QUESTIONING THE APPARENT INEVITIBILITY OF SHORT-TERM VOLUNTEERING TRENDS IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

Please Do Not Cite Without Prior Permission From The Authors

by

Michael G. Niederpruem, MS, MA, CAE And

Paul Salipante, PhD

CASE WESTERN RESERVE UNIVERSITY

November, 2014

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................. 3

INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................... 4

LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................... 6

METHODS ............................................................................................................................. 16

FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................. 20

DISCUSSION ......................................................................................................................... 29

LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 36

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE & FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................. 37

CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................................... 39

APPENDIX: Interview Questions ......................................................................................... 40

REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................... 41

List of Tables TABLE 1: Participant Role .................................................................................................... 17

TABLE 2: Volunteer Experience (by Gender) ...................................................................... 18

TABLE 3: Generational Age ................................................................................................. 18

TABLE 4: Work Environment............................................................................................... 18

TABLE 5: Differentiating Between Personal and Professional Volunteering ...................... 21

TABLE 6: Importance of Face-to-Face Interaction ............................................................... 23

TABLE 7: The Value of Learning through Volunteering ..................................................... 24

TABLE 8: Cultivating Deep and Meaningful Relationships ................................................. 26

TABLE 9: Impact Fruition..................................................................................................... 28

List of Figures FIGURE 1: Volunteer Process Model (Omoto & Snyder, 2002) ............................................ 7

FIGURE 2: Process Model for Committed Volunteers within Professional Associations...36

3

QUESTIONING THE APPARENT INEVITIBILITY OF SHORT-TERM VOLUNTEERING TRENDS IN THE NONPROFIT SECTOR

ABSTRACT

Are trends toward short-term volunteering (Macduff, 2005) inevitable? We posit that

the perceived meaningfulness of the volunteer experience influences how individuals allocate time among competing activities of daily life. This proposition is explored in a situational context where volunteer retention is acknowledged to be a problem – professional associations in the United States (Gazley, 2013). The findings indicated that individuals chose to devote substantial time and energies to their volunteering activities, despite other demands on their time, when their volunteering experiences were sufficiently meaningful. Accordingly, Organizations should be able to increase retention by inculcating practices that foster meaningful experiences among volunteers.

Key words: Volunteerism; professional associations; commitment; engagement; learning; social construction.

4

INTRODUCTION

Are trends toward short-term, episodic volunteering (Macduff, 2005), which some

analysts see as negative, inevitable? Must the sector accept and accommodate this trend? If

so, costs include the loss of leadership, knowledge and commitment residing in long-term

volunteers (Pearce, 1993), and volunteers’ focus becoming more self- and qualification-

rather than other-oriented (Anheier & Salamon, 1999). In addition, volunteer churn (Gazley,

2013) requires organizations to divert scarce resources to the replacement and training of

volunteers.

What are the root causes of this trend? One explanation is that increasing demands on

an individual’s time (e.g., work and family) means less time for volunteering. There is a

general belief that, driven by generational trends, individuals are seeking greater freedom of

association and easy entry and exit options, but these assumptions can be challenged

(Hustinx, 2010). Among practitioners, support for this explanation is often found in the

answers that individuals provide for quitting or not volunteering (i.e., “don’t have time”).

However, do these answers reflect individuals’ actual motives, or are they simply a

convenient or diplomatic way to explain a lack of continuing commitment? And, is the

increased offering of short-term opportunities a cause of, rather than a response to,

volunteers’ changing preferences (Brudney & Gazley, 2006)?

A second explanation for the rise of short-term volunteering is that the lived

experience of volunteering has become less meaningful to the volunteer, resulting in part

from institutions imposing practices that produce individualization (Beck, 2007, cited in

Hustinx, 2010). Potential factors associated with volunteers’ perceptions of decreased

meaningfulness include: Reduced significance and impact of their activities; higher volunteer

5

expectations of applying their knowledge, skill, and social capital; enlargement, in numbers

and authority, of staff management of volunteers; and reduced volunteer self-direction and

governance.

Both of these broad explanations are likely to be operative. We posit that the

perceived meaningfulness of a volunteer’s experiences influences the individual’s allocation

of time to the competing activities of daily life. This proposition is assessed here through

investigation of a specific situational context where the lack of volunteer retention has been

acknowledged to be a problem – professional associations in the United States. Our aim was

to develop both a deeper and broader understanding of the experiences of those volunteers

who had developed, or sought to develop, long-term commitments within their respective

associations. Our intent was to identify specific situational factors of the volunteer

experience that sustained, or failed to sustain, their long-term commitment.

Accordingly, we conducted an inductive, grounded theory study of the volunteer

experience through semi-structured interviews with individuals that either currently volunteer

or have recently volunteered, at one or more professional associations (i.e., the professional

volunteer). If successful, our deeper and broader understanding of the volunteer experience in

professional associations could lead to more efficacious volunteer recruitment, higher

volunteer engagement, enhanced volunteer efficacy, and improved volunteer retention,

respectively. Our results suggest that the participants: 1) Clearly delineate between personal

and professional volunteering as two different types of experiences; 2) recognize the

importance of physicality’s (i.e., direct, in-person interaction) role in the professional

volunteer experience; 3) place a high value on the learning that occurs during the volunteer

experience; 4) value the opportunities to develop deep, meaningful, and long-term

6

relationships that transcend the volunteer experience; and 5) value of impact fruition, or the

realization of outcomes that make a positive and substantive difference for the organization

or the profession.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A comprehensive review of the literature regarding volunteerism is beyond the scope

of this paper and can be found elsewhere (see Musick & Wilson, 2008; Penner, 2002; Snyder

& Omoto, 2008; Wilson, 2012). Indeed, the location of a literature review as traditionally

construed within a grounded theory study is a contentious issue (Dunne, 2011) and purists

might argue that immersing oneself in the literature of relevance in the early phases of

research might violate one of the core tenants of grounded theory, at least as originally

espoused by Glaser and Strauss (1999). Yet, some discussion of the literature is warranted at

this point, in order to provide a context-relevant foundation for the research conducted

(Dunne, 2011).

Consequently, this literature review has three objectives. The first objective is to

specifically explore prior work utilizing process models to further our understanding of

volunteerism in general. The second objective is to briefly discuss research which focus or

otherwise attempt to explain the experience of volunteering, primarily through measures of

volunteer satisfaction. The final objective is to review recent literature exploring the

phenomenon of volunteering within the context of professional associations.

Process Models

Models are helpful in aiding our understanding of the data and the development and

consideration of one or more applicable theories (Van de Ven, 2007: 143). Process models

should be used to improve our understanding of the volunteer experience (Hustinx, Cnaan, &

7

Handy, 2010). Process models, described as “fundamental for gaining an appreciation of

dynamic social life” (Van de Ven, 2007: 145), allow for research questions concerned with

how, whereas variance models allow for research questions concerned with what. With

respect to this study, our phenomenon of interest is the experience of volunteering in

professional associations with the individual volunteer as the central subject. How does this

experience occur to the volunteer over time? How does the experience influence subsequent

behavior of the volunteer?

Snyder and Omoto (2008: 2), as part of their volunteer process framework (Figure 1),

characterize volunteerism as a form of “social action” where individuals, influenced by their

respective personal values and motivations, utilize active decision-making as a process in not

only choosing to volunteer but also in guiding their ongoing volunteering actions over time.

FIGURE 1: Volunteer Process Model (Omoto & Snyder, 2002)

Levels of Analysis Stages of the Volunteer Process Individual (focus of this study)

Antecedents Experiences (focus of this study) Consequences Interpersonal/Social Group

Agency/Organization Societal/Cultural Context

This process model proposed by Snyder and Omoto (2008) delineates three phases or

stages that are sequential yet interactive. These stages also span multiple levels of analysis

from the individual, to the group, to the organization, and also the societal or cultural context

in order to capture and understand key aspects of an entire social system. This model serves a

useful framework to orient the research questions this study considers, as well as other papers

discussed throughout the remainder of this paper.

8

Much of the extant research that is available on volunteering comes from the study of

charitable and philanthropic nonprofits (see Musick & Wilson, 2008; Penner, 2002; Snyder

& Omoto, 2008; Wilson, 2012), where the act of volunteering is likely substantially different

than one might experience as a volunteer in a professional association (see Brudney &

Gazley, 2006; Gazley, 2013; Tschirhart, 2006; Webb & Abzug, 2008). And, although

extensive research exists on both the antecedents and consequences of volunteerism overall,

research on the middle stage—the volunteer experience—is underserved (Wilson, 2012).

Because this middle stage is context-contingent and impacts both volunteer satisfaction and

commitment, the volunteer experience should be studied using process models (Hustinx,

Cnaan, & Handy, 2010).

Based on a review of the salient literature, Penner (2002: 463) developed a

conceptual, temporal model of sustained volunteerism, defined as “the amount of volunteer

activity a person engages in after he or she has been a volunteer for some significant period

of time.” One important predictor of sustained volunteering is an individual’s satisfaction

with the volunteer experience. This model is predicated on causal relationships between

antecedents (e.g., demographic and situational or motivational) to the volunteer activity and a

self-evaluation of the volunteer experience, and its focal point is the decision to volunteer.

Within the model, Penner (2002) posits that demographic characteristics (e.g., age,

income, education, etc.), dispositional latent variables (e.g., personal beliefs and values,

prosocial personality, and volunteer-related motives), and organizational attributes and

practices (e.g., an organization’s reputation, volunteer management practices, etc.) all

influence an individual’s initial decision to volunteer, resulting in initial volunteerism.

9

Penner (2002: 462) defined initial volunteerism as “the amount of time and effort a person

expends during the early stages of his/her tenure as a volunteer.”

As volunteer’s time grows within the model, this initial volunteerism precedes the

development of the individual’s volunteer role identity. Volunteer role identity is a socially-

constructed state, and is formed by both the individual’s identification and internalization of

the role and accompanying relationships (and behavioral expectations) with others who

interact with the individual within the specific context of the volunteer role (Grube &

Piliavin, 2000). Volunteer role identity precedes sustained volunteerism, as previously

defined, and volunteer identity is “the most potent direct” cause of sustained volunteerism

(Penner, 2002: 463).

Three limitations concerning the Penner model should be noted. Penner broadly

characterized volunteering only in the context of service organizations, so the generalizability

of the model warrants additional context-specific consideration prior to its context-specific

application. And, as a conceptual model only, Penner offered no empirical support. However,

the Penner model was recently tested by Gazley (2013) in the context of professional

associations and is considered in more detail elsewhere in this literature review. The Penner

model also does not explain or attempt to define the volunteer experience in any context,

other than to characterize it generally as an activity or role performed.

Volunteer Satisfaction

Volunteer satisfaction is a common measure found in the literature indicative of the

volunteer experience. Satisfaction, both high and low (i.e., dissatisfaction), is a primary

driver of volunteer dynamics, defined as the process “whereby people move in and out of

particular volunteer assignments or the volunteer labor force as a whole” (Wilson, 2012:

10

196). Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2001) developed and validated an index to measure

volunteer job satisfaction. Known as the Volunteer Satisfaction Index (VSI), their analysis

resulted in four contributing factors to volunteer job satisfaction: Organizational support,

participation efficacy, empowerment, and group integration. Both participation efficacy and

group integration were found to be predictors of a volunteer’s intent to remain.

Satisfied volunteers stay and commit, dissatisfied volunteers quit. Not surprisingly,

numerous factors influence volunteer satisfaction. For example, Hidalgo and Moreno (2009)

found that relationships with other volunteers, the perception of support from both staff and

volunteers, effective social integration, all contributed to volunteer satisfaction. Matching

volunteer assignments with an individual’s motivations or reasons for volunteering can

increase satisfaction (Finkelstein, 2008; Stukas, Worth, Clary, & Snyder, 2009). Conversely,

Hustinx (2010) found that mismatches contributed to volunteer attrition. In consideration of

volunteer job characteristics and informed by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985),

Millette and Gagne´ (2008: 21) demonstrated that consideration of a volunteer’s job design is

important to “enhance volunteer autonomous motivation, satisfaction and engagement.” Yet,

in spite of these empirical contributions to our understanding of volunteer satisfaction, “the

role of satisfaction in volunteer dynamics is poorly understood” (Musick & Wilson, 2008:

447–452; Wilson, 2012: 196).

Volunteerism in Professional Associations

According to the American Society of Association Executives (2012), approximately

27% of all volunteers in the United States between September 2009 and September 2010

volunteered through a membership association. Yet, this specific class of nonprofits

collectively has difficulty in retaining volunteers. According to Gazley (2013), “more than

11

one-quarter of those members who are past or current association volunteers indicate they are

unlikely to volunteer in the next year, and another one-quarter of the members are ambivalent

about their future intentions” (p. 1260), in spite of the fact that associations are ideally suited

for volunteer involvement. Unfortunately, theoretical insights regarding the nature of this

problem are not readily available due to a dearth of literature on volunteering in professional

associations (Brudney & Gazley, 2006; Gazley, 2013; Nesbit & Gazley, 2012; Tschirhart,

2006; Webb & Abzug, 2008). Additionally, this problem of practice may be exacerbated by

professional associations adopting practices that may be applicable to volunteers in charitable

or philanthropic contexts but are not applicable to the volunteer in professional associations

because the nature of the volunteer work is distinct to the mission of the professional

association.

Professional associations are nonprofit membership-based organizations that rely

heavily on volunteers (i.e., non-paid labor) to perform organizational work. In these types of

associations, the opportunity to volunteer is specifically reserved for members, and

membership requires a transactional commitment in the form of dues, most often on an

annual basis. This relationship is referred to as “mutual benefit” in that the association is

incorporated to serve or advance the collective interests of its membership (Tschirhart, 2006).

Perhaps unique to professional associations as a specific class of membership-based

associations is that much of the organizational work performed by volunteers can be

considered knowledge work. Knowledge work is “based on non-routine problem solving and

the contingency of work processes” (Pyoria, 2005: 124). In the context of professional

associations, this knowledge work is continuous over time and results in the development of

practice standards, ethical practices, and also educational content for training purposes in

12

order for the association’s members to maintain or enhance their professional competence

and employability. Over time, the activity of professional associations can have profound

economic effects on the professions or occupations within a given organizational field

(Lawrence, 2004).

Volunteers leave their assignments either by design or by choice. When volunteers

leave their assignment by design, it is because the assignment completed or the duration of

the commitment (pre-determined as the term of service) was completed. When volunteers

leave by choice, it is either prematurely (before the assignment is complete or before the term

concludes) or at the end of an assignment. At this point, volunteers may decide they will no

longer volunteer, even though additional volunteer assignments may be available. Volunteer

churn (Gazley, 2013) occurs when volunteers either leave an assignment prematurely or do

not return for a new assignment. The organization must then allocate resources to replace and

train the replacement volunteer. Over time, volunteer churn can be a significant burden to

any nonprofit’s management and mission. Especially in the context of professional

associations, reducing volunteer churn is critical because the sustainable nature of knowledge

work (as previously described) is fundamental to their member’s livelihood.

Numerous arguments in the literature support the study of volunteers in professional

associations separately from other types of volunteers. The context of the experience matters,

and when the context changes, so too does the experience. Thus, what are the substantive

contextual differences between professional associations as an organizational field from other

charitable or service organizations? One has been previously described as the nature of the

organizational work as knowledge work. One other difference is the requisite for

membership by the association, established through a financial transaction of member dues

13

paid to the association. This membership grants specific rights or privileges to members,

such as the opportunity to vote for board members, discounts on products and services, and

the opportunity to volunteer. Both of these are influenced at the organizational level, as they

create unique situational contingencies from a design perspective (Romme, 2003). Others

include the structural constraints and norms (i.e., vernacular and culture) of the profession(s)

represented by the association (Webb & Abzug, 2008). According to Hustinx et al. (2010:

429), a fundamental challenge that must be addressed is the “the problem of disciplinary

heterogeneity, or the different meanings and functions various disciplines attach to the

phenomenon.” The following studies specifically consider volunteering in the context of

professions and professional associations.

Webb and Abzug (2008) demonstrated that managers, professionals, and military

personnel are more likely to volunteer than service professionals. They attribute this finding

to the “spillover” theory (Wilson & Musick, 1997), which suggests that participation in

specific professional roles provide skills deemed valuable in civic society, and that some

occupations may be more likely to instill a cultural attitude for volunteering than others.

However, Webb and Abzug (2008) do not specify the organizational recipient of the

increased volunteering, so it is unclear if this increased volunteering is service-based or

charitable vs. professional.

Nesbit and Gazley (2012) analyzed survey data obtained from the American Society

of Association Executives (ASAE) and found distinct patterns of volunteering between

professional volunteering and non-professional volunteering contexts. Survey participants

who were employed in an academic setting or for the government were more likely to

volunteer for their professional association. Career level was also found to influence

14

volunteering, in that as one progressed up the career ladder, they were more likely to

volunteer professionally and less likely to volunteer in the community, at least until their

careers plateaued, and then community volunteering increased and professional volunteering

decreased. The influence of advanced education or skill level was also noted to increase

volunteering overall, but there was also a noted context-specific role for these influences,

particularly with respect to volunteering professionally. Nesbit and Gazley (2012) found little

support for Webb and Abzug’s previously described socialization effect from the available

data, where familial influence was less important on volunteering professionally. While this

study was one of the first large-scale analyses of descriptive and demographic data of

professional volunteers, its scope was limited to discussing the antecedents of volunteering in

a professional association and determination of potential differences these antecedents may

influence with respect to volunteering in either a professional or community volunteering

setting. As such, this study did not attempt to understand or explain the experience of

volunteering in professional associations.

Interestingly, Gazley (2013) considered the same ASAE dataset to test the Penner

(2002) volunteer process model in the context of professional volunteers within their

respective professional associations in order to predict future volunteering intent. Regarding

the demographic characteristics, the following are all more likely to volunteer in the future:

Members living outside of the United States and Canada, members working in academia or

nonprofits, members with higher levels of education, as well as those with more education, to

be more likely to volunteer in the future. Conversely, the longer the tenure in a given

profession, the less likely one’s intent to volunteer will be. Regarding the dispositional latent

variables, motivation was found to have an initial role, but lesser with regard to continuing

15

involvement over time. Her interpretation is that the specific current assignment and

experience at hand is more influential regarding the intent to continue. Regarding

organizational attributes and practices (i.e., the context of present association activity), she

found that current volunteers are 11 times more likely to continue volunteering, and past

volunteers are twice as likely to return to volunteering, as compared to their non-volunteering

counterparts. Yet, almost half of the respondents are either ambivalent about their future

volunteering intentions or unlikely to volunteer in the next year. One of the limitations of

Gazley’s study is that, by its own admission, the context of the volunteer experience is not

addressed. However, when the respondent’s future volunteering intent is considered in the

context of their respective professional field, the interpretation was that “organizational

context matters” (Gazley, 2013: 1261).

In summary, little of the extant literature considers the volunteer experience as a

discrete phenomenon, and what literature does exist regarding volunteerism specific to the

organizational context of professional associations is sparse. Even so, the available literature

that does consider the context of professional associations as distinct offers additional

insights to support our assertion that volunteering in professional associations is different

enough than volunteering in other contexts to warrant additional study of volunteering in

professional associations in and of itself. Accordingly, this research seeks to improve our

understanding of the volunteer experience of volunteering at professional associations.

Determining how this experience occurs to professional volunteers, and in what ways this

experience (or these experiences) lead to effective and sustainable volunteer recruitment,

engagement, efficacy, and retention, may bolster volunteer commitment and indicate specific

strategies that professional associations can adopt increase volunteer engagement and effort.

16

METHODS

Methodological Approach

We conducted a qualitative study utilizing grounded theory (Glaser & Strauss, 1999)

to iteratively collect and code, through constant comparative analysis (Boeije, 2002),

qualitative data obtained from 41 in-depth, semi-structured interviews. The unit of analysis

was the individual volunteer. This researcher’s background as an executive in association

management and volunteer in numerous professional associations also informed the

collection and analysis of the data. The research frame for data collection was the experience

of volunteering.

Participant Sample

Participants included two types of professional association members (first-time/new

to volunteering, and repeat/long-term volunteers), as well as paid managers of volunteers. In

order to identify phenomena relevant to a range of professional associations, the participants

represented diversity across association size, age, professions, as well as both professional

(practitioner) and academic (scholar) associations. Our participants were obtained initially

through convenience sampling and drawn from the researcher's personal network of

professional peers. Our initial research plan set a goal of recruiting at least 30 participants to

“fully develop patterns, concepts, categories, properties, and dimensions of the given

phenomena” (Thompson, 2011: 45). Once the interview process began and iterative coding

was underway, additional volunteers were obtained through theoretical sampling or until the

emerging composite themes and ideas reached theoretical saturation, resulting in a total of 41

participants. 37 of the participants were current or past volunteers at one or more professional

member associations, have volunteered at a professional association within 10 years of the

17

interview date, and/or also served as a volunteer manager employed at a professional

association. The four remaining participants did not currently volunteer and have not

volunteered in the past at professional member associations, but did volunteer at

philanthropic and faith-based nonprofits. These participants were included in the sample in

order to determine if their experiences were consistent or disparate from the other

participants’ experiences.

Participant Characteristics

As shown in Table 1, the participant sample was comprised of individuals who were

volunteers (V; 51%), volunteer managers (VM; 10%), and both volunteers and volunteer

managers (VVM; 39%), individuals that performed both of these roles at some point in the

past ten years but weren’t necessarily performing both roles currently.

TABLE 1: Participant Role

Role (volunteer, volunteer manager, or both) N Volunteer 21 (51%) Volunteer Manager 4 (10%) Both 16 (39%)

As shown in Table 2, 24% of the participants were male and 76% of the participants

were female. Participant’s representation by gender is comparable to prior research (Gazley,

2013; Nesbit and Gazley, 2012) and may be indicative of professional volunteers in general,

where more females volunteer than do males for their professional associations, respectively.

Additionally, 29% of the participants were relatively new to volunteering (within the past

five years), 7% of the participants had between five and nine years of volunteering

experience, and 63% had ten or more years of volunteering experience.

18

TABLE 2: Volunteer Experience (by Gender)

Volunteer Experience (years) by Gender Male Female Less than 5 1 (2%) 11 (27%) 5 – 9 0 (0%) 3 (7%) 10 or more 9 (22%) 17 (41%) Total 10 (24%) 31 (76%)

As shown in Table 3, participants were categorized by generational age, with 20% of

the participants representing Millennials (also referred to as Generation Y), 46% of the

participants representing Generation X, 29% of the participants representing Baby Boomers,

and 5% of the participants representing the Silent Generation.

TABLE 3: Generational Age

Generational Age N Silent Generation 2 (5%) Baby Boomer 12 (29%) Generation X 19 (46%) Generation Y 8 (20%)

As shown in Table 4, the participant’s work environment varied between nonprofit,

profit, and public settings. The same number of participants worked in a nonprofit

environment as did in a for-profit environment (41.5% for both), and another 15% worked in

a public organization. One participant was retired.

TABLE 4: Work Environment

Work Environment N Nonprofit 17 (41.5%) Profit 17 (41.5%) Public 6 (15%) Retired 1 (2%)

19

Data Collection

Data collection occurred between June and October, 2013, and was based on semi-

structured interviews conducted face-to-face (27%), Skype video (22%), and teleconference

(51%) formats to best accommodate each participant’s schedule. All participants provided

their written or verbal consent to participate prior to the start of the interview. The interview

protocol consisted of an initial set of 5 open-ended background and core interview questions

aimed at producing rich descriptions and interpretations of first-person, volunteer

experiences (see Appendix). The key question used to elicit these descriptions was “Tell me

about your most significant or memorable volunteer experiences.” Based on the iterative and

cyclical process of transcript analysis, the context-contingent follow-up questions as probes

were used only when relevant, and some were omitted or altered for subsequent interviews,

consistent with theoretical sampling technique (Strauss & Corbin, 1998). All interviews were

recorded with a hand-held digital recorder with the participants’ permission and subsequently

transcribed by a professional transcription service. The duration of the interviews ranged

from 33 to 71 minutes with a mean of 52 minutes. In total, the interviews generated 612

pages of transcribed text as qualitative research data with a mean transcript length of 15

pages.

Data Analysis

Data analysis involved multiple levels of coding to better understand complex

psychological and sociological phenomenon as they occur in the real world (Charmaz, 2006).

Specifically, our analysis of the data was performed through three rounds of coding: Open,

axial, and selective coding, respectively (Corbin & Strauss, 2008). The first round of open

coding was a search for “codable moments” (Boyatzis, 1998), or excerpts from the

20

transcriptions such as sentence fragments, sentences, or groups of sentences that are of

significance to the elucidation of potential themes as the coding process ensues. This first

round of open coding generated approximately 1,013 such excerpts tagged with 257 discrete

open codes. These excerpts were subsequently categorized into 37 groups. The second round

of axial coding reduced the number of groups to 15. The final round of coding generated five

emergent themes. The coding process from start to finish was accomplished within Dedoose,

a web-based data analysis software tool (www.dedoose.com).

FINDINGS

Our research findings suggest five themes which are critical in fostering long-term,

volunteer commitment in professional associations. First, participants differentiated their

professional volunteering experiences from their personal volunteering experiences. Second,

participants described the importance and preference for in-person interactions as part of

their volunteer experiences. Third, participants placed a high value on the personal learning

that resulted from their respective volunteering experiences. Fourth, participants valued the

deep and meaningful relationships that developed from their respective volunteering

experiences. Finally, participants also valued the outcomes or impact resulting from their

respective volunteering experiences.

Finding 1: Differentiation between Personal and Professional Volunteering

The participants differentiated between their charitable/philanthropic volunteering

(i.e., personal) and their professional volunteering. Representative quotes supporting this

finding can be found in Table 5.

21

TABLE 5: Differentiating Between Personal and Professional Volunteering

Interview # Representative Quotes 13 The philanthropic or charitable work is really about mother-daughter time.

It's about role modeling, giving back. To a teenager who, to be honest, has about everything she wants, trying to give them a bigger world view. If the biggest problem is that your iPad isn't charged, let's go deliver Meals on Wheels. Kind of keeping them grounded. And it's a good mother-daughter opportunity. So that's the reason I do that. [NP, VVM, X, F]

36 Some of it is personal, and related to the church, but that’s more of a social venture, I would say, although I do, in the process of managing and running the committee, another chief cook and bottle washer duties, I do get involved in actually trench work, but I guess the distinction from me is this kind of personal as compared with professional. [PR, VVM, BB, F]

37 I'm working full time and volunteering professionally, and raising a family, and running a business and everything else I do, I don't have the time for more than a day of volunteer work personally. Professionally, it's the complete opposite. I make the commitment, I travel to make it to every meeting, I serve on committees, I lead committees, and I do much longer volunteer commitments. [PR, VVM, X, F]

21 I think when people volunteer for our organization or those similar to ours, there’s a lot of professional motivation there more so or different than a charitable one. [NP, VVM, BB, M]

25 It’s much more professional and career-oriented than let's say personal, or community service-oriented. [PR, V, X, M]

LEGEND: The convention for categorizing the participants is as follows – [Employer Type, Volunteer

Role, Generational Age, Gender] and using these abbreviations: (NP = nonprofit; PR = for-profit; PU =

public), Volunteer Role (V = volunteer; VM = volunteer manager; VVM = both volunteer and volunteer

manager), Generational Age (SG = silent generation; BB = baby boomer; Y = generation Y (also known

as millennials); X = generation X), Gender (M = male; F = female)

Personal volunteering was characterized as time spent with family, especially

children, and primarily for social reasons. “Giving back” or “giving back to society” in

general were also typical of the descriptions of personal volunteering. Personal volunteering

was also described as an activity one could do in a single day, short-term, or ad hoc basis.

For example, one participant stated:

22

“I'm working full time and volunteering professionally, and raising a family, and running a business and everything else I do, I don't have the time for more than a day of volunteer work personally. Professionally, it's the complete opposite. I make the commitment, I travel to make it to every meeting, I serve on committees, I lead committees, and I do much longer volunteer commitments.” On the other hand, professional volunteering was characterized as professional

development, continuing education, and typically an activity the participants committed to

over the long-term. “Giving back” was also used in the descriptions of professional

volunteering, but in a more specific context, such as giving back to the profession, making a

difference for the profession, or making the profession better for others like me. Professional

volunteering was often described as an activity to increase or improve one’s and others’

employability.

The participants’ descriptions indicated that there were clear distinctions between the

context of volunteering personally (i.e., for charity) versus volunteering professionally. These

distinctions lead to different motivations for when, why, and where a participant volunteers

personally or professionally. These distinctions also created expectations regarding the

amount of time one might expect to commit, with personal volunteering being a shorter-term

engagement and professional volunteering being a longer-term engagement.

Finding 2: Importance of Face-to-Face Interaction

In-person interactions or face-to-face meetings were characterized as an important

prerequisite setting that facilitated both learning and the opportunity to develop deep and

meaningful relationships. Representative quotes supporting this finding can be found in

Table 6.

23

TABLE 6: Importance of Face-to-Face Interaction

Interview # Representative Quotes 19 When we met for face-to face meetings, people would really let loose, they

would really get comfortable with you as they got to know you a little bit and they could learn to trust you - develop a sense of camaraderie. I'm not sure you really get that feeling in on online discussion forum or conference call; certainly not by e-mail, at least for me. [PU, VVM, BB, M]

25 I just really enjoyed working face-to-face with the other volunteers. We had a sense of camaraderie. We liked to do things together. [PR, V, X, M]

22 You’re able to have a real interaction with them, talk to them at the meeting, catch up on what’s been going on, here where they are, if they’re going on to another organization, and then what’s been happening in their life since then. And so it continues to enhance your networking and strengthen your relationships with your colleagues. [NP, VVM, BB, F]

29 So they'll bring a bunch of us together for several days, basically talking shop. It allows us the opportunity to get to know one another, learn who does what for what kind of organization. To pick each other's brain – I guess because we've all had different types of experiences or similar experiences and get to feel out how somebody else might have handled the circumstance. It's like putting a bunch of athletes in a room who do the same sport and everybody gets really excited about it. [NP, V, X, F]

40 I'm extremely excited. I can't wait because, you know, you talk to these people on a conference call once or twice a month, and you never make that face connection until you get to go to the conference and meet them in person. Then you know ... Then you make a real connection face-to-face and really get to know your personality, and understand your sarcasm. It doesn't just come across in an email or in a phone, so you know that person. [PR, V, Y, F]

Participants believed that face-to-face interactions were critical, in as much that

comparable volunteer activities conducted remotely or virtually did not provide opportunities

to learn or develop relations to the same extent that face-to-face interactions did. For

example, one participant noted:

“You’re able to have a real interaction with them, talk to them at the meeting, catch up on what’s been going on, here where they are, if they’re going on to another organization, and then what’s been happening in their life since then. And so it continues to enhance your networking and strengthen your relationships with your colleagues.”

24

The participants’ descriptions indicated that these face-to-face interactions were

fundamental to creating strong memories of shared, lived experiences. These shared, lived

experiences were conducive to developing camaraderie or esprit de core among and between

volunteers. This camaraderie is important and predicated on a sense of developed trust and

comfort with others like me that develops over time. Once established, this camaraderie

cultivated a strong sense of teamwork, collaboration, and accomplishment.

Finding 3: Learning

Learning consists of professional development through social and informal learning,

in the context of enhancing competence with respect to one’s role, occupation, or profession.

As described by one participant:

“Part of this thing is like having a conversation with leading thinkers in some of the areas then I can ask them, so what’s new? What’s going on? You also get to make sure that people are learning something that is really valuable to them that they can actually take back to their organization and potentially implement right away so that they can make a difference.” Additional representative quotes supporting this finding can be found in Table 7.

TABLE 7: The Value of Learning through Volunteering

Interview # Representative Quotes 1 Probably what was unexpected to be exciting was the educational piece of

it. [PR, V, X, F] 5 It was very valuable because I learned to do new things. Just professional

things that I wouldn't necessarily have picked up in an hour long session attending a conference. [PR, VM, BB, F]

6 The learning curve has been amazing; the ability to learn and learn from others who are experts was valuable to me personally. [NP, VVM, X, M]

35 Part of this thing is like having a conversation with leading thinkers in some of the areas then I can ask them, so what’s new? What’s going on? You also get to make sure that people are learning something that is really valuable to them that they can actually take back to their organization and potentially implement right away so that they can make a difference. [PU, V, BB, F]

25

29 Talking about our profession. I mean, we all do very similar work; most of it is discussing situations that we've been in staff we may support and how we may handle certain situations or what things kind of apply; I valued learning how one person at one company might have handled it differently than another person at another company. Somebody in the private sector might have handled it differently than somebody in the public sector. [NP, V, X, F]

22 You want to have great relationships with your colleagues to build and enhance your network. But you learn something in every experience and interaction. It’s a continual learning process. [NP, VVM, BB, F]

Regarding this finding, it is important to note that learning is dependent on

physicality (i.e., in-person, shared experiences). These and other descriptions indicate that

participants characterized the learning effect in the context of solving problems at work to the

benefit of their respective employers. The extent of learning was determined ex post facto,

and participants did not convey an explicit expectation that learning occur. Often, the

educational benefit was described as something unexpected and a substantive positive benefit

of the volunteer experience. Participants didn’t have a learning agenda a priori, but would

hear or pick up small yet significant activities or behaviors that could be easily adopted or

implemented at the individual level and result in solving a recurring work-related problem or

persistent personnel issue. Participants also described the learning as coming from different

volunteers or even staff (volunteer managers) throughout the volunteer experience. Finally,

the richest learning occurred during the down times and not during formal meeting time (e.g.,

during meals, during breaks, over drinks, traveling to or from the meeting, during exercise,

etc.).

26

Finding 4: Relationships

Deep and meaningful relationships refers to the creation of authentic friendships with

other volunteers over time that aren’t constrained to the volunteer work or the profession

represented by the organization. A participant’s illustrative description follows:

“Dinners are always a great opportunity to network with new people and get to meet someone that you might not have gotten to meet otherwise. But more importantly, you have an opportunity to talk with them in kind of a more intimate or informal setting. That is kind of, one of the essentials that I really, really cherish about doing a lot of this volunteer stuff, is these opportunities of meeting people outside of the work assigned, who are well known in the field and create the possibility of friendships into the future.” Regarding this finding, it is important to note that the development of deep and

meaningful relationships is also dependent on physicality (i.e., in-person, shared experiences)

and, also time (i.e., more than one year of recurring interactions between volunteers.

Additional representative quotes supporting this finding can be found in Table 8.

TABLE 8: Cultivating Deep and Meaningful Relationships

Interview # Representative Quotes 10 I do believe that the important part of that conversation with the other

volunteers was being touched emotionally, which really developed and fostered the start of some deep relationships, allowing us to be really effective, I think, at the time. Many are still close friends today. [PR, V, X, M]

8 Dinners are always a great opportunity to network with new people and get to meet someone that you might not have gotten to meet otherwise. But more importantly, you have an opportunity to talk with them in kind of a more intimate or informal setting. That is kind of, one of the essentials that I really, really cherish about doing a lot of this volunteer stuff, is these opportunities of meeting people outside of the work assigned, who are well known in the field and create the possibility of friendships into the future. [PU, V, BB, F]

19 There's some of those folks that I haven't seen in probably 10-15 years but if I ran into to them tomorrow I'm sure we could sit down and start chatting and kind of pick up where we left off, just like any true friend. I feel like those kinds of shared experiences, the things that you go through as a group of volunteers, really does create a bit of a bond. I have some of

27

my closest friends as a result of those experiences. [PU, VVM, BB, M] 13 My friends from volunteering? It’s not just somebody you bumped into at a

meeting. You have a working relationship, in that they've been exposed to you and you've been exposed to them, but it's something more. You shared or share experiences on behalf of the organization. A professional friendship, but it is about more than your work or the organization. This may be how you met, but not why the relationship continues. [NP, VVM, X, F]

32 When you come in to a new volunteering situation, they don't know you. Before you can influence anything that's occurring on the board, first of all you have to listen and learn what's going on at that organizational board, what needs to be done and then you have to slowly, I mean, you don't jump in the middle of the table and do a dance when you're coming to your first meeting. They have to learn about you as a person and I have to introduce myself and earn their respect before I can influence anything. The same for me - I have to get to know them personally, what they stand for, not just what they do for a living or where they work. Meaningful relationships are primary. [PU, V, BB, F]

The participant descriptions reflect the high value placed on the ensuing relationships

which developed out of the shared, lived experience of volunteering with others in a

professional context. Not only is the activity shared and meaningful for both, but so is the

collective accomplishment or potential thereof. This “payoff” is both functional for the

organization in as much as it receives the benefits of the resulting completed knowledge

work, and also personal for the individual volunteers, in as much as they forge deep and

meaningful relationships with others accordingly.

Finding 5: Impact

Participants described impact as the ability to see the results of their (collective)

work, within a reasonable period of time, and be both substantive and contributing to the

growth of the profession or improving the overall efficacy of the association. These “results”

weren’t limited to tangible deliverables such as documents, etc., but included more

ephemeral changes such as changes to the ways the profession conducts its work at the task

28

level, to improvements in employability trends throughout the sector within which the

profession operates, to observable changes in the public’s perception of the profession. For

example, a participant noted:

“When it was done and made public, all our names were included; that's pretty high praise, so getting my name out there like that is ... It means a lot to me. Even if my name isn't associated with it, the fact that I got to participate and seeing the result and how it could potentially impact a lot of us now and in the future, that is pretty cool.” Additional representative quotes supporting this finding can be found in Table 9.

TABLE 9: Impact Fruition

Interview # Representative Quotes 25 It’s kind of back to how is my time valuable, what was the return to the

organization or our members; how did that help, how does that have an impact? If I don’t know the impact and value, then it’s kind of what’s the point? Why am I doing it? It doesn't have to be immediate, but I should be able to see it without waiting for years; others should be able to see it too and the difference it makes. [PR, V, X, M]

13 When I talk about a memorable experience, it's probably my volunteer experience where I saw the least direct impact of my contributions, or the contributions of the team as whole. I think that on the other groups I'm still with now, I really see the results of our work and I didn't see that as often there. [NP, VVM, X, F]

40 When it was done and made public, all our names were included; that's pretty high praise, so getting my name out there like that is ... It means a lot to me. Even if my name isn't associated with it, the fact that I got to participate and seeing the result and how it could potentially impact a lot of us now and in the future, that is pretty cool. [PR, V, Y, F]

12 The gratification that came from accomplishing a first. And extracting cooperation from an industry that is typically very, very competitive. Just the feeling of having advanced a whole area of industry, I think, proved to be very gratifying at the time and still is, even now. [PR, V, BB, M]

8 This is actually how I see I’m making an impact maybe in little ways, but just kind of changing things and making them better for the people, who are using, or attending the conference or using some service or products that’s provided by the organization. Or even just being a better representative of our profession where they work. [PU, V, BB, F]

29

Direct attribution to named individuals involved in the activity resulting in the impact

fruition isn’t necessary, as long as the impact results or affects other members or the

association as a whole. The inability of professional volunteers to see the impact of their

efforts contributed to a less-than-positive recall of the volunteer experience. Professional

volunteers that are unable to see the “fruits of their labor” are quick to express overt

dissatisfaction and frustration regarding the volunteer experience, even without prompting.

The participant descriptions reflect the both value and sustainability of their outcomes

or deliverables as impactful to the association and profession. The longer the impact’s shelf-

life (or perception of), the better, and especially for the association, the profession(s), and

sector(s)/industry(ies) affected.

DISCUSSION

Our research findings demonstrate that volunteers within professional associations

describe and characterize the nature of experiences volunteering differently between personal

(i.e., charitable) and professional volunteering, which affirms the observations of other

scholars that continuing research regarding volunteers be conducted within a context-specific

perspective. Our research also extends recent work by Gazley (2013: 1245), who suggested

that, at least in the context of professional associations, the “strongest influences on sustained

commitment come from situational factors related to the volunteer experience rather than

social prior conditioning.”

Our research findings are also surprising in as much as they appear to counter

emerging practices in volunteer management such as: 1) Reducing the length or duration of

the service commitment or term of service; 2) changing the nature of the volunteer work to

more task-oriented activities; and 3) transforming the volunteer setting from in-person

30

meetings to performing organizational work to exclusively virtual settings. While some of

these volunteer management practices have been validated to some extent in the literature in

the context of charitable organizations, their validity and more importantly their efficacy

remains to be seen in the context of professional associations. Our research findings suggest

that the implementation of these practices may actually hinder or compromise the knowledge

work needing to be performed by professional volunteers on behalf of their respective

professional associations.

The theorization of our findings which follows emerges largely out of the concept of

social construction (Berger & Luckmann, 1966; Gergen, 2009). As stated previously,

volunteering is characterized as a form of “social action” (Snyder & Omoto, 2008: 2) which

is guided by the meanings volunteers assign to their respective experiences. Social

construction is both a dynamic and continuous process where we create, maintain, and revise

our collective reality through social interactions with others by applying and interpreting

subjective meanings from our shared experiences. In addition to social construction, we also

consider social development (Vygotsky, 1978), social learning (Bandura, 1971), social

identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner, 1985), and the concept of communities of

practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998) in an attempt to interpret our findings and

improve our understanding of the volunteer experience in professional associations.

Volunteer Role Differentiation

Individuals differentiate their volunteer roles based on their respective social

identities across different contexts. An individual’s social identity is their awareness, sense,

or knowledge of belonging, and an individual can have multiple social identities. This

belonging is categorized in meaningful ways that guide an individual’s beliefs and more

31

importantly their behaviors, especially when interacting with others in the same social group

or when comparing oneself to other social groups. Social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel

& Turner, 1985) has particular relevance and applicability within the context of volunteering

in professional associations, as the nature of membership combined with representation of

the profession creates a significantly more homogenous pool of potential volunteers, at least

as compared to the potential volunteer pool at charitable organizations. Tidwell’s (2005)

social identification model utilized social identity theory (Tajfel, 1982; Tajfel & Turner,

1985) to empirically demonstrate that individual volunteers high in organizational

identification are more engaged, demonstrate more prosocial behaviors and also greater

organizational satisfaction and commitment, with no significant differences with respect to

age or gender.

Importance of Face-to-Face Interaction

Face-to-face interaction (i.e., copresence) is integral for volunteers performing

knowledge work on behalf of professional associations. These in-person interactions allow

for learning to occur between volunteers, and they also allow deep and meaningful

relationships to develop over time, and reflect the elements of copresence as defined by

Goffman (1966: 17), where this in-person interaction acts to facilitate the flow of information

back and forth between individuals and that the close proximity between individuals allows

mutual perception between individuals to occur. And, both Vygotsky’s social development

theory and Banduras’ social learning theories infer that interactions between individuals are

conducted face-to-face. Vygotsky’s theory was originally developed in 1920s and 1930s, and

Banduras’ theory was initially developed in the 1960s, both well before virtual interaction

through technology was readily available.

32

Not only are face-to-face interactions important, but it is the informal component of

face-to-face interactions where learning and relationships take root. Both of these occur

primarily in the down times around the formal organizational work of the volunteers. Before

and after meetings, during breaks, during meals, and also during other planned social

activities, even traveling to and from volunteer meetings are when learning potential is at its

peak and relationships develop.

Volunteering as a Mode of Learning

Learning through volunteering within professional associations illustrates Vygotsky’s

concept of the “more knowledgeable other” (MKO). Predicated first on social interactions

resulting from the volunteer activities, the MKO is another fellow volunteer that has greater

experience, knowledge, or competence. In our findings, volunteers’ learn through their

interactions with other volunteers as MKOs, and they themselves are also MKOs to other

volunteers.

To a lesser extent, Bandura’s social learning theory is also applicable to volunteering

as a mode of learning. Similar to the MKO, volunteers learn through their interactions with

others. Banduras makes the distinction that this learning occurs through modeling the

behavior of others, first practiced or rehearsed, then performed overtly. In our study,

participants are not observing the desired behaviors directly, but rather learning verbal re-

enactments or synopses of behaviors that may prove efficacious back within the context of

their work environments, much more indicative of a verbal instructional model (Bandura,

1971). It may be days or weeks for the performed actions/behaviors to demonstrate their

value to the learner; however, if the actions/behaviors result in the desired outcome, it is

more likely that the learner will adopt and/or retain these actions/behaviors into the future.

33

Three additional contingencies are likely to impact learning potential, with the first

being the similarity of context for the action/behavior. The closer in similarity the context,

the greater the likelihood will be that the learner finds value in the behavior being modeled.

Second, the level of respect or trust the learning conveys of the fellow volunteer. Third, the

greater the functional value the learning provides to the learner, the greater the likelihood that

the learner will retain the behavior.

Volunteering groups within professional associations can also be considered as

communities of practice (Lave & Wenger, 1991; Wenger, 1998). Indeed, even the

professional association itself can be considered a community of practice, comprised of

numerous, smaller, and nested communities of practice, some of which are formalized, and

also many informal. In this regard, communities of practice exhibit three characteristics: 1)

Function as “nodes for the exchange and interpretation of information”; 2) serve as

repositories of tacit knowledge; 3) “steward competencies”; and 4) serve as an identity home

(Wenger, 1998, n.p.). With respect to characteristic #1, our participants described

interactions where they were able to access information through their volunteer participation

and specifically during the downtimes of in-person meetings. With respect to characteristic

#2, our participants reflected the understanding that once this new information became

known to them, they believed it was otherwise unavailable or inaccessible through other

venues or modes of learning. With respect to characteristic #3, participants recognized the

value that their volunteer participation offered with respect to their professional development

from a continuing competence perspective. And, with respect to characteristic #4,

participants would often characterize relationships with other volunteers as a second or

extended family, especially with regard to the development of trust over time and the amount

34

of personal information shared. A professional “home” one shares with a smaller group can

be considered analogous to a neighborhood, whereas the larger professional association is

analogous to a city, and the profession as a whole a state. This volunteer home engenders a

level of intimacy, immediacy, and safety not necessarily found at the higher levels.

Cultivating Deep & Meaningful Relationships

Relationships between individuals serve as an important prerequisite for facilitating a

shared understanding through mutually understood or lived experiences, and this mutual

understand emerges through the use of language (Gergen, 2009). With respect to our

findings, we theorize that the quality of the relationship also impacts learning: the more

substantive the relationship, the greater the opportunity for learning from one another.

Participants noted the importance of getting to know and respect one another before they

could influence each other toward effective decisions. This is different from the MKO role as

previously described, and instead a relationship where both are in a sense mutually

knowledgeable to the same degree. The difference is in the context of perspective that the

other can add value to both the individual volunteer’s learning needs and the volunteer

group’s tasks when needed.

Realization of Impact

Professional associations often serve as the generator and curator for its respective

professions and occupations body of knowledge, which changes over time. Volunteers

performing knowledge work on behalf of a professional association assume that this

constructed knowledge is expected to have a high social utility not only to the members, but

to the profession and also the industry within which it operates, “constructions gain their

significance from their social utility” (Gergen, 2009: 8). We assert that impact as articulated

35

within the context of our research serves as a proxy for social utility. Thus, if social utility

(i.e., impact) is low, its significance is questioned and the volunteer effort is marginalized.

Conversely, when the impact (i.e., social utility) is high, the volunteer effort is validated and

deemed more than worth the effort, leading to renewed commitment for the volunteer. In

Gergen’s (2009) view, social construction is about continuously challenging and improving

the status quo, “as we describe and explain, so do we fashion our future” (Gergen, 2009: 10),

and the same applies for professional associations. Co-creating alternative and/or generative

discourses is especially important for professional associations from a social construction

perspective, as this is often one mechanism that drives innovation and advances in practice

standards in professions over time.

Finally, our participants indicated that they value the interaction of differing

perspectives that comes from individual conversations and group deliberations among

respected peers, indicating that “reflection on our taken-for-granted world is vital to our

future well-being” (Gergen, 2009: 12). This suggests the importance of critical reflexivity,

the ability to question one’s own dominant discourse, or set it aside in consideration of other

perspectives as valid, as a valued core competency of these professional volunteers.

When considered collectively, our findings elucidate a mosaic of specific situational

factors that contribute to the positive experience of professional volunteering. Specifically,

these factors are illustrative of a process model (Snyder & Omoto, 2008) consisting of

antecedents as characteristics and traits, experiences vis a vis behaviors, and the resultant

consequences. See Figure Z. Further, the explication of behavioral and experiential factors

resulting from this research, points to the importance of social interactions, both personal and

professional, and the mutually-reinforcing aspect of these two types of interactions. This

36

importance suggests the relevance of several theories of social interaction and learning,

especially within the over-arching framework of social construction theory. Future research

that makes greater use of such theories can help researchers and managers better understand

the social factors that underlie persistent volunteer engagement.

FIGURE 2 Process Model for Committed Volunteers within Professional Associations

LIMITATIONS

No research is beyond reproach regarding limitations which constrain its findings,

and this study is no exception. Accordingly, our research findings should be considered in

light of the following limitations. First, sample size reflected the nature of a qualitative study

utilizing grounded theory, and was determined through a combination of convenience and

theoretical sampling as previously described and may not be representative of all potential

professional association volunteers. Second, because the context of our sample was specific

37

to the experience of volunteering within professional associations, our research findings are

not intended to be generalizable to other types of organizations or other types of volunteering

experiences (such as charitable volunteering) in the absence of additional confirmatory

research. Third, the data was collected at the level of the individual, and even though many

participants also were or are volunteer managers, our research findings may not be indicative

of current organizational-level volunteer management practices within or among professional

associations. Fourth, although every effort was made to reduce researcher bias, the principal

investigator himself is a committed volunteer of numerous professional associations, and also

has extensive experience as a volunteer manager. His experience may have influenced data

interpretation. A fifth limitation is that the experiences described by the participants occurred

as they were recalled vis-à-vis free association. Specifically, participants described their

experiences without consideration to temporal order, association, or valence (i.e., perception

of the experience as positive or negative). Typically, participants describing an experience

would move from one organization/time/role, and drift into one or more experiences which

occurred at other organizations/times/roles, without explicitly informing the researcher.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE & FUTURE RESEARCH

These research findings suggest that association leaders and volunteer managers

should exercise caution when considering changes to their current volunteer management

practices or if developing new volunteer management programs, especially if the changes or

practices being considered emerged out of context or in an organizational setting different

than the professional association, such as those emerging out of charitable organizations and

the management of their respective volunteers. Two recent trends cited in the literature

include virtual volunteering (Murray & Harrison, 2005) and episodic volunteering (Macduff,

38

2005). For example, an association which transforms its volunteer practices away from in-

person activities to virtual activities may be unintentionally compromising the learning

potential of volunteers, which may have a downstream effect that leads to less than

efficacious knowledge work in the long-term. An association with decreases the term

requirements of its volunteers or transforms its practices to utilize episodic volunteering may

comprise any combination of the situational factors uncovered in this research, which can

lead to potential increases in ambivalence towards future volunteering.

Both of these recent trends in volunteering management design can be couched as

deficit reduction approaches, where the management of volunteers is a problem-to-be-solved,

instead of as a competitive advantage that has yet to be fully exploited. With respect to our

findings, associations can exploit the potential competitive advantage of their volunteers in

numerous ways. One approach is to make the learning potential more explicit to potential

volunteers as a value proposition, and then task volunteer leaders and volunteer managers

with the responsibility to create and reinforce both a learning agenda for the group as well as

learning agendas for the individual volunteers. Another approach is for associations to embed

pre- and post- learning assessment questions to their volunteer surveys, and if they do not yet

utilize surveys of their volunteers to determine their satisfaction, then begin doing so at the

earliest opportunity. Still another opportunity is for associations to make every effort to

communicate the work progress of any volunteer group not only back to the group, but also

to all the association membership, and even to the larger population of the profession as

whole. The communication of the impact should not be discounted, as this specific finding in

our research suggests that failure to realize impact is the most potent driver of volunteer

dissatisfaction.

39

Future quantitative research should focus on determining both the criticality and

extent that each of these situational factors, individually or in various combinations,

contributes to sustained volunteering within professional associations. Unpacking each of

these factors to component parts will also be insightful. For example, with regard to

physicality or in-person interactions, what is the requisite amount of time that is sufficient to

foster the potential for deep and meaningful relationships to develop? Is it simply the amount

of time, or is there a qualitative component? In other words, what occurs during these in-

person interactions between volunteers which either bolsters or inhibits relationship

potential?

CONCLUSION

Regarding the experience of volunteering at professional associations, this research

explicates specific situational factors which lead to sustained and efficacious volunteerism

over time, specifically in the situational context of volunteers within professional member

associations with regard to individual characteristics and traits, which in turn influence

subsequent behaviors and experiences, such that volunteer commitment is increased over

time. These factors include the delineation between personal and professional volunteering,

the importance of in-person interactions between volunteers, the high value of learning

volunteers experience, the potential for deep and meaningful relationships, and the

expectation that their work have an impact for both the association and the profession. These

factors increase our understanding of the volunteer experience and also augment prior recent

work on volunteering in professional associations. Organizations should be able to increase

retention by inculcating practices that foster meaningful experiences among volunteers.

40

APPENDIX: Interview Questions

The proposed interview questions which follow were used to elicit a first-person,

descriptive narrative of the volunteer experience in professional associations: Part 1 – Initial/Background Questions:

• Please tell me about yourself, both personally and professionally? • Please describe your current roles and responsibilities (both paid and volunteer)?

Part 2 – Core Questions:

• Please describe for me the range and extent of your volunteer experiences to date? • Are you volunteering now?

o If yes, where and in what capacity are you currently volunteering? Can you please describe this experience?

o If no, what keeps you from volunteering? • Tell me about your most significant or memorable volunteer experiences?

General Probes (potential follow-up questions that may be asked after the interviewee responds initially to any of the above core questions, and/or after the interviewee responds to any of the above contingent/context specific probes):

• Can you please tell me (say) more? • As you describe this experience now, what stands out the most for you? • Can you elaborate any further about this experience? • Is this experience typical (for you; for others)? • How did you feel as a result of this experience? • What did you take away from this experience?

Part 3 – Concluding Questions:

• Is there anything that you might not have thought about before that occurred to you during this interview that you want to share with me now?

• Is there anything else you think I should know to understand the experience of volunteering better?

• Are there any questions that I didn’t ask you about your volunteer experiences that I should ask you now?

• Is there anything you would like to ask me?

41

REFERENCES

Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50(2): 179–211.

American Society of Association Executives. 2012. Associations matter: Associations by the

numbers. Washington, DC: American Society of Association Executives. Anheier, H., and Salamon, L. 1999. Volunteering in cross-national perspective: Initial

comparisons. Law and Contemporary Problems, 62 (4): 43 – 65. Bandura, A. 1971. Social learning theory. New York: General Learning Press. Berger, P. L., & Luckmann, T. 1966. The social construction of reality: A treatise in the

sociology of knowledge. Garden City, NY: Doubleday. Boeije, H. 2002. A purposeful approach to the constant comparative method in the analysis

of qualitative interviews. Quality & Quantity, 36: 391 – 409. Boyatzis, 1998. Transforming qualitative information: Thematic analysis and code

development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc. Brudney, J. L., & Gazley, B. 2006. Moving ahead or falling behind? Volunteer promotion

and data collection. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 16(3): 259–276. Charmaz, K. 2006. Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through quantitative

analysis. London: Sage Publications, Ltd. Corbin, J., & Strauss, A. 2008. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures

for developing grounded theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.

Davis, M. H., Hall, J. A., & Meyer, M. 2003. The first year: Influences on the satisfaction,

involvement, and persistence of new community volunteers. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(2): 248 – 260.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. 1985. Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum. Dunne, C. 2011. The place of the literature review in grounded theory research.

International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 14(2): 111 – 124. Finkelstein, M.A. Volunteer satisfaction and volunteer action: A functional approach. Social

Behavior and Personality, 36(1): 9–18.

42

Galindo-Kuhn, R., & Guzley, R. M. 2001. The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct definition, measurement, development, and validation. Journal of Social Service Research, Vol. 28(1): 45–68.

Gazley, B. 2013. Predicting a volunteer's future intentions in professional associations: A test

of the Penner model. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. 42(6): 1245–1267. Gazley, B., & Dignam, M. 2008. The decision to volunteer: Why people give their time and

how you can engage them. Washington, DC: American Society of Association Executives and The Center for Association Leadership.

Gergen, K. J. 2009. An invitation to social construction (2nd ed.). London: Sage

Publications, Ltd. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. 1999. The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for

qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Goffman, E. 1966. Behavior in Public Places. New York: Free Press. Grube, J., & Piliavin, J. A. 2000. Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer

experiences. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 1108–1120. Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. 2008. The volunteer stages and transitions

model: Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1): 67–102.

Hildalgo, M. C., & Moreno, P. 2009. Organizational socialization of volunteers: The effect on their intention to remain. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(5): 594–601.

Hustinx, L. 2010. Institutionally individualized volunteering: Toward a late modern

reconstruction. Journal of Civil Society, 6(2): 165 – 179. Hustinx, L. 2010. I quit, therefore I am? Volunteer turnover and the politics of self-

actualization. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 39: 236–255. Hustinx, L., Cnaan, R. A., & Handy, F. 2010. Navigating theories of volunteering: A hybrid

map for a complex phenomenon. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 40(4): 410–434.

Kramer, M. W. 2011. Toward a communication model for the socialization of voluntary

members. Communication Monographs, 78(2): 233–255. Lave, J., & Wenger, E. 1991. Situated learning. Legitimate peripheral participation,

Cambridge: University of Cambridge Press.

43

Lawrence, T. B. 2004. Rituals and resistance: Membership dynamics in professional fields. Human Relations, 57: 115–143.

Macduff, N. 2005. Societal changes and the rise of the episodic volunteer. In J. L. Brudney

(Ed.) Emerging areas of volunteering (ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series), 1(2): 49 – 62. Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.

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

Moreno-Jiminez, M., & Villodres, M. 2010. Prediction of burnout in volunteers. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 40: 1798–1818. Murray, V., & Harrison, Y. 2005. Virtual volunteering. In J. L. Brudney (Ed.), Emerging

areas of volunteering (ARNOVA Occasional Paper Series), 1(2): 31–48. Indianapolis, IN: Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.

Musick, M. A., & Wilson, J. 2008. Volunteers: A social profile. Bloomington, IN: Indiana

University Press. Nesbit, R., & Gazley, B. 2012. Patterns of volunteer activity in professional associations and

societies. Voluntas, 23: 558–583. Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. 1995. Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation,

longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 671–686.

Pearce, J. L. 1993. Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. London:

Routledge. Penner, L. 2002. Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An

interactionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58: 447–457. Pyoria, P. 2005. The concept of knowledge work revisited. Journal of Knowledge

Management, 9(3): 116 – 127. Romme, A. G. L. 2003. Making a difference: Organization as design. Organization Science,

14(5): 558–573. Saldanã, J. 2013. The coding manual for qualitative researchers (2nd ed.). London: Sage

Publications, ltd.

44

Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. Personnel Psychology, 40: 437 – 453. Schneider, B., Goldstein, H. W., & Smith, D. B. 1995. The ASA Framework: An update.

Personnel Psychology, 48: 747 – 773. Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. 2008. Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and social

policy implications. Social Issues and Policy Review, 2(1): 1–36. Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. M. 1998. Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and

procedures for developing grounded theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Stukas, A., Worth, K., Clary, E., & Snyder, M. 2009. The matching of motives to affordances

in the volunteer environment: An index for assessing the impact of multiple matches on volunteer outcomes. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38(1): 5–28.

Tajfel, H. 1982. Instrumentality, identity and social comparisons.” In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social

Identity and Intergroup Relationships. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tajfel, H., and Turner, J. C. 1985. The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worcehl and W.G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of Intergroup Relations. (2nd ed.) Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

Thompson, S. B. 2011. Sample size and grounded theory. Journal of Administration and

Governance, 5(1): 45–52. Tschirhart, M. 2006. Nonprofit membership associations. In W.W. Powell & R. Steinberg

(Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed.), 523 – 541. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Van de Ven, A. H. 2007. Engaged scholarship: A guide for organizational and social

research. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc. Vygotsky, L. S. 1978. Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.

Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Webb, N. J., & Abzug, R. 2008. Do occupational group members vary in volunteering

activity? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 37(4): 689–708. Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Learning as a social system. Systems Thinker,

http://www.co-i-l.com/coil/knowledge-garden/cop/lss.shtml. Accessed January 2, 2014.

Wilson, J. 2012. Volunteerism research: A review essay. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly, 41(2): 176–212.

45

Wilson, J., & Musick, J. A. 1997. Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social Forces, 76(1): 251–272.