Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Committed to Whom? Unraveling How Relational Job Design Influences Volunteers’ Turnover Intentions and Time Spent Volunteering

Abstract

This study presents a framework for understanding the processes through which volunteers’ perception of relational job design influences their turnover intentions and time spent volunteering. Data sourced from an international aid and development agency in the United Kingdom (n = 534 volunteers) show that volunteers who perceive that their roles are relationally designed (1) report lower intentions to leave their voluntary organization due to their commitment to the voluntary organization; and (2) dedicate more time to volunteering because they are more committed to the beneficiaries of their work. These findings make a theoretical contribution by uncovering two mechanisms that explain how the positive consequences of relational job design unfold.

Résumé

Cette étude présente un cadre decompréhension desprocessus par lesquels la perceptiondes bénévoles sur la conception relationnelle de leur travail influe surleurs intentions de quitter leur organisation et le temps qu’ilspassent dans leurs activités bénévoles. Des données provenant d’une organisation internationale d’aide et de développement du Royaume Uni (n = 534 bénévoles) montrent que les bénévoles qui estiment que leurs rôles sont conçus de manière relationnelle (1) font part d’intentions plus faibles de quitter leur organisation bénévole en raison de leur engagement envers celle-ci, et (2) consacrent plus de temps au bénévolat car ils sont plus dévoués ceux qui bénéficient de leur travail. Ces résultats apportent une contribution théorique en découvrant deux mécanismes qui expliquent l’évolutiont des conséquences positives de la conception relationnelle des tâches.

Zusammenfassung

Diese Studie präsentiert ein Untersuchungsmodellzum Verständnis der Prozesse, durch die die Wahrnehmung einer beziehungsorientierten Arbeitsgestaltung durch Freiwillige Einfluss auf deren Absicht, die Freiwilligentätigkeit zu beenden, und den zeitlichen Umfang ihrer freiwilligen Tätigkeiten nimmt. Daten einer internationalen Hilfs- und Entwicklungs organisation in Großbritannien (n = 534 Freiwillige) zeigen, dass Freiwillige, die ihre Rollen als beziehungsorientiert wahrnehmen (1) aufgrund ihres Commitments gegenüber der ehrenamtlichen Organisation weniger dazu geneigt sind, ihre Freiwilligentätigkeit zu beenden, und (2) aufgrund ihres Commitments gegenüber den Leistungsempfängernmehr Zeit für freiwillige Tätigkeiten aufbringen. Diese Ergebnisse leisten einen theoretischen Beitrag zur Analyse von zwei Wirkungsmechanismen, die erklären, wie sich die positiven Folgen einer beziehungsorientierten Arbeitsgestaltung entfalten.

Resumen

El presente estudio presenta un marco para comprender los procesos mediante los cuales la percepción del diseño del trabajo relacional por parte de los voluntarios influye en sus intenciones de rotación y en el tiempo dedicado al voluntariado. Los datos tomados de una agencia internacional de ayuda y desarrollo en el Reino Unido (n = 534 voluntarios) muestran que los voluntarios que perciben que sus funciones están diseñadas relacionalmente (1) notifican menos intenciones de abandonar su organización voluntaria debido a su compromiso con la organización voluntaria; y (2) dedican más tiempo al voluntariado porque están más comprometidos con los beneficiarios de su trabajo. Estos hallazgos representan una contribución teórica descubriendo dos mecanismos que explican cómo se desarrollan las consecuencias positivas del diseño del trabajo relacional.

摘要

志愿者对关系工作设计(relational job design)的认知影响他们的离职意向以及从事志愿工作的时间。本研究提出了框架,以理解这一过程。来自英国的国际援助与发展机构(数量 = 534名志愿者)的数据显示,如果志愿者发现自己的角色是以关系为基础进行设计的,(1)他们离开自己的志愿组织的意向较低,因为他们对志愿组织的忠诚度较高;(2)他们会投入更多时间从事志愿工作,因为他们对自己工作的受益人更加忠诚。这些研究结果通过揭示能够用以解释关系工作设计产生正面效果的两个机制,从而做出了一定的理论贡献。

要約

本研究では、ボランティアの認識と関連を持つ業務計画がボランティアの離脱の意向とボランティアに費やす時間に影響を与えるプロセスの構造を提示する。イギリスの国際援助と開発庁が提供するデータ (n = 534 のボランティア)では、自主的な組織への関与に対してボランティア団体が離脱する意向が少ないという報告、(2)業務に対する受益者に委任するために多くの時間を割いて貢献するという役割を持つボランティアを表している。これらの調査結果より、関連のある業務の設計に肯定的な結果の展開を説明する2つのメカニズムを明らかにして理論的に貢献する。

ملخص

تقدم هذه الدراسة إطارا˝ لفهم الإجراءات التي من خلالها يدرك المتطوعين علاقة تأثيرتصميم الوظائف على نوايا عائداتهم والوقت الذي يقضوه في العمل التطوعي. تظهر بيانات من مصادر من المساعدات الدولية ووكالة التنمية في المملكة المتحدة (ن = 534متطوع) أن المتطوعين الذين يرون أن دورهم مصمم لتحفيزهم (1) يذكرون النوايا الأقل لترك منظمتهم التطوعية بسبب إلتزامهم للمنظمة التطوعية؛ و (2) تكريس المزيد من الوقت للعمل التطوعي لأنهم أكثر إلتزاما˝ للمستفيدين من عملهم. هذه النتائج تقدم مساهمة نظرية عن طريق كشف آليتين يشرحان كيفية العواقب الإيجابية لتصميم الوظائف المحفزة تتكشف.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Allen, N. J., & Meyer, J. P. (1990). The measurement and antecedents of affective, continuance, and normative commitment to the organization. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 63(1), 1–18.

  2. Arbuckle, J. L. (2006). AMOS (Version 7.0) [computer software]. Chicago, IL: SPSS.

  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.

  4. Becker, T. E. (1992). Foci and bases of commitment: Are they distinctions worth making? Academy of Management Journal, 35(1), 232–244.

  5. Becker, T. E., Billings, R. S., Eveleth, D. M., & Gilbert, N. L. (1996). Foci and bases of employee commitment: Implications for job performance. Academy of Management Journal, 39(2), 464–482.

  6. Bem, D. J. (1972). Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 1–62). New York, NY: Academic Press.

  7. Bennett, R., & Barkensjo, A. (2005). Internal marketing, negative experiences, and volunteers’ commitment to providing high-quality services in a UK helping and caring charitable organization. Voluntas: International Journal of Volunteer and Nonprofit Organizations, 16(3), 251–274.

  8. Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107(2), 238–246.

  9. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588–606.

  10. Boroff, K. E., & Lewin, D. (1997). Loyalty, voice, and intent to exit a union firm: A conceptual and empirical analysis. Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 51(1), 50–63.

  11. Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

  12. Carley, K. (1992). Organizational learning and personnel turnover. Organization Science, 3(1), 20–46.

  13. Cheng, B.-S., Jiang, D.-Y., & Riley, J. H. (2003). Organizational commitment, supervisory commitment, and employee outcomes in the Chinese context: Proximal hypothesis or global hypothesis? Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24(3), 313–334.

  14. Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. A. (1996). Volunteers’ motivations: Findings from a national survey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25(4), 485–505.

  15. Cnaan, R. A., & Cascio, T. A. (1999). Performance and commitment: Issues in management of volunteers in human service organizations. Journal of Social Service Research, 24(3–4), 1–37.

  16. Cordery, J. L., & Parker, S. K. (2008). Work organization. In P. Boxall, J. Purcell, & P. Wright (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of human resource management (pp. 187–210). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

  17. Craig-Lees, M., Harris, J., & Lau, W. (2008). The role of dispositional, organizational and situational variables in volunteering. Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 19(2), 1–24.

  18. Cuskelly, G., & Boag, A. (2001). Organisational commitment as a predictor of committee member turnover among volunteer sport administrators: Results of a time-lagged study. Sport Management Review, 4(1), 65–86.

  19. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Publishing Co.

  20. Ellemers, N., de Gilder, D., & van den Heuvel, H. (1998). Career-oriented versus team-oriented commitment and behavior at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(5), 717–730.

  21. Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. (2003). It’s different to give than to receive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions to favor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(6), 1034–1045.

  22. Gordon, M. E., & Ladd, R. T. (1990). Dual allegiance: Renewal, reconsideration, and recantation. Personnel Psychology, 43(1), 37–69.

  23. Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.

  24. Grant, A. M. (2008). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational mechanisms, and boundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(1), 108–124.

  25. Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management Journal, 55(2), 458–476.

  26. Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53–67.

  27. Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918.

  28. Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16(2), 250–279.

  29. Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2009). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.

  30. Hayes, A. F. (2013). An introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  31. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modelling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Bulletin, 3(4), 424–453.

  32. Hustinx, L. (2010). I quit, therefore I am? Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39(2), 236–255.

  33. Hustinx, L., Handy, F., Cnaan, R. A., Brudney, J. L., Pessi, A. B., & Yamauchi, N. (2010). Social and cultural origins of motivations to volunteer: A comparison of university students in six countries. International Sociology, 25(3), 349–382.

  34. Jecker, J., & Landy, D. (1969). Liking a person as a function of doing him a favour. Human Relations, 22(4), 371–378.

  35. Lindenmeier, J. (2008). Promoting volunteerism: Effects of self-efficacy, advertisement-induced emotional arousal, perceived costs of volunteering, and message framing. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 19(1), 43–65.

  36. Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89.

  37. Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551.

  38. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Van Dick, R. (2006). Social identities and commitments at work: Toward an integrative model. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(5), 665–683.

  39. Meyer, J. P., Becker, T. E., & Vandenberghe, C. (2004). Employee commitment and motivation: A conceptual analysis and integrative model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(6), 991–1007.

  40. Miller, L. E., Powell, G. N., & Seltzer, J. (1990). Determinants of turnover among volunteers. Human Relations, 43(9), 901–917.

  41. Millette, V., & Gagne, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32(1), 11–22.

  42. Nelson, H. W., Pratt, C. C., Carpenter, C. E., & Walter, K. L. (1995). Factors affecting volunteer long-term care ombudsman organizational commitment and burnout. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 24(3), 213–233.

  43. Okun, M. A., & Schultz, A. (2003). Age and motives for volunteering: Testing hypotheses derived from socioemotional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 18(2), 231–239.

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

  45. Osborne, J. W. (2002). Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 8(6). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=8andn=6.

  46. Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447–467.

  47. Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, 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.

  48. Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Contemporary approaches to assessing mediation in communication research. In A. F. Hayes, M. D. Slater, & L. B. Snyder (Eds.), The Sage sourcebook of advanced data analysis methods for communication research (pp. 13–54). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

  49. Preston, J. B., & Brown, W. A. (2004). Commitment and performance of nonprofit board members. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 15(2), 221–238.

  50. Reddy, S. K. (1992). Effects of ignoring correlated measurement error in structural equation models. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52(3), 549–570.

  51. Reichers, A. E. (1985). A review and reconceptualization of organizational commitment. Academy of Management Review, 10(3), 465–476.

  52. Reichers, A. E. (1986). Conflict and organizational commitments. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 508–514.

  53. Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013a). The role of employee engagement in the relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2608–2627.

  54. Shantz, A., Saksida, T., & Alfes, K. (2013b). Dedicating time to volunteering: Values, engagement, and commitment to beneficiaries. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 63(4), 671–697.

  55. Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.

  56. Siders, M. A., George, G., & Dharwadkar, R. (2001). The relationship of internal and external commitment foci to objective job performance measures. Academy of Management Journal, 44(3), 570–579.

  57. Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. (2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2(1), 1–36.

  58. Sobel, M. E. (1982). Asymptotic confidence intervals for indirect effects in structural equation models. In S. Leinhardt (Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 290–312). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.

  59. Studer, S., & von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A literature review on volunteer coordination. Voluntas: International Journal of Volunteer and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 403–440.

  60. Valeau, P., Mignonac, K., Vandenberghe, C., & Gatignon Turnau, A. L. (2013). A study of the relationships between volunteers’ commitments to organizations and beneficiaries and turnover intentions. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 45(2), 85–95.

  61. Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York, NY: Wiley.

  62. Wanous, J. P. (1978). Realistic job previews: Can a procedure to reduce turnover also influence the relationship between abilities and performance? Personnel Psychology, 31(2), 249–258.

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

  64. Wilson, J. (2012). Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41(2), 176–212.

  65. Wuthnow, R. (1995). Learning to care: Elementary kindness in an age of indifference. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

  66. Yates, M., & Youniss, J. (1996). A developmental perspective on community service in adolescence. Social Development, 5, 85–111.

  67. Yogev, A., & Ronen, R. (1982). Cross-age tutoring: Effects on tutors’ attributes. Journal of Educational Research, 75(5), 261–268.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Kerstin Alfes.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Alfes, K., Shantz, A. & Saksida, T. Committed to Whom? Unraveling How Relational Job Design Influences Volunteers’ Turnover Intentions and Time Spent Volunteering. Voluntas 26, 2479–2499 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-014-9526-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Relational job design
  • Foci of commitment
  • Turnover intentions
  • Volunteer time