Mobile Edition
Print
Get the Mag
Weekly UpdatesAttracting and retaining volunteers are two great challenges facing agencies that are dependent on individuals to give their time and talents without financial remuneration. Agency recruiting and retention success depends in part on understanding the various reasons why individuals volunteer. Three categories of explanatory variables exist (Hartenian, 2004): individual characteristics, agency efforts to attract and retain volunteers, and cultural norms. All three are necessary to bring a volunteer and agency together for a lasting relationship. The list of individual characteristics is extensive. For example, an individual's decision to volunteer is related to his or her motives (e.g., Harrison, 1995), disposition (Penner and Finkelstein, 1998), needs (e.g., Culp, 1997), personality (e.g., Bakker et al., 2006), demographic characteristics (e.g., age, education, gender) (see O'Driscoll et al., 1992; Unger, 1991), and social and role identity (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Piliavin and Callero, 1991; Tajfel and Turner, 1985). Altruistic and egoistic orientations have been examined to better understand the reasons why individuals volunteer. This study will examine the factor structure of the egoistic orientation in a manner that parallels the study of altruism.
Studies that have focused squarely on individuals' altruistic orientations note that altruistic individuals are concerned about others' welfare and engage in behaviors designed to help others, often at great personal expense. The value to the agency is that the altruistic volunteer is not financially rewarded, and this volunteer expects to give more than receive. When altruism is the basis for one's volunteering, the agency may find that this individual will become a long-term volunteer (Piferi et al., 2006). Clearly, the agency would want to attract those with altruistic motivations (Batson et al., 2002).
On the other hand, various egoism reasons for volunteering have been offered, including: to improve one's own welfare (Martin, 1994), to relieve the discomfort one might feel when noticing someone in distress (Piliavin et al., 1981), to gain job experience, to meet new people with similar interests (Klein et al., 1994), to demonstrate skills and increase the opportunity to be hired into a paid organization position (Murnighan et al., 1993), to avoid punishment for not helping (Cialdini et al., 1987), to receive praise (Batson et al., 1988), and to satisfy his or her own internal need to feel good about himself/herself (Batson and Flory, 1990; Batson and Gray, 1981; Darley and Batson, 1973). Egoistic reasons for volunteering have been viewed negatively. After all, how could people be called "volunteers," when they come to an agency with personal agendas? People who volunteer for egoistic reasons are suspected of being less persistent in volunteering and believed to be more likely to stop volunteering when their personal needs have been met (e.g., Clary and Orenstein, 1991; Farmer and Fedor, 1999).
From a practical perspective, can an agency afford to ignore those who have egoistic motivations for volunteering? The answer is "no" for many reasons (e.g., Anderson and Clary, 1987; Batson et al., 2002; Brudney, 1990; Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Turner, 1992). First, personal reasons are not necessarily selfish reasons (see Locke's arguments for the necessity of self-interest among leaders (Avolio and Locke, 2002)). Egoistic orientations also have been linked to positive outcomes for the organization (Omoto and Snyder, 1995). Second, the number of people who volunteer for strictly altruistic reasons is likely to be small when compared to those who have egoistic reasons (Hu and Liu, 2003). Third, altruism and egoism motivations can reside in the same individual. When a person volunteers, he or she simultaneously fulfills an internal need to feel caring and selfless (satisfying an egoistic need) and fulfills an external need to help others (satisfying an altruistic need) (see Smith et al., 1981; Houle et al., 2005; Mowen and Sujan, 2005; Huseman et al., 1987). This functional approach to understanding volunteerism recognizes that several motives can be served by the same volunteer behavior (Houle et al., 2005; Omoto and Snyder; 1995). The good news is that agencies should be able to satisfy the volunteer's egoistic needs without diminishing the importance of the volunteer's contribution to the agency and the recipients of the agency's services.
Aside from practical observations about the importance of egoism in volunteering, theoretical issues have been examined as well, including social role theory and psychological contract theory. Social role theory and role identity theory explain how the larger social group to which an individual belongs guides behaviors and the choice of activities in which to engage so that they are congruent with role expectations (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Scott, 1998). One adjunct to role theory, activity theory, predicts individuals will volunteer to stay busy (e.g., Sainer and Zander, 1971). According to a second adjunct, ephemeral role theory, individuals develop additional roles to satisfy social-psychological needs that are not met through dominant roles (e.g., work, family) (Zurcher, 1978). Note that in these examples, the individual's interests or needs are primary. Agency or others' needs are not considered explicitly.
According to psychological contract theory, agency-employee and agency-volunteer relationships carry a set of obligations for individuals and the agency (see Liao-Troth, 2001). Agency-employee relationships tend to be explicitly set out. Volunteer relationships usually are not (Farmer and Fedor, 2001), yet both individuals and agencies recognize their obligations to each other (e.g., Robinson et al., 1994). Short-term relationships are economic, reciprocal, transactional, and based on self-interest (Farmer and Fedor, 1999; Rousseau and Tijoriwala, 1999). These relationships are egoism-based with the volunteer seeking specific personally-relevant outcomes. On the other hand, long-term relationships are value-based (Kanter, 1968; Rousseau and Parks, 1993) and relational (Farmer and Fedor, 1999). Even in the long-term scenario, individuals expect that outcomes which are not necessarily defined in the present will be received at a future point in time. What is not known is whether the expectation for receipt of these undefined outcomes is stronger or more important than the expectation that the volunteer will be doing something of value for the agency or others.
In summary, practical and theoretical justification is strong for considering that volunteers can simultaneously have egoistic as well as altruistic orientations. It is beyond the scope of this article to discuss whether altruism or egoism is more important. It may be sufficient to recognize that when individuals volunteer, they will have complex reasons for doing so.
Given egoism's important role in volunteering, and that egoism issues are diverse, we believe the egoism construct should be examined in a multidimensional manner, similar to the literature's treatment of altruism. Studies have validated a multidimensional view of altruism that predicts volunteer decisions more accurately than does a one-dimension altruism construct. Our study focuses on identifying whether a multidimensional view of egoism predicts volunteer behavior more accurately than does a one-dimension egoism construct. We chose our dependent variable, commitment, for a couple of reasons. First, individuals anticipate what the volunteer experience will be with an agency, and they ultimately evaluate that experience. The evaluation process and the implicit nature of volunteer obligations have implications for pre-entry commitment (see Meyer et al., 1991). Second, individuals are likely to spend more time volunteering and to continue volunteering if they feel committed to the organization (Hellman and House, 2006; Meyer et al., 1991).
Commitment
In this study, we seek to build on our understanding of the role of commitment in volunteering. Organizational initiatives often are directed at influencing a volunteer's commitment (and satisfaction) to keep them around (Dailey, 1986). If information about a volunteer's early commitment to an agency could be obtained, then agencies might increase the likelihood that they could attract volunteers who will remain with the agency in the long run. Volunteer attitudes toward the agency can be positively affected if the agency can influence individuals' perceptions of the fit between their needs and the agency's needs (Ravlin and Ritchie, 2006).
Commitment is an attitude that reflects identification with an organization and acceptance of its goals (Allen and Meyer, 1990; Steers et al., 1982). An individual with high commitment intends to be involved in, and remain with, the organization; when one's commitment decreases, he or she is more likely to leave the organization (Dunham et al., 1994).
Researchers have noted that commitment can develop early (e.g., Meyer et al., 1991) and may be evoked from the very act of volunteering (Ashforth and Mael, 1989; Tang et al., 1987). Yet commitment cannot be used as a criterion to select individuals from a potential volunteer pool because commitment to an agency is measured after a person has begun to volunteer. Commitment is believed to be developed once a volunteer is exposed to, or involved in, agency programs, policies and activities (e.g., taking on leadership roles enhances commitment) (Stephens et al., 2004). What we need is an individual characteristic that can be measured before a person volunteers--one that predicts commitment. Additional theory on commitment is presented with development of the hypotheses in subsequent sections.
In order to present theoretical hypotheses, we must first conduct a factor analysis to determine if a multidimensional representation of egoism is relevant. This is accomplished in Step One, which is discussed next. Step Two contains the predicted relationships between egoism and commitment.
FEED