help needed from Expert_Researcher only

EMPLOYER-SUPPORTED

VOLUNTEERING BENEFITS: GIFT

EXCHANGE AMONG EMPLOYERS,

EMPLOYEES, AND VOLUNTEER

ORGANIZATIONS

J O N A T H A N E . B O O T H , K Y O U N G W O N P A R K , A N D T H E R E S A M . G L O M B

Using gift exchange theory to explain the growing trend of employers offering employer-supported volunteering (ESV) benefi ts, this article discuss- es the creation of exchange relationships between the employer and em- ployee and between the volunteer organization and employee. Hypotheses derived from the employee’s perspective are tested with a nationally repre- sentative sample of volunteers (n = 3,658). Findings suggest that ESV benefi ts are positively related to hours volunteered by the employee. Volunteer hours predict employee perceptions of skill acquisition, and such perceptions are positively related to perceptions of job success and employer recognition. We discuss the implications of these fi ndings for business, employees, and volunteer organizations, with an emphasis on human resource management policy and practice. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Keywords: employer-supported volunteering, employer-supported volunteer programs, volunteer, nonprofi t, human capital, socioeconomic achievement, compensation and benefi ts, training and development, strategic HR

I n an April 2006 communication to Home Depot’s employees, Bob Nardelli, the firm’s former chairman, president, and CEO, showcased the efforts of the cor- porate volunteer program, Team Depot

(Nardelli, 2006). He discussed Team Depot’s Gulf Coast rebuilding efforts after Hurricane Katrina and described how such projects have not only benefited ravaged communities but

also have developed new skills for employees and built relationships within the company and community. The Home Depot volunteer program facilitates employees’ volunteering their time and provides equipment, supplies, and financing for volunteer projects. To en- sure that the program meets its mission to “improve everything [they] touch,” Home Depot budgeted $ 15 million (not including

Correspondence to: Jonathan E. Booth, University of Minnesota, Carlson School of Management, Department of Human Resources and Industrial Relations, Minneapolis, MN 55455. E-mail: [email protected]. In Fall 2009, Jonathan will join the faculty of the London School of Economics, Department of Management, Employment Relations & Organisational Behaviour Group, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7024/7791. Fax: +44 (0)20 7955 7424.

Human Resource Management,Human Resource Management, March – April 2009, Vol. 48, No. 2, Pp. 227– 249

© 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com).

DOI: 10.1002/hrm.20277

228 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

salaries) in 2005 for volunteer activities and had a dedicated staff person at each site or store to arrange community outreach, thereby facilitating two million employee volunteer hours (Points of Light Foundation, 2005).

This is just one example of how employer- supported volunteering (ESV) benefits foster employees’ volunteer activities. In a 2006 ben- efits survey conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, 20% of 368 human resource practitioners reported that their employer provides paid time off to vol- unteer (Gurchiek, 2007). In the 2007 Deloitte Volunteer IMPACT Survey of 1,000 Genera- tion Y individuals (ages 18 to 26), approxi- mately 62% of participants indicated that the

availability of volunteer opportu- nities is a factor in deciding where to work, 39% replied that their cur- rent employer offers ESV benefits, and 28% reported that their em- ployer uses volunteer programs for employee skill and professional development (Gurchiek, 2007). Ac- cording to Hewitt Associates, the number of firms offering ESV ben- efits grows 25% annually (Koss- Feder, 2000). Thus, ESV programs are important to both HR practitio- ners and organizational members.

This phenomenon is global. In 2000, Business in the Community, a nonprofit in the United King- dom whose 700 members are in- ternational employers, reported that 89% of its members have an ESV policy, and 53% of its mem-

bers provide time off for volunteer activities (Volunteering England, 2005a). The 2000 Na- tional Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating (NSGVP), used in the study re- ported in this article, revealed that the most common ESV benefits provided by Canadian employers are approval to take time off (28%), change work hours (28%), and use equipment or facilities (26%). Employers in Brazil, India, Lebanon, and Russia also have implemented ESV benefits (Volunteering England, 2005c).

Despite the increasing availability of ESV benefits, management research is only begin- ning to explore their theoretical, empirical,

and practical implications (Benjamin, 2001; Tschirhart, 2005). Benjamin (2001) asserted that existing work has been based on how employers implement ESV programs and has not focused “on analyses of either data or theoretical questions” (p. 17). Tschirhart (2005) echoed these sentiments, stating that “employee volunteering is a research area des- perately in need of theory … a deeper, more theoretical understanding of employee volun- teering can help guide policies and practices” (p. 25). In a recent review of ESV programs, Cihlar (2004) summarized the state of the lit- erature as one in which there are few rigorous studies and most information is based on an- ecdotal evidence — an idea that others have suggested as well (Graff, 2004; Tuffrey, 2003).

Much of the volunteer literature investi- gates the dyadic relationship between the indi- vidual and the volunteer organization and focuses on factors that predict volunteer in- volvement (Clary et al., 1998; Wilson, 2000); the employing organization is not considered. Conversely, corporate social performance re- search has focused on the employer and on how the employer benefits (Burlingame & Young, 1996; Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Turban & Greening, 1997; Walsh, Weber, & Margolis, 2003); however, there is little emphasis on theoretical grounding and rigorous empirical tests concerning the relationships with and benefits to other audiences, such as employ- ees, their community, societal institutions, and the general public (Margolis & Walsh, 2003; Tschirhart & St. Clair, 2005; Walsh et al., 2003). Knowledge about ESV benefits may en- able organizations to make informed decisions that “avoid counterproductive investments in ineffective fads and fashions, simultaneously becoming more productive and humane” (Rynes & Shapiro, 2005, p. 925). Indeed, “rig- orous scholarship is needed to enhance the growing, but currently largely atheoretical lit- erature on employee volunteering” (Tschirhart, 2005, p. 26). This article addresses this need.

Here, we apply gift exchange theory (rooted within social exchange theory) to in- vestigate the exchange relationship between the employer and employee that is established when the employer offers ESV benefits to em- ployees, as well as the exchange relationship

Despite the

increasing

availability of

ESV benefits,

management

research is only

beginning to explore

their theoretical,

empirical,

and practical

implications.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 229

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

between the volunteer organization and the employee that is created and promoted by the use of ESV benefits. To illustrate these exchanges, we examine employees’ reports of their employers’ provisions of ESV benefits, employees’ time commitments to the volun- teer organizations, and the benefits from volunteering that accrue to the employees and, ultimately, the employing organizations in the form of general human capital acqui- sition and workplace socioeconomic achieve- ment perceptions. Our empirical study uses a national, cross- sectional representative sample of employee volunteer reports of ESV benefits, volunteer hours, human capital acquisition, volunteer recognition, and job success outcomes.

The contribution of this work should be evaluated in the context of the scarcity of empirical work on this issue. Because ESV research is new and emerging, the use of a large-scale, cross-sectional, single-informant data set is appropriate. As Spector (1994) sug- gested, “Cross-sectional questionnaires can provide a … first step in studying phenom- ena of interest. In many areas … this first step has been taken and it is time to move on” (p. 390). We believe that this first step has not been previously taken in ESV research; thus, cross-sectional, self-report data are acceptable in this nascent research stage. We discuss our procedural and statistical remedies for com- mon method bias and the implications for this research later in this article.

Characteristics of ESV Programs

Defined as “the formal and informal policies and practices that employers use to encour- age and help employees volunteer in com- munity service activities” (Tschirhart, 2005, p. 14), ESV programs come in a variety of forms and encompass many activities. Com- mon activities include encouraging and enabling employees to volunteer by imple- menting such benefits as flextime, time off, reimbursements, monetary gifts, donations, use of facilities, corporate transportation, and other tangible goods. Partnerships between employers and the volunteer organizations can be prearranged, formal agreements or can

be more flexible, informal types of relation- ships. Price (2002) used an example from the United Way to illustrate how some com- panies create formal partnerships with organizations. The employer “lends” its top managers to the United Way to fulfill leader- ship positions and pays their salaries while they are on temporary leave (Price, 2002).

Many employers use external brokers or an internal staff person whose job is to develop relationships with specific volunteer organiza- tions and jointly create volunteer programs that best align with the employer’s mission (Volunteering England, 2005b). These formal- ized relationships illustrate what Meijs and van de Voort (2004) would classify as employer initiated. Relationships can form in two ways: transactional, in which organizations create formal arrangements that are for their self-interest, and integrative, in which strategic relationships fa- cilitate working together to create value for all involved (Austin, 2000; van de Voort & Meijs, 2004).

In other cases, the partnership is simply a more informal under- standing that the employer has with its employees and the com- munity. An employer provides benefits that enable employees to make their volunteer decisions autonomously. These more flexi- ble relationships typically do not necessitate formal communica- tion, and there is no major commitment to just one volunteer organization. For example, American Express allows employees (with at least ten years of tenure) to take a fully paid one- to six-month leave of absence to work for a community nonprofit (Koss-Feder, 2000). Regardless of an ESV program’s struc- ture, one might posit that the employer, employee, and volunteer organization bene- fit from the exchange as described below.

Applying Gift Exchange to ESV Relationships

Within the social sciences, social and eco- nomic exchange theories often have been used to explain reciprocal relationships between

Regardless of an

ESV program’s

structure, one

might posit that the

employer, employee,

and volunteer

organization benefit

from the exchange.

230 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

individuals (e.g., Andersson & Pearson, 1999; Schieffelin, 1980), between the organization and the individual (e.g., Fuller & Hester, 2001; Eisenberger, Fasolo, & Davis-LaMas- tro, 1990), and between organizations or nations (e.g., Dillon, 1968). Economic ex- change focuses on transactional utility- maximizing agreements regarding the exchange of valuable resources (goods, services, money) in fairly straightforward transactions (e.g., exchange money for a pair of shoes, exchange hours worked for an hourly wage). Blau (1964) introduced social

exchange to explain the socio- emotional reciprocal relationships between parties that go beyond economic exchange and are used to build and foster continued strong relationships. Within the management literature, it is often used to explain relationships be- tween individuals and organiza- tions. Gift exchange is a derivation of social exchange. As Balkin and Richebé (2007) asserted in their article proposing training invest- ments as gift exchange, gift ex- change is a “special type” of social exchange that is “governed by a set of rules that apply to how to exchange the gifts” (p. 55).

In gift exchange theory, a gift is characterized as an intangible or tangible “good or service (includ- ing the giver’s time, activities and ideas) voluntarily provided to an- other person or group,” while exchange involves “giving some-

thing in return for something received previ- ously or simultaneously, or in anticipation of future returns” (Belk & Coon, 1993, p. 394). Gift-giving can elicit a simple, “Here, this is for you” and “Thanks,” or can be composed of more complex components, such as “selection of certain times, places and assemblages of people” (Belk & Coon, 1993, p. 394), which are common to volunteer interactions and pro- grams (Wilson, 2000). Gifts also convey “im- portant symbolic messages” (Belk, 1979, p. 95). In essence, the gift is the “message and chan- nel for delivering the message to the recipient”

(Belk, 1979, p. 96). For example, by providing ESV benefits, an employer communicates that it is a giving organization and cares about its employees and the community.

As in the broader social exchange frame- work, gift-giving can allow integration, en- abling individuals and organizations to collectively work together and create and maintain close social ties that ultimately lead to ongoing transactions (Sherry, 1983). As Sherry (1983) posited, “Attached strings are a connotative aspect of the gift;” thus, “social bonds [are] forged and reciprocation encour- aged” (p. 158). Gift exchanges between the parties occur and are sustained because each party values each other’s gift and the bond cre- ated, and as one party supplies its gift to the other, the other feels a duty to reciprocate, though not necessarily in an equivalent form (Blau, 1964; Gouldner, 1960). Duty or obliga- tion is at the core of all formal and informal gift exchange relationships (Belk & Coon, 1993; Mauss, 1990). As long as exchanges maintain equilibrium, the parties perceive bal- anced relationships (Balkin & Richebé, 2007). The objective of gift exchange is to maintain successful and sustainable relationships; thus, as long as the gifts exchanged are valued and respected, the relationships continue, and the parties are not attentive to gifts being equitable in monetary value (Blau, 1964; Mauss, 1990).

Sociological and anthropological stud- ies have examined the nature of gift-giving and the tenets that guide gift exchange be- havior (e.g., Blau, 1964; Bourdieu, 1980; Cheal, 1988; Firth, 1972; Gouldner, 1960; Leach & Leach, 1983; Mauss, 1990; Testart, 2001). Balkin and Richebé (2007) outlined their understanding of these rules. First, parties must understand the feelings and desires of the recipient and what the recipi- ent really needs. In the case of ESV pro- grams, in explaining the exchange between employers and employees, employers need skilled employees, and volunteer experi- ences provide skills. Employees, however, need support in the form of time and re- sources to participate in volunteer activi- ties. In the exchange between volun teer organizations and employees, volunteer or- ganizations need people to volunteer hours,

Gifts convey

“important symbolic

messages.” ...

For example,

by providing

ESV benefits,

an employer

communicates

that it is a giving

organization and

cares about its

employees and the

community.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 231

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

yet employees need, for example, exposure to skill development through their volun- teer experiences.

Second, parties should demonstrate their appreciation when gifts are offered. In the exchange between employers and employees, employees should demonstrate their ap- preciation for ESV benefits by acquiring skills and using them for the good of the employer, and employers should show appreciation to their employees by recognizing such skills. Volunteer organizations convey their appre- ciation of the employees’ hours volunteered and, ultimately, the employers’ generous ESV gifts by offering volunteers the opportunity to participate in activities that develop human capital.

Third, explicit contracts cannot exist be- tween parties where the giver can penalize the recipient if the recipient does not offer a specified gift in return at a designated time or value. Given the very nature of the volunteer experience, the parties in the exchanges are voluntarily gifting, which is inherently not dictated by contract; thus, there can be no penalties. An employer’s ESV gifts typically have few stipulations; the benefits exist to support the needs of the employee and com- munity. Therefore, the anticipated gifts re- ceived in return should have no deadline or contractual strings attached. Furthermore, the parties are not necessarily aware of the gifts’ monetary value and would not tally “the gift exchange balance sheet” (Balkin & Richebé, 2007, p. 58). In these situations, the gifts ex- changed are not appraised monetarily; they are appraised for their social value and how they reflect the mutual concern between par- ties. When employees take advantage of ESV benefits, the “employer supports an employ- ee’s request … and gives the employee some flexibility in making up the lost work produc- tivity,” given the hours volunteered (Balkin & Richebé, 2007, p. 57). Employees recognize their employer’s support and give back by supporting the employer in achieving its mis- sions and objectives (Balkin & Richebé, 2007), such as using acquired human capital to im- prove job performance.

Although gift exchange is dynamic, delays in the exchange of gifts are to be expected.

Reciprocation of a gift too quickly may com- municate that the receiver has not carefully considered the giver’s needs and values, or that the recipient is merely trying to pay off a debt instead of trying to maintain a social and personal relationship (Balkin & Richebé, 2007). In the case of ESV programs, the exchange of ESV benefits for skill utilization on the job or the exchange of volunteer hours for new skill acquisitions from volunteering is not immedi- ate and plays out over time. It takes time to develop skills through volunteer work and to apply those skills to the job, and for employers to recognize skill development and use. The rules that guide gift ex- change resurface in the hypotheses detailed below.

Understanding Employee Perceptions of the Gift Exchange Relationships

In the volunteering literature, an- ecdotal research suggests myriad benefits from volunteering rela- tionships for those engaged in our proposed gift exchange relation- ships (Bussell & Forbes, 2002; Graff, 2004; Tuffrey, 2003). For example, employees who use an employer’s ESV benefits may gain social capital, in addition to human capital, that may lead to contacts for future hires, new busi- ness partners or ventures, new suppliers, or new customers for the employer. Furthermore, good- will and increased consumer loyalty may be fostered in the community because of the community’s positive perceptions of the em- ployer’s ESV offerings and subsequent volun- teer activities. At the same time, employees’ morale may increase as they engage in volun- teer activities. Volunteer organizations bene- fit not only from the hours volunteered, but also because they do not have to invest in selection mechanisms for qualified volun- teers. Employees who take advantage of ESV benefits have already gone through a selec- tion process when hired by the employer. In addition, the volunteer organizations may

Employees who use

an employer’s ESV

benefits may gain

social capital, in

addition to human

capital, that may

lead to contacts for

future hires, new

business partners

or ventures, new

suppliers, or new

customers for the

employer.

232 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

retain their volunteer workforce or a steady supply of volunteers given the sustainability of gift exchange relationships. Understand- ably, not all volunteer activity leads to im- proved performance and bettered outcomes. Negative interaction ultimately violates trust, undermines duty and obligation, and does not abide by the gift exchange rules outlined above, thus ending continued gift exchanges (Blau, 1964; Cheal, 1988; Mauss, 1990).

As is evident, many gifts have the poten- tial to be exchanged in volunteering relation- ships facilitated by ESV benefits. However, following Balkin and Richebé’s (2007) asser- tions about employer investments in a gift exchange framework and given the limits of

our data, our hypotheses focus solely on employee perceptions of ESV benefits, hours volunteered, human capital acquisition, and workplace socioeconomic achieve- ment. Abiding by Sutton and Staw’s (1995) suggestion regarding theoretical developments in new and emerging research areas, we illustrate the existence of these gift exchange relationships between the employer and the employee and between the employee and the volunteer organization by using these variables.

ESV Benefi ts and Volunteer Hours

In the literature on volunteering, many individual motivations have been ascribed, including individ- ual intrinsic and extrinsic motiva- tions (Clary et al., 1998; Omoto &

Snyder, 1995; Peloza & Hassay, 2006; Peter- son, 2004); nonprofit organizational support (Farmer & Fedor, 1999); cultural and social capital, such as religion and informal social support (Wilson & Musick, 1997a); work and family influences (Freeman, 1997; Gomez & Gunderson, 2003); and human capital influ- ences, such as education levels and income levels (Vaillancourt, 1994).

In addition to the role of myriad individ- ual motivations to volunteer, an employer’s

provision of ESV benefits is likely to increase volunteer activity. ESV benefits provide an employee access to more time, decreased cost, and options to assuage workplace constraints, thereby making it more likely for an em- ployee to provide a volunteer organization with more hours of volunteer work. Without ESV benefits, employees may be less inclined to volunteer, especially given work-life con- flicts (Volunteer Canada, 2001). Price (2002) suggested that employees find it easier to vol- unteer when the employer assists with volun- teering or handles the communication and logistics. Furthermore, Peterson (2004) deter- mined that employer recruitment strategies influence participation in corporate-spon- sored volunteer activities. ESV provisions also may suggest normative information encour- aging involvement in volunteering. Overall, an employer that offers ESV benefits signals to employees not only that they are valued but also that their volunteering is valued. ESV benefits help in overcoming obstacles to par- ticipation in volunteer activities, thereby in- creasing the likelihood and amount of the volunteer effort.

Hypothesis 1: Employer-supported volunteering benefi ts are positively related to employees’ hours of volunteering.

Volunteer Hours and Skill Acquisition

Although employer volunteer programs are generally believed to provide skill acquisition opportunities for employees (Points of Light Foundation & Center for Corporate Citizen- ship, 2005), no extensive work has explicitly tested this link. Some scholars have explored this relationship, but findings have been qualitative, descriptive, or anecdotal (Geroy, Wright, & Jacoby, 2000; Graff, 2004; Hall, McKeown, & Roberts, 2001; Pancer, Baetz, & Rog, 2002).

While participating in volunteer activi- ties, volunteers may reinforce their existing skills and also acquire new ones, such as communication and interpersonal skills, by interacting with other volunteers, the com- munity, and the volunteer organization staff.

ESV benefits provide

an employee

access to more

time, decreased

cost, and options to

assuage workplace

constraints, thereby

making it more likely

for an employee to

provide a volunteer

organization with

more hours of

volunteer work.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 233

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Volunteer organizations may train volunteers in fundraising, technical, managerial, and organizational skills. Furthermore, a new ap- preciation and understanding of community and social issues arising through this involve- ment may enable volunteers to better under- stand their employers’ customers.

Day and Devlin’s study (1998) represents one exception to the absence of empirical work on employers and volunteering. The authors proposed and tested the idea that wage premiums are awarded to volunteers; employers are willing to pay more to employ- ees who volunteer because volunteering may signal unobservable characteristics or because skills acquired through volunteering are valu- able, or both. Their results suggested a wage premium for volunteers. Given data limita- tions, however, they were unable to make any inferences regarding the reasons for these wage premiums; thus, questions remain about why an employer would provide ESV benefits and whether employees who volun- teer actually develop additional skills. Our study investigates these issues theoretically and empirically by positing and testing the notion that employees who volunteer ac- quire skills that are valuable to and rewarded by the employer.

The rationale for the link between volun- teer hours and skill acquisition is straightfor- ward: as employees increase their volunteer hours, they spend more hours interacting with the volunteer organization. In exchange for hours volunteered, the volunteer organi- zation may assign the employee more tasks to complete, more complex assignments, or larger-scope projects that lead to greater op- portunities for skill acquisition.

Hypothesis 2: Employees’ hours of volunteering are positively related to skills acquired from vol- unteering.

Skill Acquisition and Socioeconomic Achievement

Wilson (2000) emphasized that knowledge acquired from volunteering can lead to socioeconomic achievement in the work- place, which may result in a more positive

reputation on the job, help in finding future work, or enhancement of “the quality of [the current] job” (p. 232). Employees who ac- quire new skills are likely to feel better equipped for their jobs and thus will perceive themselves as more successful. Employees’ perceptions of their success influence their decision to continue the gift exchange cycle and volunteer activities.

In their study of predictors of job success, Wayne, Liden, Kraimer, and Graf (1999) de- termined that skill acquisition is significantly related to career satisfaction. According to the authors, training contri butes to employee intrinsic career suc- cess. In their meta-analysis, Ng, Eby, Sorensen, and Feldman (2005) determined significant cor- rected correlations between orga- nization-sponsored training and skill development opportunities and three measures of success on the job: salary, promotion, and satisfaction. In keeping with these studies, we hypothesize that human capital acquisition is a predictor of employees’ percep- tions of job success.

Hypothesis 3a: Skills acquired from volunteering are positively related to an employee’s job success percep- tions.

Furthermore, Akerlof (1982) suggested that the likelihood of being rewarded or recognized on the job is partially a function of skill acquisition and successful application of those skills to the job. He con- sidered this a gift exchange between em- ployer and employee. The same is likely to be true in the context of skills acquired through volunteer activities. Given that the employer understands the value of acquiring skills through volunteering and applying them to the job, the employer is likely to acknowledge or recognize employee skills gained from volunteering. Thus, employer recognition plays a role in sustaining the gift exchange relationships.

While participating

in volunteer

activities, volunteers

may reinforce

their existing skills

and also acquire

new ones, such as

communication and

interpersonal skills,

by interacting with

other volunteers,

the community,

and the volunteer

organization staff.

234 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Hypothesis 3b: Skills acquired from volunteering are positively related to the employer’s recogni- tion of employees for volunteering.

In addition, the absence of recognition may play a role in the failure to sustain the gift exchange relationship. Previous litera- ture has determined that individuals will continue to volunteer if they perceive that their work is appreciated and rewarded (Farmer & Fedor, 1999; Field & Johnson, 1993; Gora & Nemerowicz, 1985). Field and Johnson (1993) suggested that individuals are likely to discontinue service to the vol- unteer organization if they are not receiv- ing adequate rewards. Farmer and Fedor (1999) determined that a volunteer organi-

zation receives substantial par- ticipation and continued service from its volunteers as long as the volunteers perceive that their service is appreciated and val- ued. Thus, it follows that a lack of recognition from an employer for the volunteer hours and cor- responding skill development may result in lower rates of par- ticipation in volunteering. These findings are consistent with the reciprocity expectations evoked in gift exchange theory. Given that recognition is a function of skill acquisition (Akerlof, 1982)

and that the absence of recognition may reduce volunteering and skill acquisition, it is likely that skill acquisition is rewarded with recognition by the employer.

Method

The data used in this study are from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteer- ing and Participating (NSGVP), one of the most extensive assessments measuring giv- ing, volunteering, and participating behav- iors ever completed. Statistics Canada administered the 2000 NSGVP to five of the six rotation groups of the Labour Force Sur- vey from October through December 2000 (Statistics Canada, 2001). Of the nationally representative 40,236 households that

responded to the survey, 28,173 partici- pated in the NSGVP (70% response). Of the NSGVP respondents, 13,449 nonvolunteers were screened out. The remaining NSGVP sample contains 14,724 Canadians, ages 15 to 69, from all ten provinces. Because of our focus on the gift exchanges among the con- stituents (employers, employees, and vol- unteer organizations), we narrowed the initial NSGVP sample down to those who were employees (not self-employed or un- employed) and volunteers. This reduced the sample to 4,275 individuals.

Based on the sample of 4,275 individu- als, we imposed two additional selection rules to the final sample. First, we decided to drop individuals (n = 429) who were re- quired to volunteer by their employers or by the government. Several have ques- tioned whether mandated volunteering can be legitimately considered volunteering (Meijs & van de Voort, 2004). Second, careful examination of the variables of in- terest suggested outliers associated with the number of volunteer hours. Thus, we decided to drop 37 individuals who were located at the upper set to 1% of the sample in volunteering hours. Therefore, the final sample was composed of 3,809 individuals. Because of missing values, the analysis was based on a final sample of 3,658 individuals.

Measures

As recognized by the Podsakoff, Shen, and Podsakoff (2006) critique of measurement models within the literature, many mea- sures often are inaccurately treated as re- flective constructs when they are, in fact, formative measures. Unlike reflective mea- sures, in which items are assumed to be a manifestation of an underlying construct, formative measures are composed of items presumed to be determinants of an emer- gent construct that define the construct rather than reflect it. Evaluating formative measures as reflective can influence one to incorrectly interpret a construct’s effect on another (Jarvis, MacKenzie, & Podsakoff, 2003). Within the study examined in this

A lack of recognition

from an employer for

the volunteer hours

and corresponding

skill development

may result in lower

rates of participation

in volunteering.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 235

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

article, ESV benefits, volunteer hours, and skill acquisition variables are considered formative measures.

Podsakoff et al. (2006) provide four crite- ria to consider when determining the nature of a measure: direction of causality, inter- changeability, covariance, and similarity of the nomological network. For illustrative purposes, we discuss these criteria as they re- late to the ESV measures. First, the direction of causality for formative constructs suggests that formative constructs are determined by their measures. We believe that each ESV construct is determined by the benefit items provided (e.g., time off and flextime items determine time-oriented ESV benefits); ESV items do not reflect a larger ESV benefit latent construct. Second, items for formative con- structs are not expected to be interchangeable, and we would argue that our ESV items are not interchangeable. For example, an item on use of facilities is not interchangeable with an item on donations. Third, items for forma- tive constructs need not covary at a high level with one another; they may be positively or negatively related, or even unrelated to one another. One could argue that ESV benefit items may operate in such a way that they substitute for one another; the presence of one does not mean that other benefit items are offered. Empirically our ESV items are positively but not highly correlated with one another. Fourth, the nomological network for the antecedents and outcomes of the items need not be similar for formative measures. We suggest that the antecedents and out- comes of different ESV items may indeed be different. Given that volunteer hours and skill acquisition variables also meet the crite- ria above, the variables discussed qualify as formative measures.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefi ts: Time-Oriented and Financial- and Logistic-Oriented

Participants were asked eight questions about ESV benefits. To determine time-oriented ESV benefits, they were asked if, in the past 12 months, the employer offered (1) approval to take time off or the opportunity to spend

some time doing volunteer work while on the job (n = 1,042) and (2) approval to change work hours to spend time volunteering (n = 1,019). The results were measured by summing two dichotomous items (1 for “ yes ” and 0 for “ no ” ).

The financial- and logistic-oriented ESV benefits were measured by asking, “In the past 12 months, did you get any of the following types of support from your employer to help with your volunteer ac- tivities?” There were six survey items: (1) approval for use of facilities or equipment for your volunteer activities (n = 967); (2) employer’s donation of prizes, gift certifi- cates, food, and so forth (n = 91); (3) em- ployer’s donation of T-shirts, company goods, and so forth (n = 30); (4) employer’s financial donation to the organization (n = 78); (5) employer’s providing transpor- tation (n = 13); and (6) employer’s sponsoring of an event, paid entry fee, membership fee, and so forth (n = 73). Given that these were formative items, we summed the indicators (1 for “ yes ” and 0 for “ no ” ), as this is an appropriate method to determine a formative construct’s esti- mate (Nachum, 2003). The time-oriented ESV benefits’ mean was 0.55 and ranged from 0 to 2, and the financial- and logistic- oriented ESV benefits’ mean was 0.36 and ranged from 0 to 6.

Volunteer Hours

Before reporting hours volunteered, partici- pants were asked to indicate the unpaid voluntary activities or services they were in- volved in within the previous year with a group or organization. The questions that they answered were structured to help them clearly understand the comprehensive mean- ing of volunteering and what it includes: “In the past 12 months as an unpaid volunteer for an organization, did you do any canvass- ing, campaigning, or fundraising; did you serve as an unpaid member of a board or committee; did you teach or coach for an organization; did you collect, serve, or deliver food or other goods; did you help to main- tain, repair, or build facilities?”

236 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Participants reported the hours volun- teered for 12 volunteer organization types during the previous 12 months (e.g., cul- ture and recreation, education and research, religion, business/professional associations, and health). An additional item asked them to identify remaining hours volun- teered for volunteer organizations not specified. The volunteer hours variable was derived by aggregating participants’ reports of hours. The aggregated hours mean was 125.15 and ranged from 1 hour to 1,248 hours. It should be noted that an unrea- sonable number of volunteer hours were reported by some of the participants. Since there is no well-accepted recommendation to deal with this kind of measurement error, we decided to drop observations in

the 1% of the upper tail of the volunteer hour distribution. As a result, 37 individuals were dropped; their average number of volunteer hours was 1,829 (equivalent to 229 eight-hour days) and ranged from 1,260 to 4,800 hours. Although dropping these individuals may have elim- inated those who were heavily involved in volunteer activities or executives on loan to a vol- unteer organization, we were unable to determine the nature of the outlying response. To en-

sure the robustness of our results, we ran the same analyses without dropping the highest 1% and with dropping individuals with the highest 5% of volunteer hours. Results from these analyses were consistent with those presented here.

Skills Acquired from Volunteering

Skill acquisition from volunteering was mea- sured by summing responses (1 for “yes” and 0 for “no”) to seven dichotomous questions asking, “Have your volunteer activities pro- vided you with: (1) fundraising skills (n = 1,706); (2) technical/office skills (n = 1,158); (3) organi- zational/managerial skills (n = 2,159); (4) in- creased knowledge, for example, about health, women’s issues, political issues (n = 2,316); (5)

communication skills (n = 2,465); (6) interper- sonal skills (n = 2,886); and (7) some other skills (n = 3)?” The skills acquired mean was 3.47 and ranged from 0 to 7.

Employer’s Recognition

The recognition variable was measured by an item asking, “Did your employer give you recognition or a letter of thanks for your volunteer activities [in the past 12 months]?” We coded “yes” as 1 and “no, ” “don’t know,” “not stated,” or “refused to respond” as 0.

Job Success Perception

The job success perception variable was mea- sured by an item asking, “Do you think your volunteer activities have helped your chances of success in your paid job [in the past 12 months]?” We coded “yes” as 1 and “no,” “don’t know,” “not stated,” or “refused to respond” as 0.

Control Variables

A rich set of control variables has been identi- fied in the literature as key factors affecting an individual’s volunteer behavior (for a comprehensive review, see Knoke & Wright- Isak, 1982; Wilson, 2000; Wilson & Musick, 1997a). We controlled for a variety of vari- ables in the categories of individual back- ground; human, social, and cultural capital; occupation type; volunteer organization type; and motivation to volunteer. These compre- hensive controls allow for more precise, less biased estimates that strengthen analyses.

Background Variables. Wilson (2000) re- ported that aging may have a negative ef- fect on the decision to volunteer. In some societies, gender may not have an effect; however, women in North America have a tendency to volunteer more than men do. Potentially, national origin or background “makes a difference to what kind of volun- teer work people do” (Wilson, 2000, p. 228). These variables were measured as follows. For gender, “male” was coded as 1 and “female”

A rich set of control

variables has been

identified in the

literature as key

factors affecting

an individual’s

volunteer behavior.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 237

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

as 0. For age, dummy variables were created for the following categories—25-34, 35-44, 45-54, 55-64, and 65 years and older—with 15-24 as a reference category. For immigration status, respondents who were born in Canada were coded as 1; otherwise 0.

Human, Social, and Cultural Capital. Wil- son and Musick (1997a) hypothesized that human, social, and cultural capital are related to volunteer choices. For human capital, they reported that education and income are posi- tively related to volunteering and also found that individuals working more hours on the job typically volunteer less. Human capital variables were measured as follows. For edu- cation, dummy variables were created for the following categories—”graduated from high school,” “some postsecondary,” “postsec- ondary diploma,” and “university degree”— with “less than high school” as a reference category. For household income, “$20,000 to $40,000,” “$40,000 to $60,000,” “$60,000 to $100,000,” and “greater than $100,000” were captured by four dummy variables, with “less than $20,000” as a reference category. For working hours per week, “30 to less than 40 hours,” “40 to less than 50 hours,” and “50 hours or more” were captured by three dummy variables, with “less than 30 hours” as a reference category.

For social capital variables, we followed Wilson and Musick’s (1997a) operational- izations using children present at home and marital status. Each has been deter- mined to provide social networks that facilitate volunteering. For children at home under 18, we coded “ yes ” as 1 and “ no ” as 0. For marital status, we coded “married” as 1 and “single” as 0.

Cultural capital was measured using church attendance. Wilson and Musick (1997a) deter- mined that religiosity has a direct effect on volunteering. The question, “How often have you attended religious services or meetings,” was reverse-coded so that 1 indicated “not at all” and 5 indicated “at least once a week.”

Occupation and Volunteer Organization Categories. Wilson and Musick (1997b) argued that a connection may exist between

an individual’s occupational choice and volunteering, since certain job characteris- tics may encourage individuals to be more involved in certain social activities. Fur- thermore, individuals who volunteered for religious or educational organizations appeared to volunteer more.

Occupational type contained 10 occupa- tional types, such as management, sales and services, and health and was captured by nine dummy variables (management as reference type).

Volunteer organization type identified 12 organization types, such as culture, educa- tion, and health, and was captured by 11 dummy variables (cultural organization as reference type). Because 1,203 individuals volun- teered at more than one organiza- tion type, their memberships were not mutually exclusive. Thus, we assigned those individuals to an organization type depending on where they volunteered the most hours. This can lead to a loss of precision of the estimates; how- ever, there is a trade-off. An alter- native is to create dummy vari- ables to make all the multiple members to the 12 organization types exhaustive, which would re- sult in many dummy variables. In this article, we believe that the first option is desirable, not only because it is simple but also because it is not important to interpret, for example, that an in- dividual who volunteered at both health care and religious organiza- tions put in 25 more volunteer hours than someone who volunteered only at a health care organization.

Motivation. We based our measures of mo- tivation on Knoke and Wright-Isak’s (1982) taxonomy (that is, rational choice, normative conformity, and affective bonding): “a ‘predispo- sition/opportunity’ model of the relationship between individual motives to contribute re- sources to organizations and organizational incentives to induce commitments” (p. 209).

Wilson and Musick

(1997b) argued

that a connection

may exist between

an individual’s

occupational choice

and volunteering,

since certain job

characteristics

may encourage

individuals to be

more involved

in certain social

activities.

238 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Rational choice presupposes that individu- al decision making is driven by a desire for utility maximization (Knoke, 1988; Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982). Individuals invoke normative conformity when their behavior is based on moral and value-laden precedents or standards that society or their group values and deems acceptable (Knoke, 1988; Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982). Rooted within social interaction, affective bonding explains motiva- tion to act according to one’s emotional con- nection to another person or group (Knoke, 1988; Knoke & Wright-Isak, 1982).

We measured rational choice by combin- ing three items regarding reasons for volun- teering related to professional development: (1) to improve job opportunities, (2) to ex- plore strengths, and (3) to use skills and ex- perience. We coded “ yes ” as 1 and otherwise as 0, and aggregated the dummy items. The variable ranged from 0 to 3, yielding a reli- ability coefficient of 0.49. We measured nor- mative conformity with three questions that asked participants about their exposure to volunteering when they were younger: (1) “Did you personally see someone you ad- mired helping others?” (2) “Were you helped in the past by others?” (3) “Did one or both of your parents do volunteer work in the community?” We coded “yes” as 1, other- wise as 0. The variable ranged from 0 to 3, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.51. We measured affective bonding with a four-item index: “How often do you socialize with” (1) “parents or other relatives” and (2) “friends who live outside the neighborhood,” and “How often do you spend time” (3) “with friends participating in sports or recreation activities” and (4) “watching family members participate in sports or recreation activities?” Items ranged from 1 to 4, where 1 indicated “every week” and 4 indicated “not at all.” We reverse-coded the items and constructed one continuous variable, yielding a reliability coefficient of 0.50.

Determining the Extent of Common Method Bias

Given the fact that our independent and de- pendent measures were collected from a

single informant using a single survey instru- ment, there is the potential for common method variance (Podsakoff & Organ, 1986). Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee and Podsakoff (2003) offer procedural and statistical remedies. We considered these in determining the ex- tent to which our data possess common method bias.

Procedural Remedies

The data were captured confidentially and disseminated to researchers anonymously; no participant can be identified (survey anonymity). Given that Statistics Canada had no relation to the employer or the vol- unteer organizations, the participant should not have had any incentive to un- derstate or embellish responses (decreased evaluation apprehension). Another impor- tant characteristic is that measures were not asked in the sequence similar to our model (predictor and criterion measurement separation). In addition, most of the vari- ables (e.g., ESV benefits and hours volun- teered) were factual items, not attitudinal or perceptual. Furthermore, items through- out the survey had familiar terms, provided examples if needed, and used short, suc- cinct, focused items while avoiding double- barreled items (Podsakoff et al., 2003; Tourangeau, Rips, & Rasinski, 2000). Thus, scale item quality also helped diminish common method variance.

Statistical remedies

Following techniques outlined in Podsakoff and Organ (1986) and Podsakoff et al. (2003) to statistically estimate the extent of com- mon method bias, we conducted Harman’s single-factor test using indicators from only our main variables of interest. Our unrotated principal component analysis showed that common method bias did not seem to be a problem, since there was no general factor. The first factor accounted for 11.46% and did not account for the majority of the vari- ance. However, Podsakoff et al. (2003) have suggested that Harman’s method is a weak detection tool.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 239

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Since detection tools are limited for for- mative measure models, another option is to conduct a partial correlation adjustment, where a marker variable that is theoretically unrelated to at least one other variable in a study (preferably the dependent variable) can be used to control for common method vari- ance (Lindell & Whitney, 2001). We used the amount of financial giving that the respon- dent gave in the past 12 months as the marker variable. Although donations can re- late to volunteer hours, we believe that there is no theoretical reason for it to relate to the dependent variables of employer’s recogni- tion and perception of job success. Our data showed a small positive correlation (r = 0.10, p < 0.001) between giving and hours. Given these positive correlations, partialing out the variance they shared will result in lower cor- relations among the variables of interest, thereby providing conservative correlation estimates. All significant zero-order correla- tions remained significant after the partial correlation adjustment, suggesting that com- mon method bias was not a serious problem (Lindell & Whitney, 2001).

Results

Table I presents the means, standard devia- tions, and zero-order correlations for the key variables. The zero-order correlations suggest preliminary support for the hypotheses. Time-oriented and financial- and logistic-ori- ented benefits were positively associated with hours volunteered (r = .14, and r = .09, respec- tively); hours volunteered was positively

associated with skills acquired from volun- teering (r = 0.24); and skills acquired was posi- tively associated with employer’s recognition of employee volunteering (r = 0.16) and employee job success perceptions (r = 0.33). The above correlations were all significant at the 0.001 level.

To examine how ESV benefits were associ- ated with our key variables, we split the sample into two groups: those who received ESV benefits for the previous 12 months and those who did not. Table II displays the re- sults from the mean-difference test of these two groups. The results showed a remarkable difference: all the key variables were signifi- cantly higher for employees who received ESV benefits than for employees who did not receive ESV benefits. The effect sizes suggest that these differences are moderate to large (Cohen, 1969; Rosenthal & Rosnow, 1991): d = 0.23 (hours volunteered), d = 0.39 (skills acquired), d = 0.78 (employer’s recognition), and d = 0.37 (job success). The effect size indi- cates that 1.3% of the variance in hours vol- unteered, 3.7% of the variance in skills acquired, 13.2% of the variance in employer’s recognition, and 3.3% of the variance in job success is accounted for by employees who receive ESV benefits versus employees who do not.

Further investigation by splitting the group with ESV benefits into three groups— those who received the time-oriented ESV benefits only, those who received the finan- cial and logistic ESV benefits only, and those who received both—confirmed the additive effect of ESV benefits. That is, all the key

T A B L E I Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for the Key Variables

Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5

1. Time-oriented ESV benefi ts 0.55 0.79 2. Financial- and logistic-oriented

ESV benefi ts 0.36 0.62 0.40***

3. Volunteer hours 125.15 170.08 0.14*** 0.09*** 4. Skills acquired from volunteering 3.47 1.80 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.24*** 5. Employer's recognition 0.21 0.41 0.28*** 0.38*** 0.04** 0.16*** 6. Perception of job success 0.31 0.46 0.19*** 0.14*** 0.14*** 0.33*** 0.14***

Note: n = 3,658. The means, standard deviations, and correlations for all variables in the study are available from the authors on request. **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001

240 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

variables were significantly higher for em- ployees who received both types of ESV ben- efits than for employees who received either type of ESV benefits.

Table III reports the results from hierar- chical regression analyses testing our hypoth- eses. Since the dependent variable, volunteer hours, was left-censored, tobit regression is a correct statistical approach for models 1 and 2. The results from the tobit regressions, however, were virtually identical to the ordinary least squares (OLS) results and, thus, we reported the OLS results for comparison purposes to models 3 and 4.

Models 1 and 2 show that in accordance with Hypothesis 1, employees who received time-oriented and financial- and logistic-ori- ented volunteering benefits from employers spent more hours volunteering (b = 24.23, p < 0.001, and b = 11.69, p < 0.05, respectively), after other factors were taken into account (ΔF = 31.18, p < 0.001). More specifically, the ESV benefit coefficients in model 2 indicated that for each additional unit of time-oriented ESV benefits, volunteer hours increased by 24 hours, and that for each additional unit of financial- and logistic-oriented ESV benefits, volunteer hours increased by 12 hours.

Models 3 and 4 support Hypothesis 2. Hours spent volunteering significantly in- creased the level of skill acquisition (b = 0.0017, p < 0.001) after the effect of time-oriented and financial- and logistic-oriented volunteering benefits was partialed out (ΔF = 117.07, p < 0.001). For every additional 100 volunteer hours, the number of reported skills acquired increases by 0.17.

The results from logistic regression show strong support for Hypotheses 3a and 3b. For

example, employees who acquire skills from volunteering increased the likelihood of feel- ing successful on the job (b = 0.36, p < 0.001) in model 6, and the likelihood of being rec- ognized by the employer (b = 0.12, p < 0.001) in model 8. In other words, reports of acquir- ing one unit of skills increases the likelihood of reporting being recognized by the em- ployer by 12% and the likelihood of report- ing feeling successful on the job by 43%. The χ2-difference test shows that skills acquired from volunteering have additional explana- tory power after other factors were controlled (p < 0.001).

Robustness checks for these results re- vealed that they were not driven by statistical artifacts. Repeating the analyses using the Huber-White estimator of variance that is valid under the presence of heteroskedastic- ity suggested nearly identical results. Finally, we checked robustness of our results by using the logarithmic transformation of volunteer hours (Freeman, 1997). Results were highly consistent.

Supplemental Analyses

From our hypotheses, one may infer a medi- ating process for hours volunteered and skills acquired. A priori, we did not hypothesize mediation; we solely hypothesized main ef- fects. However, post hoc, we conducted path analysis to discern mediation. We ran struc- tural equation modeling using the partial least squares (PLS) technique, PLS-Graph for Windows 3.0 beta version (Chin, 2001, 2003). Given that other structural equation model- ing techniques have difficulty with identifi- cation of formative measures, PLS is an

T A B L E I I Mean-Difference Tests of the Key Variables by ESV Benefi ts

Volunteers without ESV

Benefi ts (n = 1,980) Volunteers with ESV

Benefi ts (n = 1,678)

Variable Mean SD Mean SD t-value Effect Size

Volunteer hours 106.95 155.36 146.64 183.68 7.08*** d = 0.23 Skills acquired from volunteering

3.15 1.85 3.84 1.66 11.79*** d = 0.39

Employer's recognition 0.07 0.26 0.37 0.48 23.59*** d = 0.78 Perception of job success 0.23 0.42 0.40 0.49 11.14*** d = 0.37

***p < 0.001

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 241

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

T A

B L

E

I I

I

R es

ul ts

o f H

ie ra

rc hi

ca l R

eg re

ss io

n A

na ly

se s

fo r

Vo lu

nt ee

r H

ou rs

, S ki

ll s

A cq

ui re

d fr

om V

ol un

te er

in g,

P er

ce pt

io ns

o f J

ob S

uc ce

ss , a

nd

R ec

og ni

ti on

b y

Em pl

oy er

O L

S

L o

g it

V o

lu n

te e

r H

o u

rs

(H y p

o th

e s is

1 )

S k

il ls

A c q

u ir

e d

f ro

m

V o

lu n

te e

ri n

g (

H y

p o

th e

s is

2 )

P e

rc e p

ti o

n o

f J o

b

S u

c c e

s s (

H y p

o th

e s is

3 a )

R e c o

g n

it io

n b

y

E m

p lo

y e r

(H y p

o th

e s is

3 b

)

V a ri

a b

le s

M o

d e l

1 M

o d

e l 2

M o

d e

l 3

M o

d e

l 4

M o

d e

l 5

M o

d e l 6

M o

d e l 7

M o

d e l 8

M o

ti v a ti

o n

Α ff

e ct

iv e b

o n

d in

g 2 0 .0

2 * * *

1 8

.3 6

* *

* 0

.2 0

* *

* 0

.1 7

* *

* − 0.

01 − 0.

0 8

0 .1

8 *

0 .1

6 *

N o

rm a ti

v e c

o n

fo rm

it y

5 .9

1 *

4 .3

4 0

.2 0

* *

* 0

.2 0

* *

* 0

.1 5

* *

* 0 .0

9 *

0 .1

1 *

0 .0

9 †

R a ti

o n

a l ch

o ic

e 2 3 .4

6 * * *

19 .8

3 *

* *

0 .6

7 *

* *

0 .6

4 *

* *

0 .8

4 *

* *

0 .6

8 * * *

0 .2

3 * * *

0 .1

6 * *

E S

V b

e n

e fi

ts

T im

e -o

ri e n

te d

E

S V

b e n

e fi

ts 2

4 .2

3 *

* *

0 .1

9 *

* *

0 .1

5 *

* *

0 .3

0 *

* *

0 .2

7 * * *

0 .4

9 * * *

0 .4

8 * * *

F in

a n

ci a l-

a n

d l

o g

is ti

c- o

ri e n

te d

E S

V b

e n

e fi

ts

11 .6

9 *

0 .2

6 *

* *

0 .2

4 *

* *

0 .2

2 *

* *

0 .1

5 *

1. 1 3 * * *

1. 11

* * *

V o

lu n

te e r

h o

u rs

( * 10

0 )

0 .1

7 *

* *

0 .1

0 *

* *

0 .0

5 *

− 0 .0

1 −

0 .0

3 S

ki ll s

a cq

u ir

e d

f ro

m

v o

lu n

te e ri

n g

0 .3

6 * * *

0 .1

2 * * *

In te

rc e p

t 10

.6 8

9 .2

6 0

.8 6

* *

0 .8

4 *

* −

2 .4

9 *

* *

− 3 .0

2 * * *

− 3 .8

2 * * *

− 3 .9

5 * * *

M o

d e l

F /l ik

e li

h o

o d

r a ti

o (

χ2 )

5 .3

8 6

.5 9

2 0

.3 1

2 3

.0 1

6 9

5 .5

2 8 6 7.

76 6 5 0 .7

0 6 6 6 .0

9

R 2

(A d

ju st

e d

R 2 )

/p se

u d

o R

2 0

.0 6 (

0 .0

5 )

0 .0

8 (

0 .0

7 )

0 .2

1 (

0 .2

0 )

0 .2

3 (

0 .2

2 )

0 .1

5 0 .1

9 0 .1

7 0 .1

8

Δ F (

Δ χ2

) 3

1. 1 8

* *

* 11

7. 0

7 *

* *

1 5 7.

1 7 * * *

1 5 .1

5 * * *

L o

g l ik

e li h

o o

d −

1 ,9

0 8

.8 6

− 1 ,8

2 2 .7

4 −

1 ,5

4 5 .1

4 −

1 ,5

3 7.

4 5

N o

te :

n =

3 ,6

5 8 . A

ll c

o n

tr o

l v a ri

a b

le s

o u

tl in

e d

i n

t h

e t

e x t

w e re

a n

a ly

ze d

i n

a ll

r e g

re ss

io n

s. F

o r

th e r

e a d

e r’

s e a se

, w

e r

e p

o rt

o n

ly k

e y v

a ri

a b

le s

a lo

n g

w it

h t

h e

m o

ti v

a ti

o n

a l co

n tr

o ls

i n

t h

is t

a b

le . T

h e

co

e ffi

c ie

n ts

o b

se rv

e d

i n

t h

is t

a b

le a

re f

ro m

t h

e f

u ll r

e g

re ss

io n

, w

it h

a ll

c o

n tr

o l

v a ri

a b

le s

in cl

u d

e d

. C

o m

p le

te r

e g

re ss

io n

r e su

lt s

fo r

a ll

v a

ri a

b le

s in

t h

e s

tu d

y c

a n

b e

o b

ta in

e d

f ro

m t

h e

a u

th o

rs o

n

re q

u e st

.

† p

< 0

.1 0

* p

< 0

.0 5

* * p

< 0

.0 1

* * *

p <

0 .0

01

242 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

appropriate approach for path modeling (Chin, 1998). The precision of the model’s path coefficients are determined using a bootstrapping procedure that allows t-statis- tic calculation (using 500 resamples gener- ated with 3,658 cases per sample). In our study, the path coefficients were significant and suggested the mediating nature of volun- teer hours and skills acquired (Time-Oriented ESV Benefits→Volunteer Hours, path coeffi- cient = 0.14, p < 0.001; Financial/Logistic-Ori- ented ESV Benefits→Volunteer Hours, path coefficient=0.08, p < 0.01; Volunteer Hours→ Skills Acquired, path coefficient = 0.25, p < 0.001; Skills Acquired→Job Success, path coefficient = 0.34, p < 0.001; Skills Acquired→ Recognition, path coefficient=0.15, p < 0.001). Furthermore, these results also supported our hypotheses and were similar to our previous analyses.

In addition, one might posit that there are limits to the benefits accrued through volunteering. Certainly, if an employee spends excessive hours volunteering, skill acquisition may reach the level of diminish- ing returns. More hours volunteering may not always benefit the employer and em- ployees. A supplemental analysis tested this possibility with the inclusion of a curvilinear term for volunteer hours in model 4 predict- ing skills. The squared term for hours

volunteered was significantly and negatively related to skill acquisition, indicating a curvi- linear relationship and the existence of an optimal level of hours for volunteering in skill acquisition. As seen in Figure 1, our com- putation of the critical point indicated that volunteer hours exceeding 587 hours per year—equivalent to 73 eight-hour days of volunteering (1.4 days per week)—do not lead to the acquisition of additional skills. In interpreting this result, we must consider that this is a relationship between number of volunteer hours and the number of skills ac- quired, not the overall depth of skill acquisi- tion. Thus, it may be that those who volun- teer more hours develop fewer skills at greater depth.

Discussion

In contrast to the often studied dyadic rela- tionship between the volunteer and the vol- unteer organization, we explored the exchange relationships between the employer and the employee and between the employee and the volunteer organization that are initi- ated by the employer offering ESV benefits to its employees. Gift exchange theory, a social exchange theory derivative, was used to de- scribe the nature of the relationships. This research stands as one of the first theoretical

FIGURE 1. Curvilinear Relationship Between Volunteer Hours and Skills Acquired from Volunteering

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 Volunteer Hours

Skills Acquired

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 243

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

treatments of the operation of ESV benefits in the literature.

Furthermore, we empirically tested these gift exchange relationships using employee perceptions of ESV receipt, hours volun- teered, human capital acquisition, job suc- cess, and volunteer recognition measures. Given our illustrative data, our empirical findings provide preliminary support that ESV benefits facilitate exchange relationships as hypothesized. First, we found that ESV benefits positively influence an employee’s volunteer hours. This result suggests that al- though providing ESV benefits is costly to employers, an employer who provides more volunteer benefits helps its employees mini- mize the costs and challenges associated with volunteering. As a result, employees volun- teer more hours. Volunteer organizations benefit indirectly from ESV benefits by re- ceiving more volunteer hours and potentially achieve savings due to those increased hours.

After accounting for ESV benefits that employees received, we found that volunteer- ing more hours was associated with more perceived skills acquired from volunteering. Though we are unable to provide the exact cost-benefit computations, this finding sug- gests that providing ESV benefits may be an- other, perhaps more efficient, route to skill acquisition. That is, the employer may reduce training costs by providing ESV benefits that facilitate employees’ learning skills through their volunteer experiences. Volunteer expe- riences may result in additional positive by- products, such as employee retention and community reputation. However, more hours of volunteering may not always be beneficial. Our preliminary analysis suggests that the relationship between hours volunteered and number of skills acquired may be curvilinear. Increased volunteering leads to an increase in perceived number of skills acquired, but only to a point.

Our results with regard to a volunteer’s socioeconomic achievement in the workplace also support our hypotheses. Specifically, we found that individuals who report acquiring skills from volunteering are more likely to report being recognized by their employer

and, ultimately, report feeling more success- ful on the job. Judge, Higgins, Thoreson, and Barrick (1999) suggested that it is imperative to an organization’s performance for its em- ployees to feel accomplished, rewarded, and successful. Similarly, for the volunteer organi- zation, a more satisfied volunteer workforce that experiences achievement and success may likely continue its service and promote improved performance. Our results suggest that accomplishments resulting from volun- teering may help employees achieve such organizational goals.

Limitations and Future Directions

Our study has several limitations stemming from both the data analyzed and the nature of our research question. First, al- though our theory posits causal relationships, the cross-sectional nature of the 2000 NSGVP does not allow a test of causal hypoth- eses and raises the possibility of reverse causality. For example, perceptions of skill acquisition and job success may have led par- ticipants to volunteer more hours. However, because ESV benefits and employer recognition are reported in a more objective fashion and are not subject to in- dividual attempts to change them, proposals of reverse relationships are less likely. Future research using a longitudinal data set can address these issues.

Second, common method bias and so- cial desirability are concerns. In a survey geared toward volunteering, participating, and giving, participants may feel that they should reply in ways that are socially desir- able. Consequently, the observed correla- tions of the variables may be artificially inflated. All the data also were collected from one source, raising common method bias concerns. Given the procedural and statistical approaches we used to evaluate this issue, we are confident that common method biases in these data are not exten- sive and not wholly responsible for these

The employer may

reduce training

costs by providing

ESV benefits

that facilitate

employees’ learning

skills through

their volunteer

experiences.

244 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

results. Future research examining these relationships should use data collected from all parties engaged in the exchanges. This would not only combat the issue of single- source data, but also would represent a bet- ter match between gift exchange theory and empirical data.

Third, because we used an existing data set, we were constrained to using the items available that were not specifically designed to test our theory. For example, many of the items were measured dichotomously and as- sessed only the presence of, rather than level of, ESV benefits and skills acquired. The mea- sure of hours of volunteering may not cap- ture fully the nature and complexities of the

volunteer experience. Further- more, we were unable to examine whether ESV benefits influence individuals’ decisions to volun- teer, since individuals who were not volunteering were not asked to respond to questions about ESV benefits. Future research can ex- amine these issues by collecting more detailed information on ESV benefits, the nature of the volun- teer experience, skill development, and outcomes from both nonvol- unteers and volunteers.

Finally, our findings may not be generalizable outside of Can- ada, since volunteering and ESV benefits may be influenced by cul- tural perspectives. Although sur- veys suggest an increase in the number of employers providing

ESV benefits globally, culture-specific factors may create dynamics that are different from those exchanges we investigated in this arti- cle. Future studies exploring the presence and patterns of volunteering and ESV benefits in different cultures would be valuable.

Despite the limitations of the data, we believe that the representative nature of the sample and the scarcity of empirical work on this topic suggest that use of this data set is reasonable to develop preliminary findings in this emerging area. Schmitt (1994) supported this idea, proposing that the appropriateness of methods and measures should be based on

the stage of development of the particular body of research: “I think it is appropriate to use methods and research designs in a newly developing area that would be unacceptable in another area of research” (p. 395).

In addition to the suggestions for future directions flowing from the limitations de- tailed above, we offer conceptual ideas for further work. Future research might examine the links between other gifts in this broader exchange, such as personnel retention and improved customer and community percep- tions for the employer; personal fulfillment, job satisfaction, and organizational commit- ment for the employee; and accomplishment of objectives for the volunteer organization. From a more practical perspective, future re- search might examine which skills are more effectively or efficiently developed through volunteering versus traditional training and development. Thoughtful, empirically based approaches to matching employees with de- velopmental volunteer experiences would provide greater benefit to employers and em- ployees rather than skill acquisition as a by- product of the volunteer experience.

Future research might also investigate whether there is a dark side to ESV. Some have argued that employer involvement in volunteering may change the nature of the volunteer motivations and nonprofit missions (Tschirhart & St. Clair, 2005). For example, is volunteering becoming nonvol- untary as organizations increasingly encour- age participation? If so, are volunteers acting in the interest of the nonprofit or in self-in- terest? Will nonprofits modify their projects and objectives to make them more palatable to organizational participation? Will some causes be left behind as organizations play a larger role in volunteer activities? These is- sues are important to consider as the work of nonprofits and employers becomes more tightly coupled.

Practical Implications

Our article has important implications for employers who would benefit from employee skill acquisition through the provision of ESV programs. Thus, employers would be wise to

We believe that

the representative

nature of the sample

and the scarcity of

empirical work on

this topic suggest

that use of this data

set is reasonable to

develop preliminary

findings in this

emerging area.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 245

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

direct their efforts strategically so they can enhance the benefits they receive from their gifts of ESV benefits. For example, a skill- matching alliance would benefit employers and volunteer organizations and crystallize the exchange predicted from our gift ex- change theory. Instead of directly providing human capital investment to its employees, the employer can create relationships with volunteer organizations that adequately train its employees with appropriate skills (or other outcomes). The employer may find it neces- sary to create alliances with multiple volun- teer organizations (i.e., a portfolio of multiple relationships) to adequately provide enrich- ing experiences for its diverse population of employees, who may have differing skill sets and backgrounds. Furthermore, recent surveys have established that new workforce entrants (e.g., Generation Y) may expect em- ployers to provide ESV benefits. Thus, these benefits may provide a competitive advantage to employers in hiring new employees. In ad- dition, these programs and benefits may serve as a retention tool. This suggests the critical role of ESV benefits policy in creating feasible programs that satisfy the joint needs of the employer and employee.

Our findings have implications for volun- teer organizations as well. Specifically, the provision of ESV benefits by an employer is associated with increased volunteer hours. For the volunteer organization, our findings provide an empirical justification for volun- teer organizations to market the gains to employers from being involved in the community. Volunteer organizations should identify the skills that can be delivered to employees and market themselves to em- ployers who are interested in building part- nerships that value such skills.

In addition to the volunteer hours re- ceived, the volunteer organization benefits by receiving quality workers without significant recruitment, selection, and retention ex- penses. Govekar and Govekar (2002) stated, however, that “volunteer labor is not free, for the organization must train volunteers and supervise them, which require the work of paid labor to run a volunteer program; given such costs, an organization is not likely to

accept all of the volunteers who wish to work for it” (p. 43). Thus, a volunteer organization requires the best volunteers to meet its mis- sion. One important advantage of partner- ships with employers is that the volunteer organization receives workers from the em- ployer who have already been screened through the employer’s recruitment and se- lection process. In addition, the employer’s ability to retain its employees through ESV benefits may be advantageous to the volun- teer organization, as general and specific vol- unteer knowledge will not be lost and more integrative relationships can be formed (Points of Light Foundation and the Center for Corporate Citizenship, 2005).

Conclusion

Combining theoretical develop- ment and empirical investigation of ESV benefits, this study is, to our knowledge, the first of its kind. In keeping with gift-exchange the- ory, we proposed that reciprocal gift-exchange relationships are ini- tiated through the offering of ESV benefits. In addition, using a large, nationally representative sample, we empirically tested an applica- tion of the theory. Results suggest that the provision of ESV benefits is positively associated with in- creased volunteer hours, and increased volunteer hours are posi- tively associated with greater skill acquisition—a benefit to the indi- vidual and the employer. Reports of skill acquisition are positively associated with reports of being recognized at work and perceptions of job success. These theoretical and empirical contributions have implications for employers, employees, and volunteer organizations.

Acknowledgments

We acknowledge the following individuals for providing critical feedback and encouragement on various iterations of this article: Avner Ben-Ner,

The employer may

find it necessary to

create alliances with

multiple volunteer

organizations (i.e., a

portfolio of multiple

relationships)

to adequately

provide enriching

experiences for its

diverse population

of employees, who

may have differing

skill sets and

backgrounds.

246 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

John W. Budd, David Knoke, Stephanie Lluis, Nathan Podsakoff, James Scoville, Jason Shaw, and Mary Tschirhart. In addition, we thank John W. Budd for providing the contact and funding for data acquisition, as well as Wynne W. Chin for allowing us to use his PLS-Graph Version 3.0 beta software. Furthermore, we appreciate the feedback and critique from the Center for the Study of the Individual and Society seminar par-

ticipants, from the SAPS conference participants, as well as from the participants in the Workshop on Research Advances in Organizational Behav- ior, Human Resources Management and Corpo- rate Social Responsibility, University of Toulouse, Toulouse, France. Finally, we thank the Indus- trial Relations Center’s doctoral students for critiquing the various drafts during seminar dis- cussions and outside the classroom.

JONATHAN E. BOOTH is a PhD candidate in human resources and industrial relations at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. His research interests are in the areas of workplace violence and aggression, confl ict management, employee volunteering and corporate social responsibility, and union membership and partic- ipation. He teaches courses in the areas of organizational behavior, dispute resolu- tion, and labor relations. Before pursuing his PhD, he was a consultant in information technology, change management, and training development for fi rms such as Intel, Marriott International, and Wells Fargo. He has a BS in business administration from Georgetown University. In Fall 2009, he will be joining the faculty of the Employment Relations and Organisational Behaviour Group, Department of Management, London School of Economics.

KYOUNG WON PARK is a PhD candidate in human resources and industrial relations at the University of Minnesota’s Carlson School of Management. His research interests are in corporate social responsibility, government regulation, and workplace safety, as well as workplace institutions governing employment relations and their effects on effi ciency, equity, and voice. He has an MA in human resources and industrial relations from the University of Minnesota and an MBA from Yonsei University, Korea.

THERESA M. GLOMB is the Carlson professor of human resources and industrial rela- tions in the Carlson School of Management at the University of Minnesota. She re- ceived her PhD and AM in industrial/organizational psychology from the University of Illinois in 1998 and her BA in psychology from DePaul University. She has conducted research and published in the areas of anger and aggressive behaviors in organiza- tions, emotional labor, emotional events in organizations, sexual harassment, and job attitudes and behaviors. She has published in journals such as the Journal of Applied Psychology, Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, Academy of Management Journal, and the Journal of Occupational Health Psychology. She serves on the editorial boards of the Academy of Management Journal, Journal of Applied Psychology, and Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

References

Akerlof, G. A. (1982). Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97(4), 543–569.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.

Austin, J. E. (2000). The collaboration challenge. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Balkin, D. B., & Richebé, N. (2007). A gift exchange perspective on organizational training. Human Resource Management Review, 17(1), 52–62.

Belk, R. W. (1979). Gift-giving behavior. In J. Sheth (Ed.), Research in marketing (Vol. 2, pp. 95–126). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 247

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Belk, R. W., & Coon, G. S. (1993). Gift giving as agapic love: An alternative to the exchange paradigm based on dating experiences. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(3), 393–417.

Benjamin, E. J. (2001). A look inside corporate employee volunteer programs. Journal of Volunteer Administration, 19(2), 16–32.

Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.

Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le sens pratique. Paris: Minuit.

Burlingame, D. F., & Young, D. R. (1996). Corporate philanthropy at the crossroads. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofi t and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7(3), 244–257.

Cheal, D. (1988). The gift economy. London: Routledge.

Chin, W. W. (1998). The partial least squares approach to structural equation modeling. In G. A. Marcoulides (Ed.), Modern methods for business research (pp. 295–336). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Chin, W. W. (2001). PLS-Graph for windows 3.0 user’s guide. Houston: Soft Modeling.

Chin, W. W. (2003). PLS-Graph version 03.00, build 1126 (beta version). [Computer software]. Houston: Soft Modeling.

Cihlar, C. (2004). The state of knowledge surrounding employee volunteering in the United States. Washington, DC: Points of Light Foundation.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al. (1998). Understand- ing and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1516–1530.

Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Day, K. M., & Devlin, R. A. (1998). The payoff to work without pay: Volunteer work as an investment in human capital. Canadian Journal of Economics, 31(5), 1179–1191.

Dillon, W. (1968). Gifts and nations. The Hague, Nether- lands: Mouton.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., & Davis-LaMastro, V. (1990). Perceived organizational support and employee diligence, commitment, and innovation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75(1), 51–59.

Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1999). Volunteer participation and withdrawal: A psychological contract perspective on the role of expectations

and organizational support. Nonprofi t Management and Leadership, 9(4), 349–367.

Field, D., & Johnson, I. (1993). Satisfaction and change: A survey of volunteers in a hospice organization. Social Science and Medicine, 36(12), 1625–1634.

Firth, R. (1972). Economics of the New Zealand Maori. Wellington, NZ: Shearer.

Freeman, R. (1997). Working for nothing: The supply of volunteer labor. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1, Suppl. 2), S140–S166.

Fuller, J. B., & Hester, K. (2001). A closer look at justice perceptions and union participation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1096–1105.

Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. (2000). Toward a conceptual framework of employee volunteerism: An aid for the human resource manager. Manage- ment Decision, 38(4), 280–286.

Gomez, R., & Gunderson, M. (2003). Volunteer activity and the demands of work and family. Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 58(4), 573–589.

Gora, J., & Nemerowicz, G. (1985). Emergency squad volunteers: Professionalism in unpaid work. West- port, CT: Praeger.

Gouldner, A. W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A pre- liminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25(2), 161–178.

Govekar, P. L., & Govekar, M. A. (2002). Using eco- nomic theory and research to better understand volunteer behavior. Nonprofi t Management and Leadership, 13(1), 33–48.

Graff, L. (2004). Making a business case for employer- supported volunteerism. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.volunteer.ca/volunteer/pdf/ ESVThinkPiece.pdf.

Gurchiek, K. (2007). Employer-based volunteerism lures Gen Y workers. Retrieved May 1, 2007, from http:// www.shrm.org/login.asp?clickth=http://PCIisHere/ hrnews_published/archives/CMS_021362.asp.

Hall, M., McKeown, L., & Roberts, K. (2001). Caring Canadians, involved Canadians: Highlights from the 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Participating. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Statis- tics Canada.

Jarvis, C. B., MacKenzie, S. B., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2003). A critical review of construct indicators and measurement model misspecifi cation in mwarket- ing and consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 30(2), 199–218.

Judge, T. A., Higgins, C. A., Thoresen, C. J., & Barrick, M. R. (1999). The big fi ve personality traits, general

248 HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT, MARCH – APRIL 2009

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

mental ability, and career success across the life span. Personnel Psychology, 52(3), 621–651.

Knoke, D. (1988). Incentives in collective action organization. American Sociological Review, 53(3), 311–329.

Knoke, D., & Wright-Isak, C. (1982). Individual motives and organizational incentive systems. In S. B. Bacharach (Ed.), Research in the sociology of organizations (Vol. 1, pp. 209–254). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Koss-Feder, L. (2000, December 22). A helping hand for employees who want to volunteer. Business- Week online. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.businessweek.com/careers/content/ dec2000/ca20001222_660.htm.

Leach, J. W., & Leach, E. (1983). The Kula: New perspectives on Massim exchange. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Lindell, M. K., & Whitney, D. J. (2001). Accounting for common method variance in cross-sectional designs. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(1), 114–121.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. (2003). Misery loves companies: Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48(2), 268–305.

Mauss, M. (1990). The gift: The form and reason for exchange in archaic societies. London: Routledge Classics.

Meijs, L.C.P.M., & van de Voort, J. M. (2004). Corpo- rate volunteering: From charity to profi t–non-profi t partnerships. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 9(1), 21–32.

Nachum, L. (2003). Liability of foreignness in global competition? Financial service affi liates in the city of London. Strategic Management Journal, 24(12), 1187–1208.

Nardelli, R. L. (2006, April). Home Depot corporate com- munication. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://cor- porate.homedepot.com/en_us/corporate/corporate_ communications/leadership/ceo/docs/reb.

Ng, T.W.H., Eby, L. T., Sorensen, K. L., & Feldman, D. C. (2005). Predictors of objective and subjective career success: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 58(2), 367–408.

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained help- ing without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(4), 671–686.

Pancer, S. M., Baetz, M. C., & Rog, E. J. (2002). Corpo- rate volunteer programs: Benefi ts for employees,

corporations, and the community. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Centre for Philanthropy.

Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational volunteerism: Good soldiers, good deeds, and good politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357–379.

Peterson, D. K. (2004). Recruitment strategies for encouraging participants in corporate volunteer programs. Journal of Business Ethics, 49(4), 371–386.

Podsakoff, P. M., & Organ, D. W. (1986). Self-reports in organizational research: Problems and prospects. Journal of Management, 12(4), 69–92.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsa- koff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(5), 879–903.

Podsakoff, N. P., Shen, W., & Podsakoff, P. M. (2006). The role of formative measurement models in strategic management research: Review, critique, and implications for future research. In D. J. Ketchen & D. D. Bergh (Eds.), Research methodology in strategy and management (Vol. 3, pp. 201–256). Oxford: Elsevier JAI.

Points of Light Foundation. (2005). 2005 Honorees. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://www.points- ofl ight.org/awards/workplace/CorpWinnerDetails. cfm?ID=91.

Points of Light Foundation & Center for Corporate Citizenship. (2005). Measuring employee volunteer programs: The human resources model. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://www.pointsofl ight.org/ downloads/pdf/networks/business/Measuring_Em- ployee_Volunteer_Programs-The_Human_Resourc- es_Model.pdf.

Price, B. (2002). Social capital and factors affecting civic engagement as reported by leaders of voluntary associations. Social Science Journals, 39(1), 119–127.

Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Rynes, S. L., & Shapiro, D. L. (2005). Public policy and the public interest: What if we mattered more? Academy of Management Journal, 48(6), 925–927.

Schieffelin, E. (1980). Reciprocity and the construction of reality. Man London, 15(3), 502–517.

Schmitt, N. (1994). Method bias: The importance of theory and measurement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 393–398.

Employer-Supported Volunteering Benefits 249

Human Resource Management DOI: 10.1002/hrm

Sherry, J. F. (1983). Gift giving in anthropological perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 10(2), 157–168.

Spector, P. E. (1994). Using self-report questionnaires in OB research: A comment on the use of a contro- versial method. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 15(5), 385–392.

Statistics Canada. (2001). Microdata user’s guide: 2000 National Survey of Giving, Volunteering and Partici- pating. Ottawa: Author.

Sutton, R. I., & Staw, B. M. (1995). What theory is not. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40(3), 371–384.

Testart, A. (2001). Échange marchand, échange non marchand. Revue Française de Sociologie, 42(4), 719–748.

Tourangeau, R., Rips, L. J., & Rasinski, K. (2000). The psychology of survey response. Cambridge: Cam- bridge University Press.

Tschirhart, M. (2005). Employee volunteer programs. In J. L. Brudney (Ed.), Emerging areas of volun- teering (pp. 13–29). Indianapolis: ARNOVA.

Tschirhart, M., & St. Clair, L. (2005). Corporate com- munity service programs: Enhancing community capacity? In A. C. Brooks (Ed.), Gifts of time and money: The role of charity in America’s communi- ties (pp. 59–75). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld.

Tuffrey, M. (2003). Good companies, better employ- ees. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from, http:// www.corporate-citizenship.com/wp-content/up- loads/2008/01/hr3_fi nal.pdf

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. (1997). Corporate so- cial performance and organizational attractiveness to prospective employees. Academy of Manage- ment Journal, 40(3), 658–672.

Vaillancourt, F. (1994). To volunteer or not: Canada, 1987. Canadian Journal of Economics, 27(4), 813–825.

van der Voort, J. M., & Meijs, L.C.P.M. (2004). Partner- ships in perspective: About sustainable relation-

ships between companies and voluntary organiza- tions. Nonprofi t Review, 4(1), 9–18.

Volunteer Canada. (2001). Volunteer connections: The benefi ts and challenges of employer- supported volunteerism. Ottawa, Ontario, Canada: Author.

Volunteering England. (2005a). Employers: Key issues. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.volunteering.org.uk/WhatWeDo/ Projects+and+initiatives/Employer+Supported+ Volunteering/Employers/Key+issues/

Volunteering England. (2005b). Introduction to brokerage. Retrieved December 28, 2005, from http://www.volunteering.org.uk/WhatWeDo/ Projects+and+initiatives/Employer+Supported+ Volunteering/Brokers/Introduction+to+brokerage.htm

Volunteering England. (2005c). More worldwide research—examples. Retrieved July 30, 2006, from http://www.volunteering.org.uk/WhatWeDo/ Projects+and+initiatives/Employer+Supported+ Volunteering/Resources/International/More+ worldwide+research.htm

Walsh, J. P., Weber, K., & Margolis, J. D. (2003). Social issues and management: Our lost cause found. Journal of Management, 29(6), 859–881.

Wayne, S. J., Liden, R. C., Kraimer, M. L., & Graf, I. K. (1999). The role of human capital, motivation and supervisor sponsorship in predicting career success. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(5), 577–595.

Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26(1), 215–240.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1997a). Who cares? Toward an integrated theory of volunteer work. American Sociological Review, 62(5), 694–713.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. A. (1997b). Work and volun- teerinsg: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1), 251–272.