Volunteer Motivation and Reward Preference: An ...

Volunteer Motivation and Reward Preference: An Empirical Study of Volunteerism in a Large, Not-For-Profit Organization Laura C. Phillips, Abilene Christian University Mark H. Phillips, Abilene Christian University

Volunteering is big business in the United States. In 2008 more than one-fourth of the population donated an average of 52 hours apiece to a not-for-profit organization. The largest beneficiaries of this generosity were religious, educational, youth service, and community service organizations {Volunteering in the United States, 2008). Volunteers provide numerous benefits to society (Snyder, Omoto, and Lindsay, 2004), not only filling gaps in social safety nets and providing services that communities cannot or will not, but also creating social links among the often diverse members of a community (Stukas, Worth, Clary, and Snyder, 2009). While not-forprofits' reliance on volunteer labor is not new, the pressure to recruit and maintain volunteers has continued to intensify. The expanding need for volunteers, coupled with the low exit barriers associated with volunteering, makes the study of volunteer motivation both timely and important. Because most volunteers also hold paying jobs, their volunteer work may fulfill only those motivational needs that are not being met at work. Given the numerous differences between volunteers and paid workers, simply exporting motivation research from the for-profit environment to the not-for-profit world appears illadvised. Because of these and other differences between paid workers and volunteers, researchers have conducted numerous studies specifically examining unpaid worker motivation. For example, not-for-profit managers often offer symbolic rewards to increase volunteer commitment and favorably influence volunteer performance; common examples include thank

you letters, prizes, publicity, appreciation dinners, and attendance at a conference, though the complete list is surprisingly extensive and diverse. In one large study, Cnaan and Cascio (1999) evaluated 17 different symbolic rewards for their impact on volunteer satisfaction, organizational commitment, and tenure; their results suggest that individual responses to rewards are quite varied. Functional theory is one widely studied psychological model that assesses individual motivation. Functional theory proposes that individuals hold certain attitudes or engage in particular behaviors because those attitudes and actions meet specific psychological needs, and that different individuals can hold the ssime attitudes or participate in the same behaviors for very different reasons (Clary and Snyder, 1991; Katz, 1960; Smith, Bruner, and White, 1956). Previous applications of functional theory in volunteer studies include human resource management studies, in which functional theory was used to evaluate attitudes and their consequences within organizations (Dulebohn, Murray, and Sun, 2000; Lievens and Highhouse, 2003). The results of this study offered insights into how to recruit, retain, and satisfy individuals by recognizing their unique motivations. Although applications of functional theory to volunteers appeared as early as 1991, standardized measures of volunteer motivation were generally absent from the literature (Clary et al., 1991). Development of the volunteer functions inventory (VFI) (Clary, et al., 1998) followed, in an attempt to produce a measurement tool with

12

SAM Advanced Management Journal — Autumn 2010

relevance for a wide range of volunteers. Volunteer work was proposed to fulfill six psychological functional needs: • social (spending time with friends and gaining approval of admired individuals) • career (job-related benefits or advancement) • understanding (learning or practicing skills or abilities) • values (expressing altruistic or humanitarian concern) • protective (reducing guilt over feeling more fortunate or escaping personal problems) • enhancement (gaining satisfaction from personal growth or esteem) Items for the VFI were initially derived from the authors' interpretation of these functions, in conjunction with both quantitative and qualitative findings from earlier work on the motivations of volunteers (Clary, Snyder, Ridge, and Copeland, 1998). Extensive psychometric testing by the authors and others demonstrated the VFI's robustness across varied volunteer opportunities and diverse population groups. Functional theory encompasses many of the elements contained within other major theories of volunteer motivation. This broad scope suggests that functional theory may offer enhanced utility in dealing with the multifaceted nature of volunteer motivation. Empirical assessment since the model's development has demonstrated that situations in which a volunteer's motives match the opportunity's rewards generally produce superior outcomes. These findings suggest that volunteer coordinators may improve recruitment and retention by matching volunteers with appropriate rewards (Snyder et al., 2004), however in practice this individualized reward process has frequently proven complex and difficult to administer. The present study attempts to extend our understanding of functional theory and volunteer motivation by assessing the motivations and reward preferences of a large volunteer population. Specifically it examines which rewards are considered most desirable, which motivational factors are most relevant for the surveyed population, and whether the desired rewards can be grouped in common clusters. Finally, it will provide practical suggestions for how managers in not-for-profit organizations can improve volunteer motivation. Method Procedure The researchers contacted the Meals on Wheels


organization; in a series of meetings, the survey content and procedure were refined. Volunteers received an e-mail from the organization inviting them to participate. Information about the survey, including the link, was also posted at the facility. Prior to the initial mailing. Meals on Wheels invested considerable time updating their e-mail list; after the initial mailing, undeliverable e-mails were corrected and additional invitations were sent to the newly updated addresses. In addition, a small number (approximately 1%) of volunteers chose to complete paper-and-pencil versions of the survey. Six hundred thirteen invitations were distributed and 328 surveys were completed (53.5%). Data collection Potential participants received an e-mail from Meals on Wheels inviting them to participate and providing a link to the online survey. The first 71 items of the survey assessed volunteers' attitudes about volunteering, various rewards, gas prices, and the Meals on Wheels organization. These responses were all measured on a 7point Likert scale (details are specified in the measures section below). Branching logic within the survey was used to gather additional information from volunteers whose work with Meals on Wheels is actually the result of their involvement with another organization (e.g., their office takes turns driving a route). This supplemental information includes tenure with the second organization as well as the same job satisfaction and organizational commitment items they previously answered from the perspective of their Meals on Wheels experience. This additional data made it possible to compare the volunteers' commitment to (and satisfaction with) Meals on Wheels with their commitment to (and satisfaction with) the other organization. The six demographic questions on the survey produced attribute data, with the exception of age. The analysis was quantitative in nature and included factor analysis (volunteer functions inventory items), cluster analysis (rewards, volunteers), ANOVA (motivational factors, reward clusters), independent samples t-tests, and chi-square tests. The volunteers were grouped into two distinct clusters based on their reward preferences; t-tests and chi-square analysis were used to identify differences in these two clusters. The 328 volunteers were given a total of four weeks to participate. A reminder was e-mailed

13

to nonrespondents one week after survey deployment, and a second reminder one week after the first. One initial concern was that older volunteers might be unable or unwilling to complete an online survey; however a substantial number of study participants were older, including more than one-third who were over age 60, suggesting that the percentage of older volunteers who completed the inventory was roughly proportional to their representation in the volunteer group as a whole. Measures • Volunteer functions inventory. Respondents' motivations for volunteering their time were assessed using Clary, et al.'s (1998) VFI, a 30item measure. The VFI assesses the importance of six functions in each volunteer's decision to participate. Participants indicated on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all important to 7 = extremely important) how important they found each statement. The social function (spending time with friends and gaining approval of admired individuals) is assessed with items such as "people I'm close to want me to volunteer." The career function (job-related benefits or advancement) includes items such as "I can make new contacts that might help my business or career." The third function, understanding, deals with learning or practicing skills or abilities, and offers items such as "volunteering lets me learn things through direct, hands-on experience." Protective, the fourth function, relates to assuaging personal feelings of guilt over being more fortunate, or escaping personal problems; items include statements such as "volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles." The fifth function, values, involves expressions of altruistic or humanitarian concern, exemplified by statements such as, "I feel it is important to help others." The final function, titled enhancement, deals with satisfaction gained from personal growth or esteem, and includes items such as, "volunteering makes me feel better about myself." Potential rewards for volunteers were divided into two categories, tangible and intangible rewards. The former is deñned as any reward that an organization intentionally provides, including goods, services, or experiences. Participants were asked to consider a wide variety of potential tangible rewards and to rate each item on a 7-point scale (1 = not at all valuable/meaningful to 7 = extremely valuable/ meaningful), assessing each item whether they

14

had ever actually received it or not. The items in the list were gathered from existing literature and discussions with the study organization and exhibited great variety. Examples included a letter of appreciation from the organization, a free movie ticket, a t-shirt, and a wall plaque. The complete list is in Table 1. Intangible rewards include any positive outcome inherent in the work, including feelings of satisfaction, increases in self-esteem, and similar outcomes. Given the financial limitations faced by most not-for-profit organizations, tangible rewards may be sparse, making intangible rewards an important potential motivator. Respondents were asked to rate a variety of intangible rewards using a 7-point scale ( 1 = not at all valuable/meaningful to 7 = extremely valuable/meaningful). Items on this list included being able to use your skills to help others, helping to make your community a better place, and feelings of satisfaction. These items are also in Table 1. • Extraneous influences. Two items dealt with costs incurred in volunteering. Because the price of gasoline was at an all-time high during the survey period, respondents were asked what impact a $1.00 increase or decrease in the price of fuel would have on their participation with Meals on Wheels. Responses were provided on a 7-point scale ( 1 = definitely decrease participation to 7 = definitely increase participation). • Organizational commitment. The nine-item version of the organizational commitment questionnaire (Mowday, Steers, and Porter, 1979) was used to assess participants' perceptions of, and loyalty to, the Meals on Wheels organization. These statements included, "I find that my values and the organization's values are very similar," and "I really care about the fate of this organization," with items assessed on a 7-point scale (1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree). An additional item asked whether a volunteer's involvement with Meals on Wheels was direct, or was mediated by another organization in which the participant was a member, while two final questions measured the duration and continuity of the volunteer's work. • General satisfaction. Two items assessed general satisfaction, one with the specific job being carried out and the other with the organization as a whole. The 7-point response scale was anchored at not at all satisfied and very satisfied. • Demographic information. Volunteers provided demographic information, including age.


Table L Potential Rewards Reward Helping make the community a better place Feeling of satisfaction Beitig able to use skills to help others Developing relationship with people served Thank you note from Meals on Wheels Opportunity to meet people served/helped Free cookie Prize (e.g., movie tickets or gift card) Snack tables at volunteer location Appreciation luncheon Volunteer of the year award Selected to train new volunteers Annual dinner Volunteer of the month award Thank you ñ-om people served/helped Certificate of appreciation Selected to serve on committee for Meals on Wheels Selected to serve on board of directors Party with other volunteers and staff Free t-shirt form organization or event Free basic medical services (flu shot, health screening) Pin commemorating service Newsletter publicity "Promotion" to leadership position among volunteers Wall plaque commemorating service Asked to speak at annual dinner Meet celebrities Media publicity

gender, paid work status, educational background, and student status. The study examined several distinct questions. First, how do volunteers perceive the various rewards? Are they perceived as distinctive, or do volunteers perceive them as relatively homogenous? Second, if the rewards are perceived as unique, do volunteers value them differently, preferring some over others? Third, what are the differences between tangible and intangible rewards, and how do volunteers value intangible versus tangible rewards? Finally, do the various rewards possess any common traits? In the minds of volunteers can the rewards be grouped in clusters, or are they largely distinct?

Results Participants The mean age of the participating volunteers (A^ = 328; 64.1% female, 35.9% male) was 51.4


Mean 6.3

3.3 3.3 3.3 3.2 3.2 3.2 3.0 3.0

Std. Dev. 1.10 1.34 1.45 1.63 2.00 2.07 2.16 2.15 2.10 1.92 2.13 2.01 1.94 2.06 2.22 2.05 2.08 2.16 1.89 2.08

2.9 2.8 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.4 2.3 2.1

2.14 1.98 1.82 1.93 1.88 1.86 1.79 1.69

5.9 5.8 5.4 4.2

4.0 3.8 3.6 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3

n

Tangible?

292 293 293 292 292 291 292 292 291 291

n n

291 291 289 291 292 291 291 291 290 292 291 292 289 289 291 291 289 290

n

n y y y y y y y y y

y y y y y y

y y y y y y y y y

years (ages ranged from 13 to 86). The majority of respondents (54.9%) had been volunteering for two years or less, although a substantial group (13.4%) had served more than eight years. Respondents were generally well-educated, with 63% reporting a college degree, and employed (53% full-time, 15% part-time). Of currently "not employed" respondents, 70% were retired; only 11 % of the sample group reported being college students. Involvement with Meals on Wheels was most commonly direct (75%) while the remainder of the respondents said they were volunteering in connection with another organization, such as a job or service fraternity. Analysis Because the calculated score for each VFI factor is an average of five items, unanswered items distort the final value. To avoid this distortion, 34 subjects with one or more unanswered VFI

15

Table 2. Function Reliabilities Function Values Understanding Enhancement Social Protective Career

Mean 6.23 4.47 3.84 3.42 3.05 1.88

Std. Dev. 0.87 1.56 1.56 1.45 1.40 1.28

reliability (a) 0.853 0.874 0.847 0.811 0.816 0.881

questions were removed from the data set prior to analysis, leaving a remaining sample size of 294. Reliabilities for each of the functions were calculated; these values ranged from a = .811 to a = .881 (Table 2). Although the VFI instrument has been psychometrically tested in numerous situations, factor analysis was conducted with this sample as well. A principle components analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation produced the expected six-factor solution. To determine whether the subjects differentiate between the various motivators, an analysis of variance was conducted. The five items in each motivator were averaged to produce a career score, a social score, and so forth for each respondent; ANOVA was used to determine if there was a significant difference in the means. A Tukey post hoc analysis showed that the difference between each pair of VFI factors was significant at the .01 level, except for the protective/social pair, which was significant at the .05 level. Thus, the six factors are perceived as distinct by the respondents. The study's flrst question dealt with whether volunteers found the different rewards equally valuable. Volunteers rated the various rewards very differently, with average scores ranging from below the scale midpoint to near the top anchor. Among the tangible rewards, monetary value did not appear to be a primary concern, since the opportunity to meet the people being served, a thank you note, and a free cookie outscored other incentives including a free meal and movie tickets. Top-ranked intangible rewards were generally focused on feelings of satisfaction, the ability to improve the community, or the application of personal skills. Notably, all of the intangible rewards garnered higher ratings than any of the tangible rewards, supporting the idea that volunteer motivation can be achieved without extensive use of tangible rewards. A factor analysis was conducted to determine

whether the rewards exhibit any unifying themes. For factor analysis, a sample size of 10 cases per variable is recommended (Norusis, 1997). For the present analysis, the objective was to reduce 28 distinct rewards into a set of meaningful factors. Therefore, the sample size of 294 exceeds the recommended minimum of 280. The analysis produced six factors with eigenvalues greater than one. Five of the factors consisted of items with interpretable connections, while the sixth was less homogenous, and several items did not load cleanly. An oblique rotation produced better loadings, however, the meaning of the factors became less apparent and intuitive. Because the scree plot exhibited an elbow after the fourth component, a four-factor solution was also evaluated; a theoretical explanation for the resulting factors was elusive, so a cluster analysis was undertaken to more fully explore the research question. A hierarchical cluster analysis using Ward's (1963) method was designed to identify possible relationships among the factors being considered. Solutions ranging from two to six clusters were examined, with a four-cluster solution appearing to best describe the data. Adding a flfth or sixth cluster to the model produced clusters consisting of one reward apiece. The clusters identified are listed in Table 3. Using ANOVA, it was determined that "Expressions of Thanks" and "Organization-Specific Rewards" have no significant difference in value to volunteers, but all other components were significantly different (p = .01). Again, the group of intangible rewards was rated most highly. A second cluster analysis was run to assess the heterogeneity of the volunteer population, specifically whether there were distinct groups within the volunteer group. The analysis identified two distinct clusters that differed in their ratings of the speciflc motivational factors and in the value they placed on the four reward clusters.

16


Tahle 3. Cluster Analysis of Rewards Cluster Intangibles (5.8)

Items Feeling of satisfaction Using skills to help others Making community a better place Developing relationships with people served

Thanks (3.9)

Thank you from NPO Thank you from people being served Meeting people being served

Org Specific Tangibles (3.7)

Free cookie Snack table Prize (prepaid fuel card)

Mise Tangibles (2.9)

Certificate of appreciation Service pin Party with volunteers & staff Board of directors appointment Training new volunteers Newsletter publicity Appreciation lunch Appreciation dimier Volunteer of the month Volunteer of the year Promotion to leadership of volunteers Speaking at recognition dinner Free basic medical services Meet celebrities Media publicity Free t-shirt Wall plaque

In general terms, members of cluster one rated everything (motivating value of VFI factors as well as both tangible and intangible rewards) more highly than members of cluster two; members of this group actually rated all reward clusters and all VFI factors except "career" at or above the mean. In contrast, the only categories rated above the mean by cluster two members were the "values" VFI cluster and the "intangibles" reward cluster. This suggests that the members of cluster two were largely motivated by the sheer act of helping others and by the feelings they experience when helping, as opposed to any tangible rewards. It also indicates that individuals in cluster two may be potentially


demotivated by external rewards, viewing these as a possible waste of organizational resources. The average member of cluster two is significantly older, significantly less satisfied with the volunteer task, and significantly less satisfied with the Meals on Wheels organization in general. Specific results of this analysis are detailed in Table 4, and the implications are discussed in the following section. A final analysis was undertaken to assess differences between direct (individual) volunteers and indirect (those who volunteer as part of another organization, club, workplace, etc.). Indirect volunteers were significantly more committed (p