. K. Kelloway. 2001. “Exploring Com-
mitment and Leadership in Volunteer Organizations.” Leadership and Organization Development Journal 22:256–63.
Clary, E. G., and M. Snyder. 1991. “A Functional Analysis of Altru- ism and Prosocial Behavior: The Case of Volunteerism.” In Proso- cial Behavior: Review of Personality and Social Psychology, edited by M. Clark. London/New Delhi: Sage.
Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. Ridge, J. Copeland, A. A. Stukas, J. Haugen, and P. Miene. 1998. “Understanding and Assessing the Motivations of Volunteers: A Functional Approach.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74:1516–30.
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 203
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Clary, E. G., M. Snyder, R. D. Ridge, P. K. Miene, and J. A. Haugen. 1994. “Matching Messages to Motives in Persuasion: A Functional Approach to Promoting Volunteerism.” Journal of Applied Social Psychology 24:1129–46.
Corporation for National and Community Service, Office of Research and Policy Development. 2010. Volunteering in America 2010: National, State, and City Information. Washington, DC: Author.
Davis, M. H., J. A. Hall, and M. Meyer. 2003. “The First Year: Influ- ences on the Satisfaction, Involvement, and Persistence of New Community Volunteers.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29:248–60.
Dvir, T., D. Eden, B. J. Avolio, and B. Shamir. 2002. “Impact of Transformational Leadership on Follower Development and Per- formance: A Field Experiment.” Academy of Management Journal 45:735–44.
Finkelstein, M. A., L. A. Penner, and M. T. Brannick. 2005. “Motive, Role Identity, and Prosocial Personality as Predictors of Volunteer Activity.” Social Behavior and Personality 33:403–18.
Grube, J. A., and J. A. Piliavin. 2000. “Role Identity, Organizational Experiences, and Volunteer Performance.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26:1108–19.
HandsOn Network. 2012. Howell, J. M., and P. J. Frost. 1989. “A Laboratory Study of Charis-
matic Leadership.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 43:243–69.
Hu, L., and P. M. Bentler. 1999. “Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria versus New Alternatives.” Structural Equation Modeling 6:1–55.
Independent Sector. 1988. Giving and Volunteering in the United States: Findings from a National Survey. Washington, DC: Author.
Judge, T. A., and J. E. Bono. 2000. “Five-Factor Model of Personality and Transformational Leadership.” Journal of Applied Psychology 85:751–65.
Judge, T. A., J. E. Bono, A. Erez, and E. A. Locke. 2005. “Core Self- Evaluations and Job and Life Satisfaction: The Role of Self- Concordance and Goal Attainment.” Journal of Applied Psychology 90:257–68.
Judge, T. A., and R. F. Piccolo. 2004. “Transformational and Trans- actional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Test of Their Relative Valid- ity.” Journal of Applied Psychology 89:755–68.
Judge, T. A., C. J. Thoresen, J. E. Bono, and G. K. Patton. 2001. “The Job Satisfaction–Job Performance Relationship: A Qualitative and Quantitative Review.” Psychological Bulletin 127:376–407.
Jung, D. I., and J. J. Sosik. 2002. “Transformational Leadership in Work Groups: The Role of Empowerment, Cohesiveness, and Collective-Efficacy on Perceived Group Performance.” Small Group Research 33:313–36.
204 D W Y E R , B O N O , S N Y D E R , N O V , B E R S O N
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Lowe, K. B., K. G. Kroeck, and N. Sivasubramaniam. 1996. “Effective- ness Correlates of Transformational and Transactional Leadership: A Meta-Analytic Review of the MLQ Literature.” Leadership Quarterly 7:385–425.
Maki, A. M., P. C. Dwyer, and M. Snyder. 2011. Unpublished raw data. Nygard, B., P. C. Dwyer, and M. Snyder. 2010. Unpublished raw data. Omoto, A. M., and M. Snyder. 1995. “Sustained Helping without Obliga-
tion: Motivation, Longevity of Service, and Perceived Attitude Change among AIDS Volunteers.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68:671–86.
Pawar, B. S., and K. K. Eastman. 1997. “The Nature and Implications of Contextual Influences on Transformational Leadership: A Conceptual Examination.” Academy of Management Review 22:80–109.
Penner, L. A., and M. A. Finkelstein. 1998. “Dispositional and Structural Determinants of Volunteerism.” Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology 74: 525–37.
Piccolo, R. F., and J. A. Colquitt. 2006. “Transformational Leadership and Job Behaviors: The Mediating Role of Core Job Characteristics.” Academy of Management Journal 49:327–40.
Podsakoff, P. M., and S. B. MacKenzie. 1997. “Kerr and Jermier’s Substi- tutes for Leadership Model: Background, Empirical Assessment, and Suggestions for Future Research.” Leadership Quarterly 8:117–25.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, and W. H. Bommer. 1996. “Transfor- mational Leader Behaviors and Substitutes for Leadership as Determi- n a n t s o f E m p l o y e e S a t i s f a c t i o n , C o m m i t m e n t , Tr u s t , a n d Organizational Citizenship Behaviors.” Journal of Management 22:259–98.
Podsakoff, P. M., S. B. MacKenzie, J. Y. Lee, and N. P. Podsakoff. 2003. “Common Method Biases in Behavioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recommended Remedies.” Journal of Applied Psy- chology 88:879–903.
Purvanova, R. K., J. E. Bono, and J. Dzieweczynski. 2006. “Transforma- tional Leadership, Job Characteristics, and Organizational Citizenship Performance.” Human Performance 19:1–22.
Ryan, R. M., and E. L. Deci. 2000. “Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well- Being.” American Psychologist 55:68–78.
Schumaker, R. E., and R. G. Lomax. 1996. A Beginner’s Guide to Struc- tural Equation Modeling. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Seers, A. 1989. “Team-Member Exchange Quality: A New Construct for Role-Making Research.” Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Process 43:118–35.
Shamir, B., R. J. House, and M. B. Arthur. 1993. “The Motivational Effects of Charismatic Leadership: A Self-Concept Based Theory.” Organizational Science 4:577–94.
Sheldon, K. M., and A. J. Elliott. 1998. “Not All Personal Goals Are Per- sonal: Comparing Autonomous and Controlled Reasons for Goals as
S O U R C E S O F V O L U N T E E R M O T I VAT I O N 205
Nonprofit Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml
Predictors of Effort and Attainment.” Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin 24:546–57.
———. 1999. “Goal Striving, Need Satisfaction, and Longitudinal Well-Being: The Self-Concordance Model.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76:482–97.
Snyder, M. 1993. “Basic Research and Practical Problems: The Prom- ise of a ‘Functional’ Personality and Social Psychology.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 19:251–64.
Snyder, M., and A. M. Omoto. 2004. “Volunteers and Volunteer Organizations: Theoretical Perspectives and Practical Concerns.” In Improving Leadership in Nonprofit Organizations, edited by R. E. Riggio and S. S. Orr. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
———. 2007. “Social Action.” In Social Psychology: A Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by A. W. Kruglanski and E. T. Higgins. New York: Guilford.
Snyder, M., A. M. Omoto, and J. J. Lindsay. 2004. “Sacrificing Time and Effort for the Good of Others: The Benefits and Costs of Vol- unteerism.” In The Social Psychology of Good and Evil, edited by A. G. Miller. New York: Guilford.
Sobel, M. E. 1982. “Asymptotic Intervals for Indirect Effects in Struc- tural Equations Models.” In Sociological Methodology, edited by S. Leinhart. Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
Spreitzer, G. M. 1995. “Psychological Empowerment in the Work- place: Dimensions, Measurement, Validation.” Academy of Man- agement Journal 38:1442–65.
Yammarino, F. J., and A. J. Dubinsky. 1994. “Transformational Lead- ership Theory: Using Levels of Analysis to Determine Boundary Conditions.” Personnel Psychology 47:787–811.
Wilson, J. 2000. “Volunteering.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:215–40.
PATRICK C. DWYER is a PhD candidate in social psychology at the Uni- versity of Minnesota.
JOYCE E. BONO is a professor in the Management Department at the War- rington College of Business, University of Florida.
MARK SNYDER is a member of the faculty in psychology at the University of Minnesota, where he holds the McKnight Presidential Chair in Psy- chology and is director of the Center for the Study of the Individual and Society.
ODED NOV is an assistant professor of technology management at the Polytechnic Institute of New York University.
YAIR BERSON is a senior lecturer in organizational behavior at the Fac- ulty of Education in the University of Haifa, Israel.
Copyright of Nonprofit Management & Leadership is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
