Volunteers' Psychological Contracts: Extending ...

427598 orgh et al.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

NVS41610.1177/0899764011427598Vantilb

Volunteers’ Psychological Contracts: Extending Traditional Views

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6) 1072–1091 © The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permission: sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0899764011427598 http://nvsq.sagepub.com

Tim Vantilborgh1, Jemima Bidee1, Roland Pepermans1, Jurgen Willems1, Gert Huybrechts1, and Marc Jegers1

Abstract There is a growing interest in applying the psychological contract concept to the relationship between volunteers and nonprofit organizations. However, previous studies overlook certain elements of volunteers’ psychological contracts as they build on theory established with reference to paid employees. We argue that the inclusion of a value-based psychological contract type, next to transactional and relational types, enables a more thorough understanding of perceived mutual obligations between volunteers and nonprofit organizations. We use the critical incidents technique to map volunteers’ perceived (un)fulfilled obligations and find that volunteers perceive both fulfilled and unfulfilled value-based obligations. Moreover, we describe specific terms related to the mission and values of the organization reported by volunteers. We conclude that future psychological contract research needs to take this valuebased dimension into account, especially in volunteerism. Keywords psychological contract, ideological psychological contract, values, volunteers, nonprofit organizations

Introduction The past decades, the psychological contract (PC)—defined as “an individual’s beliefs regarding the terms and conditions of a reciprocal exchange agreement between that focal person and another party” (Rousseau, 1989, p. 123)—demonstrated its capacity 1

Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

Corresponding Author: Tim Vantilborgh Vrije Universiteit Brussel—Work and Organizational Psychology—Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium Email: [email protected]

Vantilborgh et al.

1073

to explain paid employees’ attitudes and behaviors (Zhao, Wayne, Glibkowski, & Bravo, 2007). Consequently, interest in applying this concept to volunteers is growing (Farmer & Fedor, 1999; Liao-Troth, 2005; Nichols & Ojala, 2009; Taylor, Darcy, Hoye, & Cuskelly, 2006). Thinking in terms of PCs could be valuable for nonprofit organization (NPO) managers as it is especially relevant in situations characterized by uncertainty and ambiguity (Rousseau, 2001), such as volunteering (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998). However, empirical studies on volunteers’ PCs often adopt conceptualizations for paid employees and tend to overlook the role of values. The focus of this article is to demonstrate that the inclusion of a value-based dimension (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003) to the PC is warranted. We demonstrate this in two ways: (a) by showing that volunteers perceive mutual obligations relating to the mission, cause, principles, and values of the organization and (b) by showing that volunteers experience both breach and fulfillment of their value-based PC. Our study contributes to the PC and volunteerism literature in several ways. First, we apply the PC to volunteers—defined as people (a) performing activities out of free will, (b) without remuneration, (c) in a formal organization, and (d) benefiting others (Cnaan, Handy, & Wadsworth, 1996)—and thus fit into a research stream that applies and adapts for-profit theories to the nonprofit sector (Nichols & Ojala, 2009). Second, we introduce a value-based dimension1 to better capture the content of volunteers’ PCs. This dimension—describing perceived mutual obligations relating to the values, principles, or mission of the organization—was first proposed by Thompson and Bunderson in 2003, but received little attention to date (exceptions are as follows: Hyde, Harris, Boaden, & Cortvriend, 2009; O’Donohue, Donohue, & Grimmer, 2007; O’Donohue & Nelson, 2007). Nonetheless, investigating this PC type appears important as its breach can give rise to intense emotional reactions and organizational dissent (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Finally, in contrast to previous PC content studies (e.g., Rousseau, 1990) we elicit obligations from volunteers rather than letting them rate predefined obligations. We use the critical incidents technique (Flanagan, 1954) to collect examples of PC breach and fulfillment from the volunteers’ perspective, allowing us to capture the subjective nature of the PC (Herriot, Manning, & Kidd, 1997). Thus, we are able to provide a thorough overview of mutual obligations volunteers perceive as being breached or fulfilled. NPO managers’ awareness of these mutual obligations is critical for effective volunteer engagement and retention (Nichols & Ojala, 2009).

The PC The PC is an idiosyncratic concept—people construe both their own and the organization’s obligations—and concerns obligations, not expectations (Rousseau, 1995). Expectations cannot be considered part of the PC unless they result from a (implicit) promise. When these perceived obligations remain unfulfilled, PC breach occurs which, in turn, evokes certain emotions—such as anger or frustration—termed PC

1074

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

violation (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). This process of breach and violation plays a major role in PC theory as it influences individual’s attitudes and behavior. For instance, PC breach has been related to decreased job satisfaction, commitment, and performance (Zhao et al., 2007). Hence, it is important to understand which obligations employees or volunteers report as being breached or fulfilled. Rousseau (1989, 1990) distinguished transactional from relational PCs. Transactional PCs focus on the exchange of economic currency, within a closed-ended time frame. The terms—the specific inducements that are promised—exchanged by both parties are specific and clearly verifiable by third parties. For example, a volunteer might expect to receive reimbursements for expenses made, in return for fulfilling basic role requirements. Relational PCs focus on the exchange of socioemotional currency within an open-ended time frame. The terms exchanged by both parties are loosely specified and rather subjective. For example, a volunteer might expect to become well-integrated within the group, in return for helping out covolunteers with their tasks. This typology was extended in 2003 by Thompson and Bunderson with a valuebased PC type, defined as “credible commitments to pursue a valued cause or principle (not limited to self-interest) that are implicitly exchanged at the nexus of the individualorganization relationship” (p. 574). Hence, value-based PCs focus on the exchange of ideological currency. Thompson and Bunderson explain that this PC type can be interpreted as volunteers perceiving obligations to contribute to help increase the NPO’s capacity to pursue its cause, in return for the NPO supporting the cause or principles, hence lending its volunteers legitimate claim to participate in the cause. Value-based PCs share some similarities with relational PCs as they both pertain to deeply held personal values and beliefs. But they also share some resemblance with transactional PCs as they both clearly define what constitutes a breach and what does not. However, they differ from other PC types in that the target of the perceived obligations need not be the volunteer personally, but instead might be the beneficiaries of the organization. Hence, value-based PC breach can occur without the volunteer being personally mistreated, for instance, if the volunteer perceives that the NPO fails to uphold its obligation to provide a support program within a certain neighborhood. Originally, scholars viewed transactional and relational PCs as a bipolar continuum (Rousseau, 1989). Current views, however, consider them as separate dimensions that are not mutually exclusive (Mclean Parks, Kidder & Gallagher, 1998; Millward & Brewerton, 2000). A recent article by Isaksson, De Cuyper, Oettel, and De Witte (2010) considers the PC as a layered model, with all PCs containing a core of transactional exchanges and some containing an added layer with relational exchanges. From this perspective, the value-based PC might be considered a third layer, which should be prominent with employees and volunteers working in for- or nonprofit organizations with a strong emphasis on a mission, principles, or values. Hence, we believe this third PC type is especially relevant in the nonprofit sector (De Cooman, De Gieter, Pepermans, & Jegers, 2011).

Vantilborgh et al.

1075

The PC Applied to Volunteers Farmer and Fedor (1999) were among the first to suggest that the PC could be applied to unpaid work, as people volunteer to fulfill certain motives and, hence, hold certain expectations of the volunteering activities. However, volunteers’ and paid employees’ expectations likely differ as the nature and management of both types of work vary substantially (Cullinane & Dundon, 2006; Farmer & Fedor, 1999). Several PC conceptualizations have since been used to investigate volunteers’ expectations. LiaoTroth’s (2001) study borrowed a conceptualization for paid employees which distinguished transactional from relational PCs on the one hand and four categories of specific promises (i.e., benefits, good faith and fair dealings, intrinsic job characteristics, working conditions) on the other hand. Taylor et al. (2006) also categorized PC terms reported by administrators and volunteers using these categories. They found that both groups’ expectations diverged and that administrators were often unaware of volunteers’ expectations, increasing chances of PC breach. Adopting a grounded approach, Ralston, Downward, and Lumsdon (2004) established that volunteers expected adequate management, clear and correct communication, appreciation and practical support. The most recent study on volunteers’ PCs by Nichols and Ojala (2009) distinguished organization obligations—fair treatment, interesting and meaningful work, responsibility, providing challenges, healthy work, resources to do the job and skill development—from volunteer obligations—reliability, enthusiasm, commitment, good relations, and empathy with the public, common sense, local knowledge, and finally, general and specific experience. Altogether, these studies provide some insights into the specific expectations volunteers consider part of the PC. However, we believe that the aforementioned studies have limitations warranting the need for more research. First, several of these studies emphasized expectations (e.g., Farmer & Fedor, 1999; Nichols & Ojala, 2009) instead of obligations and, thus, might have examined a different concept. Second, a number of studies imposed existing categories—for instance, stemming from research on paid employees—to volunteers’ responses (e.g., Liao-Troth, 2001; Taylor et al., 2006). However, it is not established yet whether these categories can be applied as such to volunteers and whether they adequately capture the entire range of volunteers’ perceived obligations. Finally, none of the aforementioned studies included a value-based PC type, although several authors recommended this for future research (Liao-Troth, 2005; Taylor et al., 2006) and neither did they investigate PC types and terms in view of breach and fulfillment.

Developing Hypotheses Our first hypothesis concerns the specific terms reported by volunteers in instances of PC breach and fulfillment: we expect to find terms related to the value-based PC type, next to previously documented terms. Following Thompson and Bunderson’s (2003)

1076


definition of the value-based PC, these terms should describe obligations pertaining to (a) contributing to a valued social cause, mission, or principle and (b) demonstrating a credible commitment to this cause, mission, or principle. They provide examples of value-based volunteer obligations, such as “taking initiative to serve the needs of a particular constituent, acting as a public advocate for the espoused cause, or sacrificing non-work time to contribute to the organization’s ideological mission” and of value-based organization obligations, including “contributions of money or resources to the cause, public advocacy or lobbying for the cause, and internal practices and policies that direct employee attention and time to participation in ideological objectives” (p. 574). Hypothesis 1: Volunteers perceive obligations related to (a) contributing to and (b) demonstrating a credible commitment to a valued social cause, mission, or principle. Our second and third hypotheses concern the PC type—transactional, relational, or value-based—that volunteers report. To date, little is known about the prominence of specific types in volunteers’ PCs, especially in view of breach and fulfillment. In case of PC fulfillment, people are more likely to report incidents that are salient to them (Herriot et al., 1997), for instance because the perceived obligation is deemed personally important. Research indicates that volunteers are mainly attracted by the values of the organization, gaining new knowledge, or individual growth (Clary & Snyder, 1999). This relates well to value-based and relational obligations. We therefore suggest volunteers will find these two PC types more salient and will cite them more frequently. This is consistent with Farmer and Fedor’s (1999) claim that volunteers’ PCs are more likely to be relational than transactional. Hypothesis 2: Volunteers will report more incidents of PC fulfillment of a relational or value-based type, than of a transactional type. Turning to PC breach, we need to take both salience and vigilance—the degree to which the volunteer monitors the fulfillment of obligations—into account (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). People vigilantly monitor transactional obligations, because these are clearly defined and build on strict norms of reciprocity. Moreover, people with a transactional PC will likely have a lower threshold for perceiving breach. In contrast, the increased cost of discovering unmet value-based obligations—because of the associated threat to the ego—means that people will be less vigilant to detect valuebased PC breach. Thompson and Bunderson (2003) also suggest that value-based PCs are relatively resistant to minor instances of breach, because the mere pursuit of a cause is intrinsically rewarding and people will not risk jeopardizing the long-term attainment of this cause. In sum, we propose that transactional PC breaches will be frequently reported, although they are less salient, because of the high vigilance by

Vantilborgh et al.

1077

which they are monitored; relational PC breaches will be frequently reported because of their salience; and, value-based PC breaches will be less frequently reported because of decreased vigilance, although they are salient to the volunteer. Hypothesis 3: Volunteers will report more incidents of PC breach of a relational or transactional type, than of a value-based type.

Method Sample We performed in-depth interviews with 25 volunteers from two similar Belgian NPOs (N1 = 14, N2 = 11). We chose these organizations based on three criteria to yield a rich data set: (a) large, well-established NPOs, active on a national level; (b) with a large number of active volunteers; and (c) a well-implemented volunteer-management policy. The organizations’ staffs helped us contact interview candidates, thus ensuring that all interviewees fitted our volunteer definition, and enabling us to apply a purposeful sampling technique to gather data from volunteers performing various tasks. After 25 interviews, new themes or categories stopped emerging and data saturation was reached (Marshall, 1996). It should be noted that the nature of the critical incidents technique implies that the incidents—as opposed to the interviewees—become the unit of analysis (Butterfield, Borgen, Amundson, & Maglio, 2005). Consequently, our effective sample size entailed 175 critical incidents or an average of seven incidents per interviewee. Participants were relatively young (M = 31.12, SD = 9.97) and well educated (highest attained degrees: [higher than] master degree: 48%, bachelor degree: 24%, secondary school or lower: 28%). We interviewed 16 women and 9 men, with an average volunteering tenure of 5.43 years (SD = 2.71). Key informants from both organizations confirmed that our sample characteristics reflected those in their organizations. Moreover, the high educational level of our sample is in line with that of other studies (Leete, 2006). However, the gender distribution in our sample does diverge from that in the volunteering population. Nonetheless, we believe this did not seriously influence the content of the incidents reported. Respondents’ age (U = 53, N1 = 14, N2 = 11, ns.), education (U = 74, N1 = 14, N2 = 11, ns.), gender (U = 45, N1 = 14, N2 = 11, ns.), and tenure (U = 51.5, N1 = 14, N2 = 11, ns.) did not differ between the two participating organizations.

Organization Context Two large Belgian NPOs, each with more than 1,000 active volunteers, participated in this study. Both organizations operate in the youth and education domains: organizing social activities to promote a multicultural society. They both are Belgian subsidiaries of worldwide organizations, but operate autonomously on a national level. The

1078


Figure 1. Questions used to elicit critical incidents

first organization provides services to children and adolescents, whereas the second organization tends to adolescents only. Many clients from both organizations move on to become active volunteers in their respective organizations once they reach a certain age. Although both organizations rely almost entirely on volunteers, they also employ paid employees in staff functions. These staff members are involved in administration, support, and management. Hence both organizations possess a well-established volunteer-management program as opposed to more informal procedures typically found in small grass-root NPOs. Finally, both organizations hold strong missions and values, increasing our chances of volunteers reporting value-based obligations.

Procedure Our study employed the critical incidents technique which registers significant positive and negative events from interviewees (Gremler, 2004). We elicited incidents by asking interviewees for examples of situations in which a perceived obligation was either fulfilled or breached. Like Herriot et al. (1997), we assume that more frequently cited PC terms or types are more salient to or vigilantly monitored by respondents. We used eight questions, to elicit critical incidents from respondents (see Figure 1), afterwards allowing us to separate examples of breach from fulfillment and volunteer from organization obligations. Moreover, asking respondents to provide examples of obligations during early and present voluntary activities increased the variation in their responses. We encouraged respondents to provide detailed information on each incident, to increase the accuracy and quality of reported incidents (Butterfield et al., 2005). Critical incidents were embedded in a semistructured interview, providing a richer context for subsequent interpretation. Interviews were conducted by the first author and took an hour on average. Each interviewee was guaranteed anonymity and confidentiality, and received a debriefing explaining the research goals. Next, the authors content analyzed all collected critical

Vantilborgh et al.

1079

incidents, using a deductive approach (Elo & Kyngäs, 2007). We constructed categories for PC types—transactional, relational, or value based—and terms based on the literature (Herriot et al., 1997; Ralston et al., 2004; Rousseau, 1989, 1990; Taylor et al., 2006; Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Because the terms exchanged in the PC can differ depending on the side of the relationship—volunteer obligations versus organizational obligations—we created distinct terms for each. If new categories emerged during this coding process or incidents could not be assigned to existing categories, we created additional categories. Hence, our analysis consititutes a mixture of deductive and inductive approaches2 (cf. Bies, 2010). This ultimately led to the creation and definition of 12 categories for terms in organization obligations (Table 1), seven categories for terms in volunteer obligations (Table 2), and three PC type categories (Table 3). Finally, two independent judges assigned each critical incident to one of the previously constructed categories for PC types and terms. Because types and terms are not dependent constructs—although some terms can be “prototypical” for a certain PC type, others might overlap with multiple PC types and hence fall under different PC types depending on the context (Arnold, 1996)—we did not treat terms as a subdimension of PC type but rather asked judges to assign PC types and terms independently for each critical incident. If multiple PC types or terms emerged in a single critical incident, we asked judges to indicate the most prominent type or term. Judges could use additional information from respondents’ semistructured interviews to make an informed decision regarding the prominence of PC types and terms. Utilizing independent judges allowed us to establish measures of reliability (Butterfield et al., 2005)— that is, Cohen’s Kappa—and increased the objectivity (Gremler, 2004). Analyses suggested that two judges combined with 175 critical incidents provided enough power to detect Cohen’s Kappa scores that were statistically better than categorization by chance. Both judges attained moderate interrater agreement on terms in organization obligations (κ = .59), terms in volunteer obligations (κ = .60) and PC types (κ = .55). Next, the judges discussed disagreements until consensus was reached. Incidents on which no consensus could be reached regarding the assigned PC term (N = 4) or type (N = 2) were discarded from further analyses.

Results Terms in Organization Obligations Table 1 presents an overview of the terms in organization obligations, along with some exemplary quotes. We discerned no statistical differences between respondents from both organizations regarding the distribution of these terms (χ² = 11.22, df = 11, ns.) so we consider all terms together. Interviewees indicated they valued the ability to work autonomously. Receiving autonomy motivated them and enhanced their creativity whereas they interpreted deficient autonomy as a lack of respect. They also

1080


Table 1. Overview of Cited Terms, Definitions and Exemplary Quotes for Organizational Obligations Term

Definition

Quote

Autonomy

Provide the ability “When we started working with our team, to autonomously we told [the organization] that we would do perform volunteer the tasks but we would do it our way. And activities, with they allowed us to do it how we wanted it.” minimal organizational (Respondent 5) interference Benefits Provide tangible “We were at a festival, giving away a card game inducements and free box as advertisement for the organization. The or discounted activities ground was littered with thrown away cards, to volunteers but if we wanted a box for ourselves, we had to pay for it.” (Respondent 8) Communication Consult and effectively “They ought to inform volunteers on their communicate with tasks on [the annual] members day. But volunteers on matters no one knew what to do . . . They need to that affect them communicate more . . . It has already cost them a lot of volunteers.” (Respondent 4) Contribute to Facilitate/stimulate “We notice a lack of effort with the younger the mission volunteers to generation of volunteers. It seems like every contribute to the extra effort is too much to ask. We often organizations’ discuss this with them . . . but it seems to have espoused cause/ no effect.” (Respondent 24) mission/values Credible Demonstrate a credible “The central staff of the organization often commitment commitment to says that everything is going great with to the mission the organizations’ the students we help, while we notice that espoused cause/ they are having problems. They need to be mission/values realistic.” (respondent 17) Fairness Fair and consistent “We were unaware that you can ask the application of rules and organization for a tax certificate. Until another procedures volunteer told us that they had been getting that certificate for years, but that you had to explicitly ask the organization for it. I felt that was not right and that the organization should give those certificates automatically to everyone.” (Respondent 13) Friendship Opportunity for social “I expected to meet many new and interesting interaction, stimulate a people, but I never expected these friendships sense of belonging and to be so profound. The workshops and a good atmosphere weekends that are organized really make you bond . . . and this is really stimulating” (Respondent 10) (continued)

1081

Vantilborgh et al. Table 1. (continued) Term Humanity

Input

Recognition

Support

Training

Definition

Quote

Act in a personally and socially supportive way toward volunteers

“They were thoughtless [about my transfer to a new function] . . . I felt like I had nothing to say about the situation. They did ask me whether I was ok with it, but it’s hard to refuse when there’s no one else around to do the job.” (Respondent 24) Give volunteers input “I had very little chance to say something at in the organizations’ the first general assembly meeting that I management and attended. There was little room for discussion, governance so I felt that I had less input than expected.” (Respondent 10) Psychological rewards “Since last year they organize a day for the (by organization, volunteers, which was received very well. It colleagues or signals they don’t just want to give us tasks, customers) in return but that they also want to give something for contributions/effort back to us as an organization.” (Respondent 3) Adequate organizational “They make sure that everything is there: all support enabling basic the paperwork is done, all the material for execution of volunteer our events is in place. When we organize a tasks party, they bring the food and drinks, they rent the venue, and make sure all the rented equipment is in place.” (Respondent 22) Adequate induction and “There was absolutely no induction for new training volunteers. I brought a friend of mine to come take a look, but it didn’t go well as no one paid attention to her. I mentioned this to the management and they started paying attention to it.” (Respondent 4)

expected tangible benefits and perceived these incentives, such as a training weekend paid for by the organization, as rewarding. Moreover, they expected to receive certain reimbursements. Issues arose when the distribution of reimbursements was perceived as unfair or untimely. Next, they felt it was important the organization communicated with them on relevant matters. In most cases, communication-related breaches were caused by miscommunication between local volunteers and the central staff. Often, the organization failed to communicate with all parties (volunteers, members, beneficiaries) involved in day-to-day activities or interviewees felt the organization’s communication lacked professionalism, which made them feel unappreciated. Only one incident concerned the organization’s obligation to make a contribution to the NPO’s mission and values, yet several incidents related to credibility. Regarding the latter, interviewees in nearly all cases perceived that the organization emphasized different

1082


Table 2. Overview of Cited Terms (and Amount), Definitions and Exemplary Quotes for Volunteer Obligations Term

Definition

Quote

Advancement

(Be willing to) take on new roles, tasks and/or functions

Contribute to the mission

Contribute time and effort to attain the organizations’ espoused cause/ mission/values Demonstrate a credible commitment to the organizations espoused cause/ mission/values Contribute time and effort to benefit the organization or volunteers but unrelated to its values/cause/ mission Work the hours (minimally) expected; fulfill minimal job requirements

“I don’t know how it will turn out, but I would love to remain in the organization. I know have the experience and the knowledge. New volunteers don’t know all these things, so I could really help them. So I would love to become a trainer in our organization, but they have to invite me into that position.” (Respondent 8) “Sometimes I felt guilty when there were activities that I couldn’t attend. Not because the organization was angry at me for not showing up, but because I wasn’t being useful. I felt guilty towards [our beneficiaries] because I wasn’t helping them.” (Respondent 4) “A colleague and me started making promo films last year … to motivate, support and recognize the effort of several volunteers. It’s something that started one night over a bottle of wine, and evolved over time . . . Nobody ever asked us to do this, but the volunteers love it.” (Respondent 6) “I always try to improve the atmosphere in the group. I organize events to take everybody’s mind of the meetings, such as arranging a city-game or another fun activity. It helps to keep the experience fun. If I wouldn’t organize that, I think a lot of members would leave the group.” (Respondent 20)

Credible commitment to the mission

Extra-role behavior

Hours

Initiative

Work

Take initiative to improve organizational practices and instigate change Fulfill generalized job/role requirements

“They told me that if my [volunteer] work started at 10 o’clock, I had to be there 15 minutes in advance. But most of the time I arrive only 5 minutes in advance. At my regular job, there’s a wage in return for my efforts, so I arrive in time. But here that’s not the case.You don’t care about it that much, because there’s less to lose.” (Respondent 3) “We had a lot of new members and normally you pay each new member a visit at home. Instead, because they were so many, I asked them to come to us. This new approach worked because we were able to see them all that way.” (Respondent 11) “There was a group with problems that I was going to help. I had some meetings with the group, and some people were positive, but the older, more conservative, people were rather negative. Later on, I heard they thought I was too young to give them advice. And that’s when I indicated I didn’t want to help that group anymore, and someone else from the organization took over.” (Respondent 6)

1083

Vantilborgh et al.

Table 3. Number of Cited Obligations and Exemplary Quotes, According to Psychological Contract Type and Outcome

Transactional

Fulfilled

Breached

Quotes

37

14

41

53

13

15

“I think that by dedicating time I fulfill an obligation. I attend all the meetings and do my tasks.” (fulfilled) “They changed the passwords on our website, and now it appears that they are unable to change your password back. And since it is a random password I cannot remember it, which is very unpractical. They want to have good communication with their volunteers and then they do something like that.” (unfulfilled) “I didn’t expect the atmosphere among the volunteers to be this good. I couldn’t attend the national meeting last year, and the volunteers that were there—even people I don’t know—sent me letters to tell me that they regretted I wasn’t there.” (fulfilled) “Last year, I wrote down all my concerns and frustrations regarding the organization and send the letter to the central staff. They never responded me, or told me whether they were going to use my feedback in any way. I had spent many hours writing it, not with the intent of judging them but because I wanted to show how we, in our local committee, thought things could be organized differently.” (unfulfilled) “In our neighborhood, we have many immigrants and people tend to be prejudiced about them…If I can demonstrate to the people around me that these prejudices are false by taking in a foreign exchange student, then I feel I have succeeded in conveying the mission of organization A to people outside the organization.” (fulfilled) “Our board of directors sometimes wants other things than we [the volunteers] do, or have other goals. . . . Everyone wants the same: that the organization thrives and that the mission is attained. But, for the board the numbers and figures are more important. . . . For us, it’s more about the personal issues: are the subsidiaries being treated well? Can I support something that I do not fully agree upon?” (unfulfilled)

Relational

Value based

N = 173 critical incidents.

1084


goals, such as financial results and administrative processes. This perception was strengthened by the professionalization of the organization’s paid staff who were perceived to hold different views regarding the values and mission of the organization. Hence, these credibility-related breaches seem to be caused by “perceived goal displacement” (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). Humanity-related breaches arose when the organization was inconsiderate of the specific aspirations and needs of volunteers and beneficiaries. Some interviewees also stated they did not have an input in organizational policies, and complained their feedback was overlooked. Fairnessrelated breaches were mainly caused by local differences in organizing activities or by the perception that the same volunteers always had to do the bulk of all the work. Interviewees cited friendship as an organization obligation, expecting the NPO to provide opportunities for social interaction. Even so, the high quality of these relationships—due to the volunteers’ common interests and experiences—often surprised them. Interviewees also expected recognition for their voluntary work from various actors: immediate supervisors, peers, but also beneficiaries. Both organizations held annual events to thank volunteers, which were perceived as rewarding, but interviewees also derived recognition by seeing their impact on beneficiaries and covolunteers. Problems arose when the provision of recognition was perceived as unfair: for instance, when the organization inconsistently distributed gifts. Interviewees felt their organization had to support them to perform their volunteering tasks adequately. Support could be provided in several ways, ranging from material to individual, psychological support. Interviewees cited support-related breaches due to a lack of organizational interest for local issues: organizational representatives either did not notice or ignored these issues. Another often-heard complaint referred to inadequate support to handle administrative tasks and insufficient guidance with the introduction of new programs. Finally, interviewees expected two types of training: induction training for new members and specific workshops for experienced volunteers. Training-related breach mostly originated from insufficient follow-up afterwards or a mismatch between the provided training and the volunteers’ needs. However, training was frequently mentioned as rewarding, providing volunteers with an opportunity for personal growth.

Terms in Volunteer Obligations Once again, we discerned no statistical differences regarding the distribution of volunteer obligation terms (Table 2) between respondents from both organizations (χ² = .76, df = 6, ns.). Interviewees felt obligated to advance in the organization—horizontally and vertically—or to show willingness to advance in the future. Breach occurred when volunteers refused to take up new functions or when they reluctantly took up functions above their skill levels or ambitions. Not surprisingly, interviewees reported pressure from their organization to increasingly take up new responsibilities, but they expected their organization to respect their decisions. Interviewees also wanted to see

Vantilborgh et al.

1085

their contribution to the organization’s mission, often through direct contact with the beneficiaries. Many exerted additional effort to achieve the NPO’s mission, for instance by investing extra time and private resources, even if this was not called for by the organization. In contrast, if interviewees had been unable to contribute—even for reasons beyond their own control—they felt guilty and intended to compensate this with future efforts. Some also mentioned an obligation to demonstrate a credible commitment to the organization’s mission and values, for instance by promoting their organization in their personal environment (credibility). Interviewees indicated they performed additional tasks, out of free will, to improve organizational practices or to help other volunteers (extra-role behavior). Although the organization did not expect these tasks from them at the outset, they were quickly perceived as an integral part of the volunteers’ general role requirements. Nonetheless, several volunteers decided to discontinue this additional effort after a while, because of the increased workload. Interviewees also felt obligated to put in a minimum amount of time and effort (hours). For many, merely showing up for an activity counted as fulfilling an obligation toward their organization, yet they considered it important to live up to their promises and arrive on time. Problems occurred when activities conflicted with other personal engagements, which often led to quitting one organization or reducing activities. Interviewees felt it was important the organization respected their decision in this. Interviewees also felt obligated to take initiative and to improve organizational practices (initiative). Often this coincided with taking up new roles, wanting to improve on their predecessors. Finally, interviewees felt they had to fulfill their general task requirements (work). When asked for an example of a fulfilled obligation, many stated they had “just done a good job” and that their first and foremost obligation was to do their work. However, some also mentioned they deliberately avoided or neglected certain tasks, because the tasks were dull or because they lacked knowledge or experience.

PC Type Our second and third hypotheses concern the PC-type frequencies in case of breach and fulfillment (Table 3). We found no statistical disparity (χ² = 2.58, df = 2, ns.) between respondents from both organizations regarding the PC-type distributions. Respondents cited 82 examples of fulfilled obligations, either by themselves (N = 41) or by the organization (N = 41). The chi-square test indicates that the distribution of fulfilled obligations over the three PC types was not uniform (χ² = 36.17, df = 2, p < .001). The residuals show that respondents mostly cited fulfillment incidents of a relational nature, but significantly less incidents of a transactional or value-based nature. We can thus only partially confirm Hypothesis 2, as only the amount of relational obligations was as hypothesized. Respondents cited 91 examples of breached obligations, either by themselves (N = 38) or by the organization (N = 53). The chi-square test indicates that the distribution of breached obligations over the three PC types was not uniform (χ² = 15.12, df = 2, p < .001).

1086


The residuals show that respondents cited more breach incidents of a relational or transactional nature, than of a value-based nature. Hence, we can confirm Hypothesis 3.

Discussion With this study, we aimed to provide an overview of the obligations volunteers perceive as being breached or fulfilled within their PC, including value-based obligations. Volunteers’ cited specific terms related to the value-based PC. They perceived that their NPO had to demonstrate a credible commitment to an espoused cause, and in return they had to make a valuable contribution to this cause. Examples of valuebased volunteer obligations emerging from our data were as follows: advocate the NPO’s espoused cause in public, contribute to the NPO’s mission (and seeing the impact on the beneficiaries), and taking initiative to enhance the NPO’s ability of attaining its mission. Examples of value-based organization obligations contained: making sure that all stakeholders—volunteers, staff, board members—are aligned with regard to the NPO’s cause, enable volunteers to contribute to this mission instead of requiring them to do tasks that are unrelated to this mission (e.g., administrative tasks), and create enthusiasm for this cause. Hence, our first hypothesis was confirmed. In general, the terms found in our study are in line with previous research (Nichols & Ojala, 2009; Ralston et al., 2004; Taylor et al., 2006), except that we add the aforementioned value-based terms as well as a term describing a volunteer’s perceived obligation to (be willing) to advance in the organization. The latter thus differs from previously documented terms such as “career development” which describe a perceived obligation on behalf of the organization to provide an internal career trajectory (Rousseau, 1990). This term might be unique to volunteering because of its discretionary nature and the need for dedicated volunteers by the NPO (Cnaan & Cascio, 1998). Interviewees mostly mentioned incidents of a relational nature when describing fulfilled organization and volunteer obligations, providing partial support for Hypothesis 2. Based on Morrison and Robinson (1997), we argued that relational and value-based obligations would be more salient to volunteers than transactional obligations, and would therefore be more frequently cited, which was not entirely supported by our data. However, this does not automatically imply that value-based obligations are not salient to volunteers. These obligations might be more difficult to fulfill because they are less concrete and lack a well-defined time frame. For example, the perception that an organization is obligated to help reduce diseases in third-world countries is difficult to meet in a short time frame and will require continuing efforts. This reasoning is further supported by additional interview data, as nearly all volunteers found the values and mission of their organization important, suggesting that value-based obligations were salient. Finally, the high prevalence of relational fulfilled obligations signals that volunteers find a mutually supportive relationship, based on trust and respect, important, which is in line with previous research on volunteers (Farmer & Fedor, 1999) and nonprofit employees’ (Hyde et al., 2009) expectations.

Vantilborgh et al.

1087

In cases of organization and volunteer PC breach, respondents mostly cited incidents of a transactional and relational nature, thus supporting Hypothesis 3. The low prevalence of value-based obligations is congruent with our reasoning that individuals are less vigilant when monitoring for value-based PC breach as this could harm their self-image (Morrison & Robinson, 1997) and that value-based PCs are more resistant to minor breach (Thompson & Bunderson, 2003). The high prevalence of transactional obligations suggests that volunteers vigilantly monitor these obligations, as they are based on a quid-pro-quo relationship and are easy to monitor. The high prevalence of relational obligations might be because of its high salience. Our analyses, however, do not take the ascribed importance or consequences of transactional, relational and value-based obligations into account. As Thompson and Bunderson (2003) mention, value-based obligations might trigger certain “moral hot-buttons” and can create intense reactions. Hence, although we registered less value-based breaches than transactional and relational breaches, the consequences of one value-based breach might outweigh those of several transactional or relational breaches. Alternatively, our findings might be influenced by the motives people have for volunteering, as they shape the formation of the PC (Rousseau, 1995). Another explanation for the low prevalence of reported value-based breaches might lie in volunteers leaving the organization after a grave breach. Finally, our findings illustrate that the volunteering context creates some unique characteristics. First, it is remarkable that many respondents attributed administrative workload and a division between local volunteers and central staff as a cause of PC breach. Second, the examples of volunteer obligations cited by respondents clearly illustrate the lack of control NPO managers have over volunteers and the resulting issues of reliability in service provision (Nichols & Ojala, 2009). Although respondents felt obligated to advance the organization’s mission, they also felt entitled to freely decide when, where and how they dedicate time to the NPO. The value-based component of volunteers’ PCs might therefore be crucial for increasing volunteers’ commitment and involvement.

Limitations Our study has certain strengths and limitations. First, the critical-incident technique is a retrospective method and may be confounded by certain biases (Gremler, 2004). Interviewees can have problems remembering incidents or might reinterpret them, while they can also be misinterpreted by the interviewer. We attempted to counter this by embedding the critical incidents in a semistructured interview and by using independent raters. There might also be a bias in the elicited incidents, as respondents might be more prone to recall extreme examples of breach or fulfillment, which are more salient or vigilantly monitored (Morrison & Robinson, 1997). Hence, examples of small (or even moderate) breach or fulfillment might be underrepresented in our data. Nonetheless, we believe the use of the critical incidents technique in this study was warranted as implicit obligations might otherwise be hard to capture (Herriot et al., 1997). Second, our results

1088


might be influenced by sample characteristics. We chose respondents from two similar organizations and it is likely that organizational practices in other nonprofit industries create different expectations. A unique aspect shared by both organizations was that most volunteers first acted as beneficiaries in their organization: an experience that likely influenced their perceptions of mutual obligations. We therefore recommend follow-up studies to take these organizational characteristics into account. Moreover, interviewees could decide freely to participate, meaning that self-selection bias might have influenced our results. For instance, it is possible that volunteers experiencing severe PC breach were less inclined to participate whereas those who had experienced the gravest breaches might have left the NPO and were thus left out of our sample. Although these people are hard to contact, future research would greatly benefit from investigating their PC perceptions using exit interviews.

Implications Our results suggest several implications for both research and practice. First, we demonstrated that value-based obligations form a part of volunteers’ PCs. However, much needs to be discovered about the consequences of value-based PC breach and fulfillment. Thompson and Bunderson (2003) argue that people might react differently to value-based PC breach—for instance, extreme emotional reactions or whistle blowing— because these obligations pertain to deeply held values and the self-image. Therefore, we recommend future studies to investigate the process and outcomes of value-based PC breach and fulfillment. Second, NPO managers need to be aware of the valuebased obligations that volunteers might perceive. Our findings indicate that volunteers perceive mutual obligations pertaining to the NPO’s mission, cause, principles, and values but that these need not be directed to the volunteers themselves. For example, if a volunteer perceives that the NPO is obligated to help reduce illiteracy in the world yet this NPO suddenly decides to stop the provision of free tuition in a certain area, then the volunteer might not be mistreated personally yet he or she may perceive a value-based breach. Hence, it is important to signal the NPO’s commitment to its espoused cause through all its policies and practices. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Dr. Nicky Dries for her insightful comments on earlier drafts and Dr. Rein De Cooman and Guy Torfs for their aid in the coding process.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This study was funded by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, in

Vantilborgh et al.

1089

the project titled “Involving volunteers and their effect on the governance and functioning of private non-profit organisations”.

Notes 1. We use the term value-based PC instead of ideological PC, as the latter caries a political connotation. 2. The three PC type categories were based entirely on theory, whereas the volunteer and organization obligations terms were a mix of deductive–inductive approaches. We therefore only report frequencies in our analyses of PC type categories, to avoid circular production of evidence.

References Arnold, J. (1996). The psychological contract: A concept in need of closer scrutiny? European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 511-520. Bies, A. L. (2010). Evolution of nonprofit self-regulation in Europe. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39, 1057-1086. Butterfield, L. D., Borgen, W. A., Amundson, N. E., & Maglio, A. S. T. (2005). Fifty years of the critical incident technique: 1954-2004 and beyond. Qualitative Research, 5, 475-497. Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1999). The motivations to volunteer: Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 156-159. Cnaan, R., & Cascio, T. (1998). Performance and commitment: Issues in management of volunteers in human service organizations. Journal of Social Service Research, 24(3), 1-37. Cnaan, R., Handy, F., & Wadsworth, M. (1996). Defining who is a volunteer: Conceptual and empirical considerations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 364-384. Cullinane, N., & Dundon, T. (2006). The psychological contract: A critical review. International Journal of Management Reviews, 8(2), 113-129. De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., & Jegers, M. (2011). A cross-sector comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 296-317. Elo, S., & Kyngäs, H. (2008). The qualitative content analysis process. Journal of advanced nursing, 62(1), 107-115. Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. (1999). Volunteer participation and withdrawal. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9, 349-368. Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological bulletin, 51, 327-358. Gremler, D. D. (2004). The critical incident technique in service research. Journal of Service Research, 7(1), 65-89. Herriot, P., Manning, W. E. G., & Kidd, J. M. (1997). the content of the psychological contract. British Journal of Management, 8, 151-162. Hyde, P., Harris, C., Boaden, R., & Cortvriend, P. (2009). Human relations management, expectations and healthcare: A qualitative study. Human Relations, 62, 701-725. Isaksson, K., De Cuyper, N., Bernhard Oettel, C., & De Witte, H. (2010). The role of the formal employment contract in the range and fulfilment of the psychological contract: Testing a layered model. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 696-716.

1090


Leete, L. (2006). Work in the nonprofit sector. In W.W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Liao-Troth, M. A. (2001). Attitude differences between paid workers and volunteers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 11, 423-442. Liao-Troth, M. A. (2005). Are they here for the long haul? The effects of functional motives and personality factors on the psychological contracts of volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34, 510-530. Marshall, M. N. (1996). Sampling for qualitative research. Family practice, 13, 522-525. McLean Parks, J., Kidder, D. L., & Gallagher, D. G. (1998). Fitting square pegs into round holes: mapping the domain of contingent work arrangements onto the psychological contract. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 697-730. Millward, L. J., & Brewerton, P. M. (2000). Psychological contracts: Employee relations for the twenty-first century? International Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 15, 1-61. Morrison, E., & Robinson, S. (1997). When employees feel betrayed: A model of how psychological contract violation develops. Academy of management Review, 22, 226-256. Nichols, G., & Ojala, E. (2009). Understanding the management of sports events volunteers through psychological contract theory. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 20, 369-387. O’Donohue, W., Donohue, R., & Grimmer, M. (2007). Research into the psychological contract: Two Australian perspectives. Human Resource Development International, 10, 301-318. O’Donohue, W., & Nelson, L. (2007). Let’s be professional about this: Ideology and the psychological contracts of registered nurses. Journal of nursing management, 15, 547-555. Ralston, R., Downward, P., & Lumsdon, L. (2004). The expectations of volunteers prior to the XVII Commonwealth Games, 2002: A qualitative study. Event Management, 9(1-2), 13-26. Rousseau, D. M. (1989). Psychological and implied contracts in organizations. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 2(2), 121-139. Rousseau, D. M. (1990). New hire perceptions of their own and their employer’s obligations: A study of psychological contracts. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 11, 389-400. Rousseau, D.M. (1995). Psychological contracts in organizations: Understanding written and unwritten agreements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Rousseau, D. M. (2001). Schema, promise and mutuality: The building blocks of the psychological contract. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74, 511-541. Taylor, T., Darcy, S., Hoye, R., & Cuskelly, G. (2006). Using psychological contract theory to explore issues in effective volunteer management. European Sport Management Quarterly, 6(2), 123-147. Thompson, J. A., & Bunderson, J. S. (2003). Violations of principle: Ideological currency in the psychological contract. Academy of Management Review, 28, 571-586. Zhao, H., Wayne, S. J., Glibkowski, B. C., & Bravo, J. (2007). The impact of psychological contract breach on work-related outcomes: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 60, 647-680.

Vantilborgh et al.

1091

Bios Tim Vantilborgh is a PhD student in the department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His PhD research focuses on the psychological contract of volunteers and ideological psychological contracts. Jemima Bidee is a PhD student in the Department Of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. Her PhD research focuses on motivational aspects of volunteering, based on self-determination theory. Roland Pepermans is a professor of human resource management and organizational behavior in the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His research interests include social exchange theory, high potentials, organizational justice, and nonprofits. Jurgen Willems is a PhD student in the Department of Micro-economics for Profit and Non Profit Sector at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His PhD research focuses on the impact of different leadership roles on organizational objectives and governance practices in nonprofit organizations. Gert Huybrechts is a PhD student in the Department of Micro-economics for Profit and Non Profit Sector at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His PhD research focuses on the impact of voluntary principals and agents on nonprofit governance and performance. Marc Jegers is a professor of managerial economics in the Department of Micro-economics for Profit and Non Profit Sectors at the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. His research interests include theory of the (nonprofit) firm, accounting, financial analysis, and competitive policy issues.