a psychological contract perspective

22
ARTICLES Volunteer Participation and Withdrawal A Psychological Contract Perspective on the Role of Expectations and Organizational Support Steven M. Farmer, Donald B. Fedor Volunteer behavior is often difficult to manage or control since control systems of the sort that direct behavior in most for-profit organizations are usually not available. This study introduces a tool—the psychological contract—that can give voluntary- agency administrators a powerful way to help them understand and manage volunteers’ contributions to their organizations. The study finds that elements of this approach, especially the level of support the volunteer believes he or she is receiving from the organization, are especially important tools that can both increase participation in various events and reduce withdrawal or turnover intentions. D ESPITE the increase in the practical importance of volunteer- ing, rigorous empirical research exploring management of volunteers working in nonprofit organizations has been sur- prisingly sparse (Pearce, 1993). Part of the reason may be that we lack coherent, well-established frameworks for understanding what drives volunteer behavior in nonprofits, notably level of participa- tion or withdrawal from the organization. In this article, we intro- duce a psychological-contract approach (Rousseau, 1989) and apply it to understanding volunteer behavior in nonprofit organizations. NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 9, no. 4, Summer 1999 © Jossey-Bass Publishers 349 Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1997 annual meeting of the Academy of Management in Boston. We would like to thank John Maslyn, Sanjay Menon, and four anonymous reviewers for their insightful com- ments on earlier versions of this article. Please send all correspondence to Steven M. Farmer, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY 13699-5790.

Upload: mercado-inka

Post on 12-Nov-2014

13 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

managing volunteers

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: A Psychological Contract Perspective

ARTICLES

Volunteer Participation and Withdrawal

A Psychological Contract Perspectiveon the Role of Expectations and

Organizational Support

Steven M. Farmer, Donald B. FedorVolunteer behavior is often difficult to manage or control sincecontrol systems of the sort that direct behavior in most for-profitorganizations are usually not available. This study introducesa tool—the psychological contract—that can give voluntary-agency administrators a powerful way to help them understandand manage volunteers’ contributions to their organizations.The study finds that elements of this approach, especially thelevel of support the volunteer believes he or she is receiving fromthe organization, are especially important tools that can bothincrease participation in various events and reduce withdrawalor turnover intentions.

DESPITE the increase in the practical importance of volunteer-ing, rigorous empirical research exploring management ofvolunteers working in nonprofit organizations has been sur-

prisingly sparse (Pearce, 1993). Part of the reason may be that welack coherent, well-established frameworks for understanding whatdrives volunteer behavior in nonprofits, notably level of participa-tion or withdrawal from the organization. In this article, we intro-duce a psychological-contract approach (Rousseau, 1989) and applyit to understanding volunteer behavior in nonprofit organizations.

NONPROFIT MANAGEMENT & LEADERSHIP, vol. 9, no. 4, Summer 1999 © Jossey-Bass Publishers 349

Note: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 1997 annual meetingof the Academy of Management in Boston. We would like to thank JohnMaslyn, Sanjay Menon, and four anonymous reviewers for their insightful com-ments on earlier versions of this article. Please send all correspondence toSteven M. Farmer, School of Business, Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY13699-5790.

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 349

Page 2: A Psychological Contract Perspective

This perspective has most often been identified with understandingemployee behaviors in for-profit organizations, but we believe itsessential elements provide key insights to understanding volunteerbehavior as well.

This discussion is highlighted with a study of how a contractapproach may be pertinent to two particular aspects of volunteerorganizational behavior that to date have received little empiricalattention: the level of voluntary participation in the organization’sactivities, and psychological withdrawal from it. These two outcomesreflect opposing tendencies of volunteers to be either highly engagedin the work or to withdraw from it and spend less time and energyon behalf of the organization. We chose to emphasize these particu-lar outcomes for two basic reasons. First, although much researchhas focused on what leads people to volunteer, far less focuses onwhat they do once they are volunteers. Second, volunteer behavioris by its nature difficult to mandate; volunteers may choose to limittheir activities, being only occasional contributors, or choose tomake themselves “more useful and informed” (Pearce, 1993, p. 48).This is a major factor contributing to the “reliability” problem thatis one of the most distinguishing (and problematic) characteristicsof volunteer management (Pearce, 1993). Research addressing whatdetermines the level of participation would begin to fill a critical gapin our knowledge of volunteer behavior.

The Psychological ContractA psychological contract refers to “an individual’s beliefs regardingthe terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreementbetween that person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989). As such,the psychological contract is a particular type of promissory contract(Rousseau and Parks, 1993). Because psychological contracts involvebeliefs, they exist “in the eye of the beholder.” What is importantis that the individual believes an agreement exists (even if implicit),that some sort of promise (even if implicit) has been made, and thatconsiderations have been offered in exchange. Thus, in the mind ofthe contract holder, both parties are bound to a set of reciprocalobligations. Individuals hold beliefs about what they are obligatedto provide, what the other party is obligated to provide, and howwell the other party fulfills its obligation.

Psychological contract theory is not explicitly limited to employ-ment situations, but much of this discussion is framed aroundemployment relationships because this perspective has been mostfully developed in that domain. The promises that are a major com-ponent of contracts may be explicitly communicated (for example,communicated directly by the organization). They may also beimplicit, based on past actions, as when past provision of training bythe organization creates a perception that the organization is obligedto provide training in the future. Further, promises may be formed

350 FA R M E R, FE D O R

Becausepsychological

contracts involvebeliefs, they exist“in the eye of the

beholder”

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 350

Page 3: A Psychological Contract Perspective

based on expectations in the early employment period (Rousseau,1990). For employees, important elements of the psychological con-tract may include overtime, loyalty, extra-role behaviors, minimumstay, willingness to accept transfers, and so on. Employer obligationsmay include advancement, high pay, training, job security, and devel-opment (Rousseau, 1990).

Because social norms of reciprocity tend to be pervasive,employees tend to expect, look for, and create the psychological con-tract as a shorthand way of representing the employment relation-ship (Shore and Tetrick, 1994). Such contracts have several possiblefunctions: to reduce individual uncertainty by establishing agreed-upon conditions of employment; to direct employee behavior with-out necessarily requiring managerial surveillance since employeesare monitoring their own behavior; and to give employees the feel-ing that they are able to influence their destiny.

There is also variation in the type of contract created. Contractsbetween employee and employer may fall into a range or continuum:from transactional ones based on specific, close-ended, easily defin-able and primarily economic transactions on the one hand to rela-tional contracts that are more developmental, open-ended, pervasive,socioemotional, and value-laden in nature, and embedded in abroader network of social concerns such as interpersonal relation-ships, reputation, and justice on the other (Rousseau and Parks,1993). Transactional contracts tend to be static and based on self-interest, spelling out precise responsibilities; relational contracts areusually dynamic and based on collective interest (Parks and Kidder,1994).

Factors in Developing a Psychological ContractPsychological contracts develop from the interaction of the individ-ual with his or her organizational environment (Shore and Tetrick,1994). Thus, contracts tend to be unique to each individual sincethey are based in part on their particular goals, needs, and person-ality. However, the particular goals of the organization (for instance,flexibility and responsiveness to the environment versus buildingstrong customer relations) may tend to encourage developing onetype of contract over another through the sort of message sent (“wevalue performance” versus “we value loyalty”) and the kind ofinducement offered to employees (market-leading wages versus jobsecurity). These messages and rewards are often conveyed throughformal or implied contracts, which lend additional continuity to psy-chological contracts insofar as different employees are exposed tosimilar messages.

Psychological Contracts: Promises Kept or Violated?Psychological contracts are based on trust. If contract expectationsare violated, trust and faith in the relationship are undermined(Rousseau, 1989), and restoring the relationship requires restoring

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 351

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 351

Page 4: A Psychological Contract Perspective

the trust that was initially present. Contract violations may beperceived as fairly innocuous (a difference of opinion), or they maybe seen as egregious (obvious reneging on a promise). Responses tolesser violations tend to be muted, while responses to perceivedextreme violations may involve feelings of betrayal, anger, moral out-rage, resentment, injustice, moral harm, and psychological distress(Rousseau, 1989). Generally, experience of violation is more severeif the relationship is relational rather than transactional, becauserelational contracts by their nature involve norms opposing self-interested, opportunistic behavior (Morrison and Robinson, 1997).Contract violations have been shown to result in lower employee con-tribution and investment (performance, attendance, retention, citi-zenship behaviors; Robinson, 1996; Rousseau and Parks, 1993) andchanges in employee attitude (reduced satisfaction and commitment;Robinson, Kraatz, and Rousseau, 1994; Robinson and Rousseau,1994; Robinson and Morrison, 1995). Once violated, relational con-tracts tend to become transactional and self-interested (Rousseau andParks, 1993). If the employee perceives the organization as keepingits promises, he or she responds with positive effort, commitment, orwhatever currency is part of the psychological contract.

Do Psychological Contracts Apply to Volunteers?Why should we think that psychological contracts can be used tounderstand volunteer behaviors and performance? The reasons comefrom very recent research on psychological contracts, and from closeexamination of the differences and similarities of employees and vol-unteers. The psychological contract construct now appears to becross-cultural and applicable to a broad range of working relation-ships. The contract perspective has been applied to contingent andregular workers in Singapore, Australia, France, New Zealand,Belgium, Japan, Hong Kong, and the United States (Cadin, 1998;Janssens, Overlaet, Sels, and Van den Brande, 1998; Kabanoff,Jimmieson, and Lewis, 1998; Morishima, 1998; Peel and Inkson,1998; Soon, Tan, and Ng, 1998; Tinsley and Lee, 1998; Van Dyne andAng, 1997), and it may spill over from one working relationship toanother (Ho and Ang, 1998). Psychological contract processes seemto operate in a broad variety of contexts, peoples, and working rela-tionships, and the basic social exchange processes involved in therelationship between the worker and the organization are similar.

Aside from the fact that their extreme generalizability amongwidely varying cultures and types of work would suggest so, manybasic similarities between volunteers and other types of workers arerelevant. Like employees, volunteers labor on behalf of an organiza-tion. Even though they do not expect financial gain for their services,there is very clear evidence that volunteers do expect other consid-erations from the organization they work for. Studies by Snyder andhis associates (Clary and Snyder, 1991; Clary, Snyder, and Ridge,

352 FA R M E R, FE D O R

Contractviolations may be

perceived asfairly innocuous(a difference of

opinion), or theymay be seen as

egregious(obvious

reneging on apromise)

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 352

Page 5: A Psychological Contract Perspective

1992; Omoto and Snyder, 1995) have found that people volunteer tofulfill any of a number of needs or functions: value expression, socialadjustment, ego defense, or gaining knowledge. This strongly impliesthat volunteers enter their working relationships with specific expec-tations, attend to whether the relationship with the nonprofit orga-nization is fulfilling these expectations, and react accordingly, asseveral studies have shown (Omoto and Snyder, 1995; Stevens,1991). Psychological-contract theory is based on worker expectationsof what the organization will provide; finding that volunteers alsohave these expectations strongly suggests that general psychological-contract processes are operative in volunteers.

Although basic contract processes may be similar to those ofother types of workers, the special nature of the volunteer-nonprofitrelationship is likely to be reflected in the particulars of (1) expecta-tions that volunteers hold, (2) the nature of the contract, and (3) howviolations are perceived and responded to. Table 1 summarizes someof the most important distinctions between employees and volun-teers. These differences can be roughly divided into three categories:those that are structural or role-related in nature; those that concernworker attitudes, values, and motivations; and those involving dif-ferences in prevalent human resource management practices.

What is apparent from this comparison is that the employmentcontract is likely to be vastly different for volunteers and nonvolun-teers (Waldschmidt and others, 1994). Unpaid workers have differentreasons for joining the organization; show different patterns of atti-tudinal, calculative, and affective involvement; often experienceconfusion in exactly what their role in the organization is; and arenot usually subject to the same performance standards to which paidworkers are held. So, what can we conclude about the specific natureof psychological contracts in volunteers versus other types ofworkers?

First, to a great degree, people select themselves into their vol-unteer work situations. This suggests that motives to volunteer, whichhave been well-studied (Clary and Snyder, 1991; Clary, Snyder, andRidge, 1992; Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen, 1991; Knoke and Wright-Isak, 1982; Miller, 1985; Puffer and Meindl, 1992; Pearce, 1983;Waldschmidt and others, 1994), may play at least some part in deter-mining the particular set of reciprocal obligations or expectations thatvolunteers hold concerning the nonprofit’s actions toward them.

Second, the focal differences in roles, attitudes, and managementpractices shown in Table 1 suggest that psychological contracts involunteers are much more likely to be relational than transactionalgiven the values-based nature of much volunteer involvement(Pearce, 1993). From a contract perspective, Rousseau and Parks(1993) have proposed that extra-role behaviors are linked to the exis-tence of a relational contract. We agree and point out that almost allvoluntary behavior can be classified as functionally extra-role sinceit is rarely mandated.

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 353

The employmentcontract is likely

to be vastlydifferent for

volunteers andnonvolunteers

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 353

Page 6: A Psychological Contract Perspective

354 FA R M E R, FE D O R

Table 1. Work-Related Differences Relevant to Psychological Contractsin Volunteers and Employees

Volunteers Employees

Structural and Role-RelatedRole uncertainty Higher LowerPower to enforce role expectations Lower HigherIn-role behavior Voluntary CompulsoryExtra-role behavior Voluntary VoluntaryDivision of labor in task allocation Lower HigherStatus distinctions Weaker StrongerPrimary basis of control and compliance Normative Utilitarian, calculativeInformal social influence Higher LowerOrganizationally controlled social influence Lower HigherLevel of face-to-face contact Lower HigherStatus as a member of the organization Few clear indications Clear (e.g., receive

paycheck)

Attitudes, Values, and MotivationsReasons for affiliation Primarily symbolic Primarily material

(service or social) (calculative orinstrumental)

Job satisfaction Higher LowerAffective involvement Higher LowerLevel of altruism Higher LowerCalculative involvement Little, usually none Some, possibly high

Prevalent Human ResourceManagement Practices

Recruitment methods Primarily personal contact VariousRigor of selection process Lower HigherJob analysis and descriptions Less frequent PrevalentOrientation and training Less frequently provided More frequently providedCompensation and incentives Primarily symbolic Primarily materialPerformance standards Lower HigherPerformance evaluation Infrequent PrevalentTermination for poor performance Rarely occurs Sometimes or often occursStaffing levels Usually understaffed Various

Sources: Blau and Scott (1962); Bonjean, Markham, and Macken (1994); Katz and Kahn (1978); Pearce (1993); Smith andGreeb (1993); Wandersman and Alderman (1993); Watts and Edwards (1983).

Third, the existence of contracts that are primarily relationalcombined with well-known difficulties in mandating volunteerbehavior means that perceived breaches may have very seriousconsequences concerning volunteers’ level of participation inthe organization. Workers’ assessments of how and whether thepsychological contract was fulfilled is based in part on met or unmetexpectations. If volunteers’ expectations are not met, dissatisfactionis expected to increase (Gidron, 1984; Omoto and Snyder, 1990),and relational contracts based on social exchanges between theparties are expected to become more transactional or economic in

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 354

Page 7: A Psychological Contract Perspective

nature (Rousseau and Parks, 1993). Nothing is offered beyond thebare minimum to maintain the relationship. Volunteers’ responses tocontract violation likely focus on limiting participation in organiza-tional activities, but they may extend to psychological or actual with-drawal from the organization.

Finally, fulfillment of psychological contracts may rest on morethan just expectations, since individuals cannot form a priori expec-tations about all the inducements an employer might provide. Thispoint is particularly important for volunteers in nonprofits since for-mal contracts specifying these elements are rare, roles are often illdefined, and formal reward systems are nonexistent. Reflecting thisidea, Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994) proposed that thetwo-way commitments between employee and organization towardeach other reflect a “covenantal relationship” based on perceptionsof value-based mutuality in their relationships with their organiza-tions. This idea holds special significance since volunteers, more thanpaid workers, may join an organization in part because they share atleast some of its core values (Gamson, 1968). Since nonprofits usu-ally offer little in the way of remuneration or tangible benefits,perceiving support from the organization in the form of recognition,being valued, and feeling the organization cares about one’swell-being become even more important.

In employees, perceptions of organizational support have beenconceptually linked to psychological contracts (Guzzo, Noonan, andElron, 1994), in that individuals who feel they are treated well by theorganization tend to fulfill the obligations they believe they havetoward it (Wayne, Shore, and Liden, 1997). Perceptions of organiza-tional support may thus lead to heightened employee attendance,performance, and innovation (Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro, 1990) and intentions to remain (Guzzo, Noonan, andElron, 1994; Wayne, Shore, and Liden, 1997).

To highlight these ideas, we conducted an initial study of thepsychological-contract perspective to volunteers working in a non-profit agency. As shown in the discussion above, we expected thatvolunteers who reported that the work- or job-related expectationsthey held were met would report higher levels of participation andlower psychological withdrawal than would volunteers reportingunmet expectations. We expected a similar pattern for volunteersreporting high levels of organizational support versus thosewho reported lower levels.

MethodsThis study was conducted in a large, national, nonprofit fundraisinghealth advocacy organization. This organization is structured hier-archically, with three main regions comprising a large number ofstate- or local-level chapters across all fifty states. Strategies, policies,and programs are generated at the level of a national board of

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 355

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 355

Page 8: A Psychological Contract Perspective

trustees, with fundraising and program funding carried out at thechapter level. Each chapter consists of both paid staff and an“executive committee” of volunteers, usually career professionalsfrom various fields.

Committee functions include complying with chapter by-laws;recruiting committee officers; planning and directing the chapter’scommunity services; fundraising; carrying out volunteer develop-ment, communications, and administration programs; making grantsto local health care institutions; developing and approving the chap-ter operating plan and budget; assessing progress and performanceplans against goals and budgets; and informing the membership.The sample for this study consisted of these executive committeevolunteers.

Sample and Data CollectionUpon entry into the organization, we conducted a series of semistruc-tured interviews with executive committee volunteers intentionallydrawn from widely disparate geographical areas. Survey developmentwas conducted in cooperation with a separate sample of volunteers,who provided valuable feedback concerning the meaningfulness andreadability of those items created specifically for the study.

Surveys were distributed by mail to all 1,307 committee volun-teers, to their individual paid-work addresses, and returned directlyto the researchers by mail. A total of 451 volunteer members fromninety-five chapters in forty-eight states returned surveys, for aresponse rate of 35 percent. The volunteers held various positions ontheir respective executive committees, including chapter chair, vicechair, secretary, treasurer, and membership on various committees forvolunteer recruiting and development, budgeting and finance, com-munication, public affairs, health professional advisory functions,financial campaigns, and so on. A large majority of volunteers (71 per-cent) were more than forty years old; 69 percent had been with theorganization for more than five years. They were generally well edu-cated, with more than 40 percent having graduate degrees in somefield, while more than 82 percent had a college degree. The samplewas 52 percent male and 48 percent female; 95 percent were white,2.7 percent black, 1.1 percent Asian, 0.9 percent Hispanic, and 0.2percent were in some other category. The majority of volunteers (62percent) had more than fifteen years of paid work experience; 91percent were currently employed, 6 percent were retired, and 3percent were not employed. Data collected from volunteers by SICcode for employment indicated that of those employed, 21 percentwere from a health service field, 17 percent from a general service cat-egory, 14 percent from depository or financial institutions, 5 percentfrom legal services, and 5 percent from business services.

Since records on volunteers were not kept by the organization,other evidence is presented concerning the representativeness of thesample. First, a database containing all 1,307 volunteer names was

356 FA R M E R, FE D O R

This study wasconducted in alarge, national,

nonprofitfundraising

health advocacyorganization

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 356

Page 9: A Psychological Contract Perspective

content-coded for gender, showing a total of 55 percent male and45 percent female; a chi-square test showed no significant differ-ence in gender proportion between the sample and the population(p � .28). Second, informal discussion with employees working withchapters across the entire organization indicated that our demo-graphic figures approximated their experience. So, for subsequentanalysis the sample is assumed to be representative.

Psychological Contract: Met Expectations After EntryWanous, Poland, Premack, and Davis (1992) note that only impor-tant aspects of the job or organization should be assessed concern-ing met expectations. These most often include promotion,advancement, pay, training, job security, career development,expectations about the immediate supervisor, kind of work,coworkers, physical working conditions, career future and companyidentification, and the overall job. The extent to which many ofthese apply to volunteers is unclear. Because of this, we felt that afocus on the extent to which volunteers’ early expectations weresatisfied was more appropriate for this initial study. Four items mea-sured the extent to which volunteers saw the job as what it wasexpected to be when it was taken. These items assessed volunteers’initial socialization experience, the accuracy of volunteers’ preworkviews of the organization, and the extent to which they were sur-prised by events upon joining the organization. These items arereported in Exhibit 1 (at the end of this article). Volunteersanswered these items on a 5-point scale with anchors of “stronglydisagree” and “strongly agree.”

Psychological Contract: Ongoing Support Provided by the OrganizationPerceived organizational support was assessed by seven items fromthe short form of the Survey of Perceived Organizational Support(Eisenberger, Fasolo, and Davis-LaMastro, 1990). These items(reported in Exhibit 1) were initially developed for use in employee-employer relationships, but given their content they also ought to beapplicable to most volunteer settings. Volunteers answered theseitems on a 5-point scale with anchors of “strongly disagree” and“strongly agree.”

Volunteer ParticipationBased on the primary functions of the organization’s chapters that wenoted earlier, the organization had developed job descriptions forcommittee members that outlined their basic duties. To identify thetypes of participation that were most appropriate for the volunteers,the authors content-analyzed these job descriptions for activities thatreflected types of participation associated with committee memberduties. Basic “participation” duties included attending major chap-ter functions and events, participating in the strategic planning

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 357

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 357

Page 10: A Psychological Contract Perspective

process, promoting the organization, and participating in fundrais-ing events. Based on these duties, we created items measuring (1) thenumber of committees the volunteer currently sat on; (2) the num-ber of fundraising events participated in per month; (3) the numberof promotional speaking engagements per month; and (4) participa-tion in chapter strategic planning. Volunteers answered these itemson a 5-point scale with anchors of “strongly disagree” and “stronglyagree.” These items are also reported in Exhibit 1 at the end of thisarticle.

Psychological WithdrawalWe assessed psychological withdrawal by asking volunteers toindicate how long they intended to continue working as a volun-teer for this particular organization. Ten categories were used to cap-ture the responses (1–3 months, 4–6 months, 7–12 months, 1–2 years,2–3 years, 3–4 years, 4–5 years, 5–7 years, 7–10 years, over 10 years).Coding was reversed to reflect greater intentions to leave as scoresincreased.

ResultsIn this section we discuss whether our expectations were supportedby the survey data.

Characteristics of Met Expectations, OrganizationalSupport, and OutcomesIn general, levels of perceived organizational support were high (aver-age � 4.03), while the level of met expectations was somewhat lower(average � 3.15). Each volunteer sat on an average of almost twocommittees (average � 1.71), spoke to leaders in the communityabout the work of the organization more than twice a month (aver-age � 2.53), participated in more than six events in the last year(average � 6.59), and reported a moderate level of participation inchapter strategic planning (average � 3.5). On average, volunteersexpected to remain with the organization for about four more years(average on the reversed 10-point scale � 4.55).

Relations of Expectations and Support to ParticipationWe used structural equations modeling (see Figure 1) to determinethe relationship that met expectations and organizational supporthad with volunteers’ participation and withdrawal intentions. Thisbears some explanation. The arrows in the figure show the relation-ships tested in the model. Each arrow represents a different equation(similar to a regression equation) that we tested; these represent theequations in the term structural equations modeling. The term struc-tural is used because the technique assesses relations between thelatent constructs that one is interested in. For instance, we measuredfour activities reflecting participation, but it is the overall idea or

358 FA R M E R, FE D O R

In general, levelsof perceived

organizationalsupport were

high, while thelevel of met

expectations wassomewhat lower

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 358

Page 11: A Psychological Contract Perspective

“latent construct” of participation that is used in the model. There isa portion of the model (not shown in the figure) that assesses howwell these four activities measure the participation construct, andhow well each of the several items measured met expectations, andso on. We found this “measurement” portion of our model to be ade-quate; that is, the items we measured were adequate indicators of metexpectations, perceived organizational support, participation in vol-unteer activities, and turnover intentions.

Overall, the results supported the idea that psychological-contract fulfillment (or violation) affects levels of volunteerparticipation. We found that volunteers reporting that their expecta-tions were met participated more in the organization, as indicated inFigure 1 by the significant relationship from met expectations to par-ticipation in volunteer activities. The same was true for the pathbetween organizational support and participation; if volunteersreported higher levels of support, they also participated more. Ofcourse, volunteers perceiving little support and having unmet expec-tations tended to participate least of all. The pattern of resultsshowed, though, that the impact of organizational support wasstronger than the effects of met expectations (this can be seen by asimple comparison of the magnitude of the coefficients). This is con-sistent with our earlier discussion. Because these volunteers tendedto share a common set of values with the organization, they may havebeen somewhat willing to overlook particular unmet expectations intheir work but particularly sensitive to an overall feeling that theorganization did not care about their well-being.

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 359

Figure 1. Relationships Among Met Expectations, PerceivedOrganizational Support, Volunteer Satisfaction, Volunteer

Participation, and Turnover Intentions

Metexpectations

Participationin volunteer

activities

Perceivedorganizational

support

Turnoverintentions

.11*

.05

�.62*

�.60*.39*

.45*

Note: Standardized path coefficients are reported. Double-headed arrows between metexpectations and perceived organizational support, and between participation andturnover intentions, reflect correlations between these factors. An asterisk (*) indicatesthat a relationship is statistically significant at p � .05.

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 359

Page 12: A Psychological Contract Perspective

Relations of Expectations and Support to Withdrawal IntentionsResults for withdrawal intentions were only partially consistent withthe psychological-contract perspective. Perceived organizational sup-port had an impact on withdrawal intentions, but met expectationsdid not. Figure 1 illustrates this, showing the former path as statisti-cally significant but the latter path not. If volunteers felt valued andappreciated, and felt that the organization genuinely cared about theirefforts and well-being, withdrawal intentions were lower (that is, theyreported wanting to stay with the organization longer). In fact, thisrelationship was the strongest of the four tested, based on the mag-nitude of the coefficients reported in Figure 1. Volunteers’ intentionsto leave were not sensitive to whether their work expectations weremet or not.

Research AgendaThe results tentatively support the idea that psychological contractsmay be important in volunteers, but there are also some inconsis-tencies that need to be examined in the future. It was surprising tofind that meeting volunteers’ initial expectations had a limited effecton subsequent participation, and no effect at all on withdrawal inten-tions. Two explanations can be offered. First, it was not possible todistinguish between experiences that exceed expectations and thosethat fall short of expectations in the questions used in this study.Such expectations are usually considered as inputs to the perceivedcontract, but they sometimes differ from what workers perceiveemployers are obliged to provide (Robinson and Rousseau, 1994).Recruitment inducements of the sort that make up employers’ oblig-ations were not generally provided by this organization. Instead, asis common in many voluntary organizations, a more general appealto altruistic and shared values in the service of the organization’s mis-sion was made.

Second, it is possible that these volunteers were not focused onexchanging time, effort, or knowledge for specific things wanted fromthe organization (such as a particular committee assignment) butwere willing to exchange their efforts in return for more generalizedconsiderations (general support, recognition, valuing from the orga-nization). That is, the relationship between the volunteers in thisstudy and the nonprofit they worked for may have been covenantal(Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch, 1994). Covenants are an extremeform of relational contract (Van Dyne, Graham, and Dienesch, 1994)that spring from normative and affective foundations highly consis-tent with altruistic behaviors in volunteers (Pearce, 1993). As VanDyne, Graham, and Dienesch (1994, p. 769) put it, “covenants andpsychological contracts differ . . . in that covenants imply acceptanceand internalization of organizational values (Etzioni, 1988) but

360 FA R M E R, FE D O R

The resultstentativelysupport theidea that

psychologicalcontracts may be

important involunteers, but

there arealso some

inconsistenciesthat need to beexamined in the

future

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 360

Page 13: A Psychological Contract Perspective

psychological contracts need not involve values (Rousseau, 1989).”Such covenantal contracts may be important, however, only for vol-unteers who share strong values with and identify with the organi-zation. This was probably true for our sample but implies thatvolunteers with other motivations will respond differently.

Implicitly, relational contracts assume balance, or reciproca-tion to oneself. That is, expectations concerning what the organi-zation should provide are assumed to include only things given tothe worker. Given the value emphasis of much voluntary work, thefocus of volunteer commitment may be as much to clients or thirdparties as it is to the worker—so benefits directed toward third par-ties such as clients might be an implicit part of the contract forsome volunteers. Here is a fruitful place to integrate what we knowabout volunteers’ motives to join. Several authors (among themOmoto and Snyder, 1990, 1995; Penner, Midili, and Kegelmeyer,1997) have noted that volunteering can serve very different and dis-tinct functions. This suggests that different types of volunteers mayhold contracts that are more or less relational or covenantal. Thosewhose motives are more instrumental (for example, to gain skill)might place more emphasis on self-directed benefits in their con-tracts and would respond primarily to violations of self-orientedobligations. Those whose motives are more altruistic might place arelatively greater emphasis on benefits directed toward a third partyor client and may respond more strongly to perceived violations ofthe organization’s obligations to the client or other third party. Ingeneral, then, the extension of contract theory presents a numberof possibilities for future research concerning volunteers.

Although we strongly advocate more research on the expecta-tions and psychological contracts of volunteers, the limitations of ourresearch also ought to be recognized. We must caution against over-generalizing our results. Our sample consists of what Pearce (1993)has termed “core” members, those who take on more responsibilityand are the most highly involved in the organization (Puffer andMeindl, 1992). “Peripheral” volunteers (Pearce, 1993) might havecontracts that are more transactional and more closely resemble thoseof paid workers. Further, the contract approach focuses on socialexchange and captures the reciprocal relationship between workerand organization. However, there are factors external to this rela-tionship that may affect participation, withdrawal, and other behav-iors in volunteers, such as interrole conflicts between job, family, andvolunteer activities (O’Driscoll, Ilgen, and Hildreth, 1992). Harrison(1995) has conceptualized volunteer work as episodic, involving thedecision to take part in any one of several possible competing set-tings. These perspectives suggest that individuals may disengage fromvolunteer work for reasons entirely unrelated to their organizationsor their clients.

A research agenda that could integrate these different per-spectives of volunteer behavior might begin by assessing how

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 361

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 361

Page 14: A Psychological Contract Perspective

psychological contracts apply to volunteers. How do they differ, if atall, from those held by employees? Our findings suggest they do, butmore research is needed that specifically addresses this issue. Suchan agenda would then focus on how contract relations interact withconsiderations outside that relationship, such as work-family-volunteer role conflicts. We have taken the position that volunteerbeliefs lead to participation and withdrawal. However, it is quite pos-sible that remaining as a volunteer leads to more positive attitudes(Pearce, 1993). The perspective taken in this article does not pre-clude that possibility. We suggest that future work move beyond cor-relational studies and consider other designs, such as field orquasi-experiments. For example, it might be possible to stage intro-duction of organizational support programs at different times andassess the resulting differences. Regardless of the particular questionasked, we strongly encourage additional research focusing on the roleof psychological contracts for volunteers.

Implications for PracticeVolunteer behavior is often difficult to manage or control. The psy-chological contract may provide a powerful tool to help voluntaryorganizations understand and manage volunteers’ behaviors and con-tributions. An important function of psychological contracts is todirect worker behavior without necessarily requiring managerial sur-veillance since workers are monitoring their own behavior. Accord-ingly, administrators of volunteers can take steps to enhance theself-directed performance of their volunteers. First, administratorsneed to pay attention to what volunteers perceive them as obliged toprovide. This process begins at the time the volunteer is recruited,or even before. Clary, Snyder, and Ridge (1992) have recommendedthat administrators tailor persuasive messages to different motiva-tions of potential volunteers and match volunteers to activities thatsatisfy those motivations (Puffer and Meindl, 1992). In this way,administrators may set and fulfill perceived obligations on their part,improving performance and retention.

In fact, we recommend doing more than this minimum. Thefindings indicate that volunteers link their participation to their per-ceptions of how well the voluntary organization meets its obligations.But the results also highlight just how different psychological con-tracts may be in volunteers versus other types of workers. Becausevolunteers’ reasons for affiliation with the voluntary organization areprimarily symbolic, not material (see Table 1), the “coin” in whichthey see themselves being “paid” is also symbolic. To some degree,this accounts for the strong relationship between organizational sup-port, higher participation, and lower withdrawal tendencies in thisstudy. Volunteer administrators need to be sure to provide such sym-bolic support. This may take the form of recognition and apprecia-tion for work done, personal interest in the life and well-being of the

362 FA R M E R, FE D O R

An importantfunction of

psychologicalcontracts is todirect worker

behavior withoutnecessarilyrequiring

managerialsurveillance since

workers aremonitoring their

own behavior

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 362

Page 15: A Psychological Contract Perspective

volunteer, timely and helpful feedback on the results of their efforts,and providing a supportive social network of other volunteers.

In many voluntary organizations, the strongest motive presentin volunteers is value-based. Such volunteers may respond well tofulfillment of other needs and obligations, but they may also be look-ing for clear and visible indications that their work is actually con-tributing to the overall mission and goals of the organization. Forthese volunteers, this may be part of the symbolic support that drivespositive performance and retention. Many of the volunteers we inter-viewed for this study expressed to us how important it was for themto see that their efforts improved the quality of life for their clients.These volunteers’ expectations extended beyond personal supportand seemed to include an assessment of whether the organization isproviding sufficient resources (information, funds, training) for vol-unteers to accomplish their jobs and thereby contribute to organiza-tional mission accomplishment. Administrators need to help thesevolunteers see the connections between their efforts and the resultsthat they value.

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 363

Exhibit 1. Items Measuring Met Expectations, PerceivedOrganizational Support, and Participation in Chapter

Strategic Planning“Met expectations” items:

The orientation I received when I became an executive committee membermet my expectations.

I knew what I was getting into when I became a _________ volunteer.

When I first became a volunteer, I had an accurate picture of what workinghere was going to be like.

I was surprised by a number of things after joining ________ as a volunteer.

“Perceived organizational support” items:

______ values my contribution to its well-being.

______ fails to appreciate any extra effort from me.

______ would ignore any complaint from me.

Help is available from ______ when I have a problem.

______ really cares about my well-being.

______ cares about my opinions.

______ tries to make my job as interesting as possible.

“Participation in chapter strategic planning” items:

My efforts were instrumental in shaping the executive committee’s mostrecent strategic plan.

I am willing to put in a significant amount of effort to carry out the executivecommittee’s strategic plans.

I feel that my views are well represented by the executive committee’s currentstrategic plan.

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 363

Page 16: A Psychological Contract Perspective

364 FA R M E R, FE D O R

Withdrawal or turnover intentions may be particularly impor-tant for volunteers given the sometimes blurred distinction of orga-nizational membership of volunteers (Pearce, 1993). Forcedturnover rarely occurs, and it is often not clear whether a volunteerhas quit or has simply decided to limit his or her activities to amore “peripheral” involvement. At any rate, once a worker has actu-ally quit, it is too late for an organization to make changes so thatworkers may reassess those intentions. Because of this, voluntaryorganizations ought to pay attention to whether volunteers see their“contracts” as being largely fulfilled, or often violated. Such tech-niques as 360-degree feedback and developmental interviews mayprovide the structure and opportunity for these assessments to bemade. Such preemptive attention could allow administrators tomake changes that would help retain strong performers before it istoo late.

This study provided a first step in showing how psychological con-tracts can affect volunteer behaviors such as participation and with-drawal. Although much work remains to be done, one thing is clearfrom this study: volunteers participate more and intend to stay longerif administrators create and nurture a truly supportive, two-way rela-tionship between the voluntary organization and the volunteer.

STEVEN M. FARMER is assistant professor in the School of Business atClarkson University.

DONALD B. FEDOR is associate professor in the organizational behaviorgroup at the Georgia Institute of Technology.

References

Blau, P. M., and Scott, W. R. Formal Organizations. San Francisco:Chandler, 1962.

Bonjean, C. M., Markham, W. T., and Macken, P. O. “Measuring Self-Expression in Volunteer Organizations: A Theory-Based Ques-tionnaire.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 1994, 30,487–515.

Cadin, L. “The Role of the State in Psychological Contracts inFrance.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, San Diego, Aug. 1998.

Clary, E. G., and Snyder, M. “A Functional Analysis of Altruism andProsocial Behavior.” Review of Personality and Social Psychology,1991, 12 (1), 119–148.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., and Ridge, R. “Volunteers’ Motivations: AFunctional Strategy for the Recruitment, Placement, and Retentionof Volunteers.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 1992, 2 (4),333–350.

Volunteersparticipate more

and intend to staylonger if

administratorscreate and nurturea truly supportive,

two-wayrelationship

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 364

Page 17: A Psychological Contract Perspective

Cnaan, R. A., and Goldberg-Glen, R. S. “Measuring Motivation toVolunteer in Human Services.” Journal of Applied Behavioral Sci-ence, 1991, 27 (3), 269–284.

Eisenberger, R., Fasolo, P., and Davis-LaMastro, V. “Perceived Orga-nizational Support and Employee Diligence, Commitment, andInnovation.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1990, 73 (1), 51–59.

Etzioni, A. The Moral Dimension: Toward a New Economics. New York:Free Press, 1988.

Gamson, W. A. Power and Discontent. Homewood, Ill.: Dorsey Press,1968.

Gidron, B. “Predictors of Retention and Turnover among Service Vol-unteer Workers.” Journal of Social Service Research, 1984, 8 (1),1–16.

Guzzo, R. A., Noonan, K. A., and Elron, E. “Expatriate Managers andthe Psychological Contract.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1994,79 (4), 617–626.

Harrison, D. A. “Volunteer Motivation and Attendance Decisions:Competitive Theory Testing in Multiple Samples from a HomelessShelter.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1995, 80 (3), 371–385.

Ho, V. T., and Ang, S. “Spillover of Psychological Contracts: WhenEmployees Become Contract Labor in an Outsourcing Context.”Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Man-agement, San Diego, Aug. 1998.

Janssens, M., Overlaet, B., Sels, L., Van den Brande, I. “The Institu-tional Context for Psychological Contracts in Belgium.” Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, SanDiego, Aug. 1998.

Kabanoff, B., Jimmieson, N., and Lewis, M. “Emerging Trends in Psy-chological Contracts: The View from Downunder.” Paper presentedat the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego,Aug. 1998.

Katz, D., and Kahn, R. L. The Social Psychology of Organizations. (2nded.) New York: Wiley, 1978.

Knoke, D., and Wright-Isak, C. “Individual Motives and Organiza-tional Incentive Systems.” Research in the Sociology of Organiza-tions, 1982, 1, 209–254.

Miller, L. E. “Understanding the Motivation of Volunteers: An Exam-ination of Personality Differences and Characteristics of Volunteers’Paid Employment.” Journal of Voluntary Action Research, 1985, 14(1), 112–122.

Morishima, M. “A Break with Tradition: New Psychological Contractsin Japan.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academyof Management, San Diego, Aug. 1998.

Morrison, E. W., and Robinson, S. L. “When EmployeesFeel Betrayed: A Model of How Psychological Contract ViolationDevelops.” Academy of Management Review, 1997, 22 (1),226–256.

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 365

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 365

Page 18: A Psychological Contract Perspective

O’Driscoll, M. P., Ilgen, D. R., and Hildreth, K. “Time Devoted to Off-Job Activities, Interrole Conflict, and Affective Experiences.” Jour-nal of Applied Psychology, 1992, 77 (2), 272–279.

Omoto, A. M., and Snyder, M. “Basic Research in Action: Volun-teerism and Society’s Response to AIDS.” Personality and Social Psy-chology Bulletin, 1990, 16 (2), 152–165.

Omoto, A. M., and Snyder, M. “Sustained Helping Without Obliga-tion: Motivation, Longevity of Service, and Perceived AttitudeChange Among AIDS Volunteers.” Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1995, 68 (4), 671–691.

Parks, J. M., and Kidder, D. L. “‘Till Death Us Do Part . . . ’: Chang-ing Work Relationships in the 1990s.” Trends in OrganizationalBehavior, 1994, 1, 111–136.

Pearce, J. L. “Job Attitude and Motivation Differences Between Vol-unteers and Employees from Comparable Organizations.” Journalof Applied Psychology, 1983, 68 (4), 646–652.

Pearce, J. L. Volunteers: The Organizational Behavior of Unpaid Work-ers. London: Routledge, 1993.

Peel, S., and Inkson, K. “Economic Deregulation and PsychologicalContracts: the New Zealand Experience.” Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, Aug.1998.

Penner, L. A., Midili, A. R., and Kegelmeyer, J. “Beyond Job Attitudes:A Personality and Social Psychology Perspective on the Causes ofOrganizational Citizenship Behavior.” Human Performance, 1997,10 (2), 111–131.

Puffer, S. M., and Meindl, J. R. “The Congruence of Motives andIncentives in a Voluntary Organization.” Journal of OrganizationalBehavior, 1992, 13 (4), 425–434.

Robinson, S. L. “Trust and Breach of the Psychological Contract.”Administrative Science Quarterly, 1996, 41 (4), 574–599.

Robinson, S. L, Kraatz, M. S., and Rousseau, D. M. “Changing Obli-gations and the Psychological Contract: A Longitudinal Study.”Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37 (1), 137–152.

Robinson, S. L., and Morrison, E. W. “Psychological Contracts andOCB: The Effect of Unfulfilled Obligations on Civic VirtueBehavior.” Journal of Organizational Behavior, 1995, 16 (3),289–298.

Robinson, S. L., and Rousseau, D. M. “Violating the PsychologicalContract: Not the Exception But the Norm.” Journal of Organiza-tional Behavior, 1994, 15 (3), 245–259.

Rousseau, D. M. “Psychological and Implied Contracts in Organiza-tions.” Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 1989, 2 (2),121–139.

Rousseau, D. M. “New Hire Perceptions of Their Own and TheirEmployer’s Obligations: A Study of Psychological Contracts.” Jour-nal of Organizational Behavior, 1990, 11 (5), 389–400.

366 FA R M E R, FE D O R

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 366

Page 19: A Psychological Contract Perspective

Rousseau, D. M., and Parks, J. M. “The Contracts of Individuals andOrganizations.” In L. L. Cummings and B. M. Staw (eds.),Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press,1993.

Shore, L. M., and Tetrick, L. E. “The Psychological Contract as anExplanatory Framework in the Employment Relationship.” Trendsin Organizational Behavior, 1994, 1, 91–109.

Smith, A. C., and Greeb, F. B. “Managing Employees As If They WereVolunteers.” SAM Advanced Management Journal, 1993, 58 (3),42–46.

Soon, A., Tan, M., and Ng, K. Y. “Psychological Contracts in Singa-pore.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, San Diego, Aug. 1998.

Stevens, E. S. “Toward Satisfaction and Retention of Senior Volun-teers.” Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 1991, 16 (1), 33–41.

Tinsley, C., and Lee, C. “Psychological Contracts of Work GroupMembers in the U.S. and Hong Kong.” Paper presented at theannual meeting of the Academy of Management, San Diego, Aug.1998.

Van Dyne, L., and Ang, S. “Organizational Citizenship Behavior, Psy-chological Contracts, and Affective Commitment of ContingentWorkers Versus Regular Employees in the Context of Severe LaborShortages.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academyof Management, Boston, Aug. 1997.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., and Dienesch, R. M. “OrganizationalCitizenship Behavior: Construct Redefinition, Measurement, andValidation.” Academy of Management Journal, 1994, 37 (4),765–802.

Waldschmidt, D. M., Ilgen, D. R., Katke, A., Sagi, C. C., and Tellez,S. L. “Volunteers in the Workforce: Some Motivational Implica-tions.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy ofManagement, Dallas, Aug. 1994.

Wandersman, A., and Alderman, J. “Incentives, Costs, and Barriersfor Volunteers: A Staff Perspective on Volunteers in One State.”Review of Public Personnel Administration, 1993, 13 (1), 67–76.

Wanous, J. P., Poland, T. D., Premack, S. L., and Davis, K. S. “TheEffects of Met Expectations on Newcomer Attitudes and Behaviors:A Review and Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 1992,77 (2), 288–297.

Watts, A. D., and Edwards, P. K. “Recruiting and Retaining HumanService Volunteers: An Empirical Analysis.” Journal of VoluntaryAction Research, 1983, 12, 9–22.

Wayne, S. J., Shore, L. M., and Liden, R. C. “Perceived OrganizationalSupport and Leader-Member Exchange: A Social Exchange Per-spective.” Academy of Management Journal, 1997, 40 (1), 82–111.

VO L U N T E E R PA RT I C I PAT I O N A N D WI T H D R AWA L 367

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 367

Page 20: A Psychological Contract Perspective

nml9402.qxp 5/17/99 11:24 AM Page 368

Page 21: A Psychological Contract Perspective
Page 22: A Psychological Contract Perspective

Copyright of Nonprofit Management & Leadership is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.