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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)
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.