GIVING TIME, TIME AFTER TIME: WORK DESIGN …...how long they sustain participation in corporate volunteering. However, as Pajo and Lee observe, “Most studies have paid scant attention

GIVING TIME, TIME AFTER TIME:WORK DESIGN AND SUSTAINEDEMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION INCORPORATE VOLUNTEERING

ADAM M. GRANTUniversity of Pennsylvania

Corporate volunteering programs are important channels for expressing care andcompassion, but little research has examined when and why employees sustaininvolvement. Integrating work design and volunteering theories, I introduce a modelthat explains how depleted task, social, and knowledge characteristics of jobs triggercompensatory motives during initial volunteering episodes. When these motives arefulfilled by volunteering projects, employees repeat participation, internalizing vol-unteer identities—contingent on pressure, matching incentives, recognition, manage-rial support, and targeted causes.

Corporate volunteering is an important ve-hicle for delivering care and compassion tocauses and communities in need. Over 90 per-cent of Fortune 500 companies run employeevolunteering programs, formally sponsoringand subsidizing employees’ efforts to performcommunity service and outreach activities oncompany time (Boccalandro, 2009; Points ofLight Institute, 2006). When a company sup-ports volunteering efforts by approving timeoff, modified schedules, and the use of re-sources, the average employee volunteers45 percent more hours per year (Booth, Park, &Glomb, 2009). For example, at The Limited, em-ployees provide 100,000 hours of kindergartentutoring to more than 1,400 schools annually(Marquis, Glynn, & Davis, 2007). At Disney,over the past quarter-century, employees havegiven more than five million hours through theVoluntEARS program; in 2008 alone employeescontributed more than 495,000 hours to helpnonprofits specializing in education and liter-acy, hunger and homelessness, health care,child and family services, entertainment, com-munity restoration, and the natural environ-ment (Disney, 2009).

Corporate volunteering programs offer anumber of distinctive advantages to nonprof-its, particularly economies of scale forrecruiting and organizing volunteer efforts(LBG Associates, 2004), and they appear tobe on the rise (Aguilera, Rupp, Williams, &Ganapathi, 2007). In one study corporate vol-unteering programs were viewed as impor-tant by 31 percent of managers in 1992 and81 percent by 1999, and such programs werepart of 19 percent of company business plansin 1991 and 48 percent by 1999 (Points of LightFoundation and Allstate Foundation, 2000).Moreover, in a U.S. national survey, in 198917.9 percent of volunteers learned about op-portunities for volunteering through theirworkplaces, and this number increased to24.1 percent by 1998 (Toppe, Kirsch, & Michel,2002). In the United Kingdom former PrimeMinisters have been vocal in expressing theirsupport for corporate volunteering programs.In 2000 Tony Blair encouraged employers toallow staff members one day per year for vol-unteering; in 2006 Gordon Brown articulated a“vision for our country to pioneer and be thefirst to achieve the day when. . . . every em-ployer has a volunteering scheme for their em-ployees” (Brown, 2006; see also Bussell &Forbes, 2008). Overall, corporate volunteeringprograms have been described as “one of thefastest-growing areas of voluntary activity” inboth North America and Western Europe (Bus-sell & Forbes, 2008: 364).

For helpful feedback I thank Sara Rynes, three anony-mous reviewers, Andrew Brodsky, Katie Imielska, Andy Mo-linsky, Shefali Patil, and John Sumanth. For generative con-versations I am grateful to Teresa Amabile, Sigal Barsade,Joel Brockner, Jane Dutton, Dave Lebel, Nick LoBuglio,Joshua Margolis, and Nancy Rothbard.

� Academy of Management Review2012, Vol. 37, No. 4, 589–615.http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amr.2010.0280

589Copyright of the Academy of Management, all rights reserved. Contents may not be copied, emailed, posted to a listserv, or otherwise transmitted without the copyrightholder’s express written permission. Users may print, download, or email articles for individual use only.

Organizational scholars have sought to ex-plain this growth in corporate volunteeringprograms: as a form of corporate social re-sponsibility, these programs are thought to bestrategic responses to community, institu-tional, and normative pressures for an organi-zation to create and maintain a reputation as agood corporate citizen (Marquis et al., 2007).Indeed, managing a volunteer program is oneof the metrics on which a company’s level ofsocial responsibility is evaluated (Waddock &Graves, 1994). However, the vast majority ofresearch on corporate social responsibilityhas focused on the decisions of the corporateelite (Marquis et al., 2007), where executives“dress up like an organization” (Staw, 1991) tomake philanthropic decisions from corner of-fices (e.g., Agle, Mitchell, & Sonnenfeld, 1999).

In contrast, a focus on corporate volunteeringanswers the call for an employee-centered un-derstanding of corporate social responsibility(Wood, 2007), placing the emphasis squarely onemployees’ efforts to donate their time and skillsin service of care and compassion. Indeed, be-cause of the time and skill involved, employeestend to view corporate volunteering programsas a more important form of corporate socialresponsibility than philanthropic contributions(JA Worldwide, 2009). Employees are known tobe more attracted to socially responsible firms(Turban & Greening, 1997), and in one surveymore than half of employees indicated a prefer-ence to work for companies with volunteeringprograms (Deloitte, 2007). As such, executiveshave begun to view corporate volunteering pro-grams as strategically valuable in attractingand recruiting qualified applicants, buildingskills, enhancing morale, and promoting reten-tion of existing employees (Boccalandro, 2009;Bussell & Forbes, 2008; Farmer & Fedor, 2001;LBG Associates, 2004).

These benefits depend heavily on employeeparticipation. Research suggests that whenemployees participate in corporate volunteer-ing, they more strongly identify with and be-come more committed to their employers (Bar-tel, 2001; Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008).However, many corporate volunteering pro-grams struggle to maintain employee partici-pation (Boccalandro, 2009; LBG Associates,2004), since it is typically more difficult to re-tain volunteers than attract them (Penner,2002). For corporate volunteering programs to

be effective in delivering care and compas-sion, sustained employee participation is crit-ical for three key reasons.

First, in contrast to financial donationsmade by executives and managers, corporatevolunteering programs are typically led by thebottom-up grassroots efforts of employees. In-deed, one study of U.S. companies indicatedthat most corporate volunteering programs are“planned, organized and executed by employ-ees”: 62 percent of these programs are directedby employees, of which 15 percent are solelydriven by employees (Wainwright, 2005: 40).The initiation, management, implementation,and expansion of these programs depend onthe efforts of long-term employee volunteers,who are responsible for substantial propor-tions of the time, energy, and skills that em-ployees give to causes and communities(Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009). For example,in Canada the top 25 percent of volunteersaccount for over 75 percent of the total hoursgiven, and the top 10 percent of volunteersalone account for over 50 percent of the totalhours (Statistics Canada, 2007). In corporatevolunteering long-term participants typicallycontribute to many different types of projectsand become champions of the cause, persuad-ing coworkers, supervisors, and subordinatesto join volunteering efforts (Muthuri et al.,2009; Wood, 2007).

Second, many causes require sustained at-tention and energy, not one-shot or short-termcontributions (LBG Associates, 2004; Muthuriet al., 2009). Given the scale and scope ofchallenges faced by many nonprofits and com-munities, to ensure that a corporate volunteer-ing program is more than lip service, it isimportant to engage employees in long-termefforts to contribute (Muthuri et al., 2009).Moreover, when employees persist in volun-teering over time, they can earn the trust ofkey stakeholders, which opens the door formaking more meaningful contributions (Boothet al., 2009; Muthuri et al., 2009).

Third, because volunteering efforts often re-quire specific knowledge and skills, companiesand nonprofit organizations spend considerabletime and money training employees (Bocca-landro, 2009). The average company budgets$12.16 per employee to support volunteer pro-grams (LBG Associates, 2004), and when employ-ees sustain their volunteering efforts, organiza-

590 OctoberAcademy of Management Review

tions can allocate portions of these fundselsewhere.

Despite the importance of the sustained par-ticipation of employees in corporate volun-teering programs, surprisingly little researchhas examined the factors that affect it. Exist-ing studies have focused primarily on predict-ing the likelihood of volunteering, showingthat employees are more likely to participatein corporate volunteering programs when theyare older and highly educated (de Gilder,Schuyt, & Breedijk, 2005; Peterson, 2004). Thisevidence provides information about whichemployees are likely to become involved incorporate volunteering, but it offers sparse in-sight into the factors that motivate employeesto sustain this involvement.

Only a handful of studies have examined sus-tained participation, which is typically mea-sured in terms of the number of hours that em-ployees volunteer. These studies suggest thatsustained participation is shaped powerfully bythe experiences that employees have while vol-unteering. For example, Booth et al. (2009) foundthat volunteering hours are more strongly asso-ciated with perceptions of skills acquired thanwith the time benefits, financial contributions,logistical support, and recognition provided byemployers for volunteering. These perceptionsof skill acquisition are known to be driven byhow volunteer work is designed (Bartel, Saave-dra, & Van Dyne, 2001; Lester, Tomkovick, Wells,Flunker, & Kickul, 2005). This evidence is consis-tent with psychological and sociological re-search suggesting that experiences encoun-tered while volunteering are the primarydeterminants of whether people decide to con-tinue volunteering (Clary et al., 1998; Grube &Piliavin, 2000; Omoto & Snyder, 1995).

Although these studies provide clues thatemployees’ experiences are likely to be animportant determinant of sustained involve-ment, there is a dearth of theory and researchexplaining the factors that shape these expe-riences. As Tschirhart laments, “Employee vol-unteering is a research area desperately inneed of theory. . . . rigorous scholarship isneeded” (2005: 25-26). To address this issue, Idraw on theories of work design (Grant & Parker,2009; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Morgeson & Hum-phrey, 2006). Extensive research has shown thatthe design of work has a foundational impact onemployees’ experiences of activities, projects, and

tasks (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Griffin, 1991; Humphrey,Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). In particular, volun-teering is a form of prosocial behavior (Penner,Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder, 2005), and researchhas identified work design as a key driver ofprosocial behaviors (Grant, 2007, 2008; Podsakoff,MacKenzie, Paine, & Bachrach, 2000). The designof work is also a robust and consistent predictor ofturnover: on average, meta-analytic evidence sug-gests that job characteristics explain as much, oreven more, of the variance in turnover decisionsas leadership and relationships, compensation,the work environment, or individual characteris-tics (Allen, Bryant, & Vardaman, 2010; Griffeth,Hom, & Gaertner, 2000). Given that the design ofwork is known to influence employees’ experi-ences, prosocial behaviors, and turnover deci-sions, it is likely to have important implications forhow long they sustain participation in corporatevolunteering. However, as Pajo and Lee observe,“Most studies have paid scant attention to thecharacteristics of the volunteering activity” (2011:469).

To deepen our knowledge about the factorsthat affect the sustainability of employee par-ticipation in corporate volunteering, I synthe-size and extend core insights from research onwork design (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Hum-phrey et al., 2007) and motivational and roleidentity theories of volunteering (Clary et al.,1998; Grube & Piliavin, 2000). The work designliterature sheds light on how the characteris-tics of both jobs and volunteering projects af-fect sustained participation, and the volun-teering theories specify the motives,identities, and organizational practices thatoperate as central mechanisms and boundaryconditions for these effects. I propose that dur-ing initial corporate volunteering experiences,depleted task, social, and knowledge charac-teristics of jobs trigger compensatory motives.When these motives are satisfied by charac-teristics of volunteering projects, employeesare more likely to continue volunteering. Re-peated participation then promotes the inter-nalization of a volunteer identity that sustainsparticipation over longer periods of time, con-tingent on organizational volunteering prac-tices of pressure, matching incentives, recog-nition, managerial support, and targetedcauses.

The model that summarizes these core argu-ments, displayed in Figure 1, is important from

2012 591Grant

both theoretical and practical standpoints. The-oretically, the model opens up original avenuesfor understanding the factors that influence theshort-term and long-term sustainability of em-ployee volunteering within work organizations.Along with introducing a more employee-centered perspective on corporate social respon-sibility, it extends our understanding of caringand compassion by suggesting a novel way ofconceptualizing organizational citizenship be-havior. It also contributes to the work designliterature by identifying reduced volunteeringas an unintended consequence of job enrich-ment, as well as to volunteering research inpsychology and sociology by revealing new con-textual influences on volunteering motives androle identities. Practically, the model providesleaders, managers, and employees with action-able knowledge for facilitating the expression ofcare and compassion from work organizationstoward external communities and causes. Oneof the primary strengths of work design is its

malleability: leaders, managers, and employeescan exercise agency in shaping, sculpting, andreconfiguring how work is structured (Grant &Parker, 2009; Wrzesniewski & Dutton, 2001). Anexplanation of how work design affects sus-tained participation in corporate volunteeringcan thus play a meaningful role in both illumi-nating and supporting organizational efforts toreduce human misery and solve social problems(Margolis & Walsh, 2003).

CORPORATE VOLUNTEERING ANDWORK DESIGN

Volunteering refers to the act of freely givingone’s time, knowledge, or skills for the benefit ofother people, groups, or causes (Omoto & Snyder,1995; Wilson, 2000). Volunteering is a specific typeof prosocial behavior that typically takes place inan organizational context (Penner, Brannick,Webb, & Connell, 2005). Corporate volunteeringdescribes giving one’s time, knowledge, or skills

FIGURE 1The Volunteer Work Design Model

Depleted jobdesigns

Employeevolunteering motives

Enriched volunteeringproject designs

Long-termcorporate volunteering

Organizationalpractices

Volunteering pressure (P8)Matching incentives andtime-contingent pay (P9)

Recognition andmanagerial support (P10)

P2a,P2b

Volunteering taskcharacteristics

Prosocial

Self-enhancement

P7a,P7b

Taskcharacteristics

P1a

P1b

Volunteering socialcharacteristics

P4a,P4b Repeated

participationVolunteeridentity

Prestige of cause (P11a)Employee choice

of cause (P11b)Organizational identity

alignment of cause (P11c)

Volunteering knowledgecharacteristics

P7c,P7d

P6a,P6b

Belonging

Self-protective

P3a

P3b

P5a

P5b Career

Developmental

Knowledgecharacteristics

Socialcharacteristics


as part of a community service, outreach, or socialresponsibility activity on company time withoutadditional compensation or direct personal remu-neration (Bussell & Forbes, 2008; de Gilder et al.,2005). Through corporate volunteering, employeesare able to express care and compassion to ben-eficiaries or recipients outside the organization’sboundaries.

My focus in this article is on employee partic-ipation in corporate volunteering. In politicalphilosophy, participation refers to “active andresponsible involvement” (Van Dyne, Graham, &Dienesch, 1994: 767). In the context of corporatevolunteering, participation refers to the extent towhich employees initiate and sustain involve-ment in volunteering activities (Peterson, 2004).As discussed previously, my emphasis is on sus-tained participation—the extent to which em-ployees repeat and maintain involvement incorporate volunteering.

To explain sustained volunteering, socialscientists have developed two different theo-retical frameworks: the role identity perspec-tive and the motivational perspective (Penneret al., 2005; Wilson, 2000). According to the roleidentity perspective, which is prominent in so-ciology, sustained volunteering is caused bythe internalization of a volunteering role suchthat it becomes part of one’s identity or self-concept as a volunteer (Charng, Piliavin, &Callero, 1988; Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin& Charng, 1990). According to the motivationalperspective, which is prominent in psychol-ogy, sustained volunteering is caused by thesatisfaction of the functions or motives thatthe volunteer intends to serve (Clary et al.,1998; Omoto & Snyder, 1995). Although bothperspectives have proven successful in ex-plaining variance in the duration with whichindividuals volunteer, the motivational per-spective appears to apply earlier in the volun-teering process than the role identity perspec-tive (Finkelstein, Penner, & Brannick, 2005;Penner & Finkelstein, 1998). This is becauseindividuals experience varying levels of sat-isfaction in each volunteering episode, task,project, and activity in which they engage,whereas role identities only tend to emergethrough repeated behavioral engagement in vol-unteering over time (Penner, 2002; Penner & Fin-kelstein, 1998). Thus, I start from the premise thatsatisfaction of motives is a key precursor of theinitial decision to repeat volunteering and that,

over time, this decision can become self-reinforc-ing through the development of a volunteer roleidentity.

Initial Corporate Volunteering Episodes andRepeated Participation

I begin by examining how motives emergein employees’ initial corporate volunteeringepisodes. According to the motivational per-spective, individuals enter volunteering expe-riences with the expectation of fulfilling par-ticular motives or functions (Clary & Snyder,1999). Psychologists have identified six differ-ent motives that underlie volunteering: proso-cial, belonging, self-enhancement, self-protec-tive, developmental, and career (Clary et al.,1998).1 These functions involve volunteering tobenefit others (prosocial), build andstrengthen relationships with others (belong-ing), increase self-esteem (self-enhancement),reduce guilt over one’s good fortunes or dis-tract attention away from personal problems(self-protective), learn or gain new knowledgeand skills (developmental), and improve one’sjob prospects (career). Considerable researchhas established the existence, discriminantvalidity, and predictive power of these six vol-unteering motives (Clary & Snyder, 1999; Claryet al., 1998).

Recently, scholars have shown that these mo-tives are rooted in more basic individual dispo-sitions—psychological characteristics of the in-dividual that arise through the confluence ofgenetic-biological propensities and life experi-

1 Although the definitions match those specified by Claryand colleagues, I have modified three of the labels to avoidconfusion. First, the prosocial motive was originally labeledvalues to capture “altruistic and humanitarian concerns forothers” (Clary et al., 1998: 1517). This is misleading becauseeach of the six motives addresses different values associ-ated with volunteering; prosocial is the most appropriateterm to capture the desire to help or benefit others (e.g., Brief& Motowidlo, 1986; Grant, 2007). Second, the communal mo-tive was originally labeled social, but several of the motiveshave social implications; this motive addresses the specificdesire to build relationships, which is best described as abelonging, affiliative, or communal motive (e.g., Barrick,Stewart, & Piotrowski, 2002; Baumeister & Leary, 1995; McAd-ams & de St. Aubin, 1992). Third, the developmental motivewas originally labeled understanding, but corporate volun-teering is often specifically directed toward learning skillsas well as knowledge (e.g., Booth et al., 2009), which high-lights the appropriateness of a broader label.

2012 593Grant

ences (House, Shane, & Herold, 1996). From apersonality perspective, agreeableness andopenness predict prosocial motives; neuroticismpredicts belonging, self-enhancement, and self-protective motives; extraversion, neuroticism,and agreeableness predict developmental mo-tives; and extraversion and neuroticism predictcareer motives for volunteering (Erez, Mi-kulincer, van Ijzendoorn, & Kroonenberg, 2008).Developmentally, aging is associated with in-creases in belonging motives and decreases incareer and developmental motives for volun-teering (Okun & Schultz, 2003). Together, thesefindings suggest that individual dispositionsshape volunteering motives. Indeed, Clary et al.assumed that people express their basic mo-tives in their volunteering activities, arguingthat “people come with . . . motives important tothem” (1998: 1529).

However, research on motivation and workdesign opens up the possibility of a differentinterpretation. As Vallerand (1997) has ex-plained, employees can carry global motiveswith them across life domains, but contextualand situational factors play a critical role inactivating and strengthening the motives theybring to particular domains, roles, and activi-ties.2 As such, beyond individual characteris-tics, the design of work may have a substan-tial impact on the motives that employeesexperience in their initial volunteering epi-

sodes at work. In other words, the motives thatemployees expect to fulfill through corporatevolunteering may be shaped by their jobs.

In general, job design is known to play animportant role in activating and strengtheningdifferent types of motives (Grant & Parker, 2009;Hackman & Oldham, 1976). To provide a system-atic, theoretically driven framework for under-standing job characteristics, I draw on classicand contemporary research on work design (forreviews see Fried, Levi, & Laurence, 2008;Grant & Parker, 2009; Humphrey et al., 2007).Scholars have rated work design as one of avery small number of theoretical perspectives inorganizational behavior that is simultaneouslyhigh in validity, importance, and usefulness(Miner, 2003).

Job characteristics. Classic models of work de-sign focus on the task characteristics of jobs—the nature of the work activities themselves(Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Jobs with enrichedtask characteristics provide task significance(products and services having a substantial,lasting impact on others), identity (completion ofa whole piece of work from start to finish), au-tonomy (freedom in decision making, workmethods, and scheduling), and feedback (infor-mation about performance; Morgeson & Hum-phrey, 2006). When these task characteristics areenriched, jobs provide a sense of meaningful-ness (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham,1976), an experience that is widely valued in life(Heine, Proulx, & Vohs, 2006) and at work (Cas-cio, 2003; Kulik, Oldham, & Hackman, 1987).

In contemporary research scholars have paidgrowing attention to the social and knowledgecharacteristics of work (Humphrey et al., 2007).Social characteristics are the structural featuresof jobs that influence employees’ interpersonalinteractions and relationships (Grant, 2007). Jobswith enriched social characteristics provide op-portunities to work and interact with other peo-ple inside and outside the organization, developfriendships, and exchange support (Grant &Parker, 2009). When these social characteristicsare enriched, jobs fulfill the desire for connec-tion with others (Humphrey et al., 2007), which isa core motive in life (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Ryan & Deci, 2000) and at work (Barrick et al.,2002). Knowledge characteristics are the struc-tural features of jobs that affect the developmentand utilization of information and skills (Parker,Wall, & Cordery, 2001). Jobs with enriched

2 I focus on motives—the reasons to which people attri-bute their actions (Clary et al., 1998; Kehr, 2004)—rather thanneeds for two reasons. First, classic need theories adopted ahydraulic, hierarchical approach reminiscent of drive-reduction principles, assuming that when a need is fulfilled,individuals move on to pursue other needs (e.g., Alderfer,1972; Maslow, 1954; for recent reviews see Kenrick, Griskevi-cius, Neuberg, & Schaller, 2010, and Steers, Mowday, & Sha-piro, 2004). In contrast, volunteering research shows thatwhen motives are fulfilled, individuals continue gravitatingtoward the activity that provided fulfillment (Clary et al.,1998; see also Berridge, 2004, and Ryan & Deci, 2000). Second,to qualify as a psychological need, a goal or desire must be“innate, essential, and universal” (Ryan & Deci, 2000: 74).Rather than theorizing about global motives, I am pursuingthe more modest aim of exploring motives at the contextualand situational levels (see Vallerand, 1997), which allows forthe possibility that motives can be acquired rather thaninnate (Murray, 1938) and differentially activated by environ-mental forces (McClelland, Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989).Thus, when I refer to volunteering motives, I am concernedwith context-specific, activated desires that—when fulfilledby a volunteering experience—enhance employees’ intrinsicinterests in pursuing this experience again.


knowledge characteristics provide opportuni-ties to solve problems, process complex informa-tion, and acquire, apply, and hone specialized(deep) and varied (broad) skills (Morgeson &Campion, 2002; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006).When these knowledge characteristics are en-riched, jobs enable employees to learn and mas-ter skills (Parker, Wall, & Jackson, 1997), fulfill-ing the desire for competence, which is a centraldesire in life (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and at work(Barrick et al., 2002). In summary, I assume thatmost employees value at least some degree ofenrichment in task, social, and knowledge char-acteristics of jobs.

Job characteristics and compensatory mo-tives. How do these job characteristics affectemployees’ motives? It is tempting to assumethat enriched job designs will strengthen mo-tives for corporate volunteering. For example,employees with enriched task, social, andknowledge characteristics may feel grateful tothe organization for providing desirable jobs(Slattery, Selvarajan, Anderson, & Sardessai,2010) and may reciprocate with stronger commit-ment to participating in the organization’s vol-unteering program. In addition, enriched jobcharacteristics may generate positive affect(Saavedra & Kwun, 2000), which may have thespillover effect of causing employees to viewcorporate volunteering in a more positive light(George & Brief, 1992). However, the motivationalperspective (Clary et al., 1998) suggests that em-ployees only tend to repeat volunteering whenthey engage in the experience with strong mo-tives. When employees’ jobs are enriched, theircore motives are likely to be satisfied: task en-richment provides meaning (Fried & Ferris, 1987;Hackman & Oldham, 1976), social enrichmentoffers connection (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006),and knowledge enrichment enables learning(Parker et al., 1997). This satisfaction should re-duce the likelihood that employees will contin-ually participate in corporate volunteering sincethey are already gaining what they seek at workthrough their jobs (Kulik et al., 1987;Rodell, 2010).

As such, I present a compensatory perspectiveon how job characteristics influence motives. Ipropose that when employees engage in corpo-rate volunteering, depleted job characteristicscan trigger motives to fill gaps in their workexperiences. According to the meaning mainte-nance model (Heine et al., 2006), when meaning

is threatened in one domain, individuals look toother domains to find and reaffirm meaning. AsWilson summarizes, “Some people find in theirvolunteer work compensation for what is deniedthem in paid employment. . . . some volunteersare quite explicit about seeking compensationfor deprivations they experience in their paidemployment” (2000: 221–222). Accordingly, as Iexplain in more detail below, when employeeslack enriched job designs, they will experiencestronger motives to compensate for these jobdesigns in their initial corporate volunteeringepisodes.

Before turning to these ideas, it is importantto distinguish the motives that employees ex-pect to fulfill through corporate volunteeringfrom the reasons they engaged in the activityin the first place. Research suggests that em-ployees can make the choice to participate ina corporate volunteering activity for a multi-tude of reasons, including being asked di-rectly (Brudney & Gazley, 2006; de Gilder et al.,2005; Toppe et al., 2002), feeling pressured orcoerced by a peer or superior (Basil, Runte,Easwaramoorthy, & Barr, 2009; Houghton,Gabel, & Williams, 2009; Peterson, 2004), beingcommitted to the organization (Peloza, Hud-son, & Hassay, 2009; Penner & Finkelstein,1998), or receiving paid time off, matching in-centives, donations, and other benefits thatenhance the desirability of volunteering atwork (Basil et al., 2009; Booth et al., 2009; Pe-terson, 2004). However, once employees decideto participate in a corporate volunteering ac-tivity, their motives—the functions that theyexpect volunteering to serve (Clary et al.,1998)— can be influenced by the characteris-tics of their jobs that activate compensatorydesires or goals (e.g., Heine et al., 2006; Rodell,2010; Wilson, 2000).

Satisfaction of motives through corporate vol-unteering projects. According to the motiva-tional perspective, individuals repeat volunteer-ing when they are satisfied that the experiencehas fulfilled their motives (Clary et al., 1998;Lester et al., 2005; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Penner& Finkelstein, 1998; for a review see Penner etal., 2005). This is consistent with organizationalresearch showing that the attitude of satisfac-tion—a favorable evaluation of an experience orbehavior—is a robust and reliable predictor ofrepeated engagement in that experience or be-

2012 595Grant

havior (e.g., Harrison, Newman, & Roth, 2006;Spector, 1997).

During initial corporate volunteering epi-sodes, the extent to which employees’ motivesare fulfilled is likely to depend on the charac-teristics of their volunteering projects. A vol-unteering project is a temporally bounded ac-tivity in which employees give time, energy,knowledge, and/or skills (Little, 1989; Lydon &Zanna, 1990). In general, research suggeststhat satisfaction is enhanced when experi-ences in one set of projects compensate forthose that are absent in others (Edwards &Rothbard, 2000; McGregor & Little, 1998). Putdifferently, employees often seek out experi-ences in one domain of life that substitute forwhat is missing in other domains, a patternknown as “supplemental compensation” (Ed-wards & Rothbard, 2000: 181). Consistent withthis view, research suggests that volunteeringparticipation is a stronger predictor of life sat-isfaction when individuals lack satisfyingwork (Harlow & Cantor, 1996). Thus, employeesshould be satisfied with—and thereby morelikely to repeat participation in— corporatevolunteering when their motives are fulfilledby initial volunteering projects.

Indeed, the motivational perspective sug-gests that sustained participation in volun-teering depends on whether “volunteer servicetasks do or do not afford opportunities to ful-fill” the motives that individuals bring to thevolunteering experience (Clary et al., 1998:1529). Supporting this viewpoint, Houle, Sa-garin, and Kaplan found that “people do dif-ferentiate tasks based on the volunteer mo-tives they satisfy. . . . a task can be classifiedin terms of the motive(s) it does or does notsatisfy” (2005: 342). Like jobs, corporate volun-teering projects can be classified accordingto task, social, and knowledge characteris-tics. In a qualitative study of employees in-volved in corporate volunteering, Geroy,Wright, and Jacoby (2000) found that the threemost commonly reported benefits were themeaningfulness of the tasks, the social con-tacts made, and the knowledge and skillsgained. Other studies have identified similarthemes in corporate volunteering projects thatmap closely onto the categories of task, social,and knowledge characteristics (Bussell &Forbes, 2000; Peterson, 2004). Table 1 providesreferences to research demonstrating that

each of these characteristics varies in volun-teering projects, along with examples of cor-porate volunteering projects that exemplifyhigh levels of each task, social, and knowl-edge characteristic.

However, it is critical to note that these char-acteristics can be present in outside volunteer-ing projects, not only corporate volunteeringprojects. When depleted job designs activatecompensatory motives, why will employees pur-sue these motives in the context of corporatevolunteering, rather than volunteering outsideof work or engaging in other nonwork activities?Research highlights two complementary rea-sons why corporate volunteering is likely to be aparticularly attractive venue in which to pursuecompensatory motives: salience and opportu-nity. First, motivation research shows that whenmotives are triggered in a domain, such as work,they tend to be expressed toward multiple activ-ities within that domain (Vallerand, 1997). Whendepleted job designs trigger compensatory mo-tives in the work domain, employees are likelyto pursue these motives in corporate volunteer-ing projects, which are also situated in the workdomain. This notion is consistent with evi-dence that information processing is domaindependent (Baddeley, 1982): compensatory mo-tives are most likely to be salient and acces-sible in the work context, where they wereoriginally activated and encoded by depletedjob designs.

Second, work design research shows that de-pleted job designs tend to free up time, energy,and attention for other roles, projects, and activi-ties while at work (Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006; seealso Roy, 1959, and Xie & Johns, 1995). Employeeswith depleted job designs thus have the opportu-nity to allocate their available work time, energy,and attention toward corporate volunteering,rather than using personal time to volunteer.Thus, when depleted job designs activate com-pensatory motives, corporate volunteering is thecontext in which employees are most likely to ex-perience these motives as salient and recognizeopportunities to pursue and fulfill them. As Pajoand Lee summarize, “Unique elements intrinsic tothe work context do provide opportunities for em-ployees to satisfy motives and to realize benefitsthat other volunteering activities cannot easilysupply” (2011: 469).


Depleted Job Designs, Compensatory Motives,and Satisfying Project Characteristics

In summary, I have argued that during initialcorporate volunteering episodes, depleted jobdesigns will activate compensatory motives,and when these motives are fulfilled by corpo-rate volunteering projects, employees will bemore likely to continue volunteering. These ar-guments provide the scaffolding for a model ofvolunteer work design (see Figure 1). In the fol-

lowing sections I develop propositions specify-ing how depleted task, social, and knowledgecharacteristics of jobs are likely to trigger dis-tinct motives during employees’ initial corpo-rate volunteering episodes and how volunteer-ing project characteristics can compensate forjob characteristics to fulfill these motives.3

3 The work design literature also calls attention to indi-vidual differences in growth need strength—which align

TABLE 1Examples of Volunteering Project Characteristics

VolunteeringProject Category

VolunteeringProjectCharacteristic Empirical Evidence

Corporate Volunteering Example fromBoccalandro (2009)

Taskcharacteristics

Tasksignificance

Bartel, Saavedra, & Van Dyne (2001);Lester, Tomkovick, Wells, Flunker,& Kickul (2005); Schroer & Hertel(2009)

At Lockheed Martin employees volunteer toprovide assistance to wounded soldiers,which has an important impact on theirhealth and well-being

Task identity Bartel et al. (2001); Lester et al.(2005); Schroer & Hertel (2009)

At McGraw-Hill employees volunteer toprovide communication services fromstart to finish—from promotional andmarketing materials to website content togrant applications and annual reports

Autonomy Bartel et al. (2001); Lester et al.(2005); Schroer & Hertel (2009)

At Wells Fargo employees are able tospend up to four months volunteering tohelp a nonprofit of their choice

Feedback Bartel et al. (2001); Lester et al.,2005); Schroer & Hertel (2009)

At eBay, Capital One, and Unum, managerscollect data on how corporatevolunteering efforts affect thecommunities served

Socialcharacteristics

Interdependence,friendshipopportunities,interactionwith insiders

Bartel (2001); Bartel et al. (2001);Lester et al. (2005)

At Aetna employees volunteer in teams toprovide disaster relief, education,community building, and medicalservices

Beneficiarycontact

Bartel et al. (2001); Lester et al.(2005); Penner & Finkelstein (1998)

At Southwest Airlines pilots meet weeklywith elementary school children whobenefit from their mentoring

Knowledgecharacteristics

Skill variety Bartel et al. (2001); Lester et al.(2005); Schroer & Hertel (2009)

At Exxon-Mobil employees volunteer toprevent malaria, leveraging skills tofundraise to support the purchase ofmosquito nets, distribute these nets inAfrica, and assist with medical treatmentand health communications

Specialization Lester et al. (2005) At Kraft employees deepen their productdevelopment and packaging skillsthrough volunteering at a jam-makingfactory in Madagascar

Informationprocessing

Lester et al. (2005) At Eli Lilly employees volunteer to helporganizations develop strategies forimproving their efficiency

Problem solving Lester et al. (2005) At IBM employees volunteer to generatecreative solutions to economicdevelopment and information technologychallenges in developing countries

2012 597Grant

Effects of task characteristics on prosocial andself-enhancement motives. Job designs lackingin task enrichment are likely to activate proso-cial and self-enhancement motives during ini-tial corporate volunteering episodes. First, tasksignificance is an avenue for expressing andfulfilling prosocial motives (Grant, 2008) and is acore influence on meaningfulness in work (Fried& Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Ac-cording to the meaning maintenance model(Heine et al., 2006), when meaning is threatenedin one domain, people are motivated to searchfor meaning in other domains. As such, when alack of task significance threatens employees’opportunities to express and fulfill prosocialmotives through their jobs, employees are likelyto seek out ways to express and fulfill theseprosocial motives through corporate volunteer-ing (Grant & Wade-Benzoni, 2009).

Second, when jobs are depleted in task signif-icance, as well as in identity, autonomy, andfeedback, they may activate the self-enhance-ment motive during initial corporate volunteer-ing episodes. Maintaining a positive self-concept depends on feeling valued and trusted,competent, and self-determined (Ryan & Deci,2000; Steele, 1988). When jobs lack task signifi-cance, employees’ work has a less distinctiveand enduring impact on others, leading them toquestion the extent to which their contributionsare valued and appreciated by others (Grant,2008). When jobs lack task identity and feed-

back, employees receive little information abouttheir performance and end results, making itdifficult to judge their competence and success(Fried & Ferris, 1987; Weick, 1984). When jobslack autonomy, employees have their choicesconstrained and feel that they are not trustedwith the responsibility to make important deci-sions (Clegg & Spencer, 2007; Grant & Parker,2009; Hackman & Oldham, 1976). Accordingly,when employees lack task significance, iden-tity, autonomy, and feedback in their jobs, theywill be more likely to seek self-enhancementthrough corporate volunteering.

In turn, task enrichment in volunteering proj-ects is likely to fulfill these prosocial and self-enhancement motives, compensating for de-pleted task characteristics in jobs andpromoting repeated participation in corporatevolunteering. Research has shown that volun-teering projects vary in terms of task signifi-cance, identity, autonomy, and feedback (Bartelet al., 2001; Lester et al., 2005; Pajo & Lee, 2011;Schroer & Hertel, 2009). When a corporate volun-teering project is high in task significance, em-ployees are likely to feel that their contributionsbenefit others, which will fulfill their prosocialmotives (Grant, 2008), encouraging them to con-tinue volunteering (Clary et al., 1998). For exam-ple, Grube and Piliavin (2000: 113) found thatwhen individuals reported that the volunteerwork they did “contributes in important ways,”they volunteered significantly more hours. Sim-ilarly, Rodell (2010) found that the meaningful-ness of a volunteering project, as rated by one’speers, was positively associated with the num-ber of hours that employees volunteered forUnited Way. Further, when a corporate volun-teering project has high task significance, iden-tity, autonomy, and feedback, employees willfeel that their self-enhancement motives are ful-filled, since they can see their progress and re-sults and feel competent and trusted to work onimportant activities (Lester et al., 2005). As aresult, employees will be more likely to partici-pate again (Clary et al., 1998). Together, thesearguments suggest the following.

Proposition 1: The lower the task en-richment in a job, the stronger the ac-tivation in initial corporate volunteer-ing episodes of (a) prosocial motivesand (b) self-enhancement motives.

closely with developmental motives—as contingencies forpositive psychological and behavioral reactions to enrichedtask characteristics (Hackman & Oldham, 1976). However,several decades of research have yielded equivocal results(e.g., Johns, Xie, & Fang, 1992; Tiegs, Tetrick, & Fried, 1992).One explanation for the inconsistent evidence is rooted inthe notion that growth need strength is not a purely exoge-nous individual disposition but is endogenously influencedby the design of work (Kulik et al., 1987), yielding complexpatterns of dynamic interdependence between work designand growth need strength. My approach builds on this inter-pretation by suggesting that job characteristics influencedevelopmental motives for corporate volunteering. However,instead of assuming that depleted jobs will reduce develop-mental motives (Kulik et al., 1987), I draw on the meaningmaintenance model (Heine et al., 2006) to propose that de-pleted jobs can motivate employees to express developmen-tal motives in other domains—namely, in corporate volun-teering projects that fall beyond the scope of formal jobresponsibilities. In a subsequent section I discuss how thedepletion of specific knowledge characteristics of jobs islikely to activate developmental motives for corporatevolunteering.


Proposition 2: Enriched task character-istics in corporate volunteering proj-ects moderate the effects of (a) proso-cial motives and (b) self-enhancementmotives on repeated participationsuch that the effects are more positivewhen task enrichment in volunteeringprojects is higher.

Effects of social characteristics on belongingand self-protective motives. Job designs lackingin social enrichment are likely to activate be-longing and self-protective motives during ini-tial corporate volunteering episodes. When jobsfail to provide opportunities for social interac-tion, friendships, and social support, employeeswill be especially likely to seek out opportuni-ties for connections and distractions in corpo-rate volunteering as a substitute. Social psycho-logical research reveals that individuals aremost motivated to seek out connections whenthey are absent (Baumeister & Leary, 1995;Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010). In addition, individ-uals experience greater personal distress whenthey lack support and strong ties (Duffy, Gan-ster, & Pagon, 2002; Hawkley & Cacioppo, 2010),which motivates them to search for distractionsin other domains, especially volunteering, as anantidote to their distress (Li & Ferraro, 2005).Thus, a lack of socially enriched job character-istics will strengthen employees’ belonging andself-protective motives during their initial cor-porate volunteering episodes.

In turn, social enrichment in volunteeringprojects is likely to fulfill these belonging andself-protective motives, compensating for de-pleted social characteristics in jobs and promot-ing repeated participation in corporate volun-teering. Research has shown that volunteeringprojects vary in terms of interdependence andinteractions with other people both inside andoutside the organization (Bartel et al., 2001; Les-ter et al., 2005; Pajo & Lee, 2011). Interactionswith other people inside the organization arecommon in volunteering projects that involveteamwork. A study of a nationally representa-tive sample of Canadian firms showed that45 percent of those with corporate volunteeringprograms include some group volunteering (Ba-sil et al., 2009), much of which is structuredaround team challenges and assignments(Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009; Muthuri et al.,2009). Research shows that employees give more

hours when a corporate volunteering project isstructured in teams (Peterson, 2004) and that vol-unteering can contribute to feelings of belong-ing (Bacharach, Bamberger, & Sonnenstuhl,2001; Mojza, Lorenz, Sonnentag, & Binnewies,2010). I expect that this trend will be more pro-nounced for employees who lack socially en-riched job designs, which strengthen their be-longing or self-protective motives in corporatevolunteering. A key function of interdependentvolunteering projects lies in fulfilling belongingmotives by reducing functional boundaries, sta-tus differences, and power distance. When indi-viduals work interdependently across differ-ences, they are less likely to rely on stereotypesand more likely to appreciate each other’sunique knowledge bases, skills, and experi-ences, all of which increase liking, trust, andcohesion (Aronson, 1978; Pettigrew & Tropp,2006). Interdependence enables employees toseek and receive help, facilitating mutual ap-preciation and bonding on a more human, per-sonal level (Anderson & Williams, 1996; de Jong,Van der Vegt, & Molleman, 2007).

Further, interdependence can help employeeswho typically do not interact to feel that theircontributions are valued by their team members(Hertel, Konradt, & Orlikowski, 2004). Muthuri etal. studied a U.K. manufacturing company inwhich volunteering projects were based on“team assignments . . . because they enablestrong internal ties among the volunteeringteam . . . as a result of the ongoing involvementand intensity of commitment” (2009: 83). Simi-larly, Haski-Leventhal and Cnaan (2009: 70) re-viewed evidence that when employees volun-teer together, they form “distinct history, stories,and identity” that facilitate bonding. For in-stance, a Pillsbury employee stated that volun-teering provided opportunities to get to knowcoworkers: “I was struck by how similar our sto-ries are . . . it’s these types of things that reallybring us together” (Bartel, 2001: 397). As anotherexample, when Air Canada employees volun-teer to take underprivileged children facingphysical, mental, or social challenges to a Dis-ney park, they “share a strong and meaningfulbonding that is private within the context of theloose relationships of a complex workplace”(Haski-Leventhal & Cnaan, 2009: 71). Thus, so-cially enriched volunteering projects are likelyto fulfill belonging motives, increasing the like-

2012 599Grant

lihood of repeated participation (Clary et al.,1998) in corporate volunteering.

Socially enriched volunteering projects arealso likely to fulfill self-protective motives. In-teractions with other people outside the organi-zation are common in volunteering projects thatinvolve beneficiary contact (Bartel et al., 2001;Lester et al., 2005; Pajo & Lee, 2011; Penner &Finkelstein, 1998). When employees interactwith beneficiaries, they are able to put theirpersonal problems in perspective, which islikely to reduce their feelings of distress. In astudy of corporate volunteering projects at Pills-bury designed to help students, the elderly, dis-abled people, and low-income families, Bartel(2001) found that when employees interactedwith these client beneficiaries, they were able tomake social comparisons that helped them copewith difficult circumstances. One employee re-flected, “Even on our worst days at work, weknow that tomorrow will be better. . . . [The cli-ents] face serious struggles every day; that’s ahard way to live” (Bartel, 2001: 397). Contact withthe beneficiaries of corporate volunteering proj-ects is thus likely to compensate for jobs lackingin social enrichment, fulfilling self-protectivemotives and enhancing the probability of re-peated participation. These lines of reasoninggive rise to the following.

Proposition 3: The lower the social en-richment in a job, the stronger the ac-tivation in initial corporate volunteer-ing episodes of (a) belonging motivesand (b) self-protective motives.

Proposition 4: Enriched social charac-teristics in corporate volunteeringprojects moderate the effects of (a) be-longing motives and (b) self-protectivemotives on repeated participationsuch that the effects are more positivewhen social enrichment in volunteer-ing projects is higher.

Effects of knowledge characteristics on devel-opmental and career motives. Job designs lack-ing in knowledge enrichment are likely to acti-vate developmental and career motives duringinitial corporate volunteering episodes. Whenjobs fail to provide opportunities for skill vari-ety, specialization, information processing, orproblem solving, employees will experiencestrong developmental and career motives for

corporate volunteering. The lack of opportuni-ties to acquire and apply broad and deep skillsthrough their jobs will motivate employees tosearch for ways to learn through their initialcorporate volunteering activities. Indeed, re-search suggests that volunteering can providemastery experiences (Mojza et al., 2010), com-pensating for job characteristics that fail to fa-cilitate development (Mojza & Sonnentag, 2010).In addition, the absence of skill variety, special-ization, information, and problem solving mayencourage employees to view corporate volun-teering as an avenue for developing their ca-reers by demonstrating their abilities to handlemore complex tasks. Accordingly, the lack ofknowledge enrichment in job characteristicswill strengthen employees’ developmental andcareer motives during their initial corporate vol-unteering episodes.

In turn, knowledge enrichment in volunteer-ing projects is likely to fulfill developmental andcareer motives, compensating for depletedknowledge characteristics in jobs and promot-ing repeated participation. Research has shownthat corporate volunteering projects vary interms of opportunities to acquire new skills andsolve complex problems (Boccalandro, 2009;Booth et al., 2009; Lester et al., 2005). Theseknowledge characteristics of corporate volun-teering projects qualify as a form of “stretch-work” (O’Mahony & Bechky, 2006), enabling em-ployees to develop valued skills they otherwisewould not have the chance to practice or use intheir existing jobs, and, thus, are likely to satisfydevelopmental motives, increasing the likeli-hood of repeated participation (Clary et al.,1998). Indeed, studies have shown that individ-uals experience greater learning and develop-ment when volunteering projects involve the ac-quisition and application of a variety of skills(Bartel et al., 2001; Lester et al., 2005). Enrichedknowledge characteristics in volunteering proj-ects may also fulfill career motives by helpingemployees learn about new career opportunitiesand goals and by providing new perspectivesand skills they can bring back to their jobs (Wil-son & Musick, 2003; Wuthnow, 1995). As one em-ployee stated, corporate volunteering provides“exposure to a variety of . . . situations that helpme be more creative at work” (Geroy et al., 2000:285). As such, enriched knowledge characteris-tics in corporate volunteering projects are likelyto compensate for the absence of knowledge


enrichment in a job, satisfying developmentaland career motives and, thus, encouraging re-peated participation (Clary et al., 1998). Theseideas are summarized in the followingpropositions.

Proposition 5: The lower the knowl-edge enrichment in a job, the strongerthe activation in initial corporate vol-unteering episodes of (a) developmen-tal motives and (b) career motives.

Proposition 6: Enriched knowledgecharacteristics in corporate volunteer-ing projects moderate the effects of (a)developmental motives and (b) careermotives on repeated participationsuch that the effects are more positivewhen knowledge enrichment in vol-unteering projects is higher.

Crossover from socially enriched volunteeringcharacteristics to motives triggered by depletedtask and knowledge characteristics of jobs. Thepreceding sections have explained how the mo-tives activated by depleted task, social, orknowledge characteristics of jobs can be ful-filled by corporate volunteering projects that areenriched on corresponding dimensions. How-ever, there is also reason to expect that sociallyenriched corporate volunteering projects havespillover benefits that satisfy motives triggeredby depleted task or knowledge characteristics ofjobs. According to theoretical perspectives oncommunities of practice (Wenger, 1998), socialparticipation is an important source of bothmeaning and learning. When employees volun-teer in collaboration with others or as part of acommunity, they can develop a deeper sense ofshared purpose and identity in their contribu-tions (Wenger, 1998), which is likely to compen-sate for depleted task characteristics of jobs,and they can gain new insights from fellow par-ticipants (Wenger, 1998), which may compensatefor depleted knowledge characteristics of jobs.

Research on volunteering provides more spe-cific insights into how socially enriched corpo-rate volunteering projects are likely to fulfillspecific motives triggered by depleted task andknowledge characteristics of jobs. First, interde-pendence and interactions with insiders andoutsiders in corporate volunteering projects arelikely to fulfill the developmental and careermotives triggered by depleted knowledge char-

acteristics of jobs. Studies have shown thatwhen volunteers work with peers or client ben-eficiaries, they are able to share knowledge andlearn from each other’s expertise (Bartel et al.,2001; Lester et al., 2005; Peloza & Hassay, 2006).For example, a manager explained that teamprojects serve as a “great platform for sharingbusiness information and expertise” (Muthuri etal., 2009: 83). Interactions with coworkers andbeneficiaries in corporate volunteering projectsalso enable employees to build and strengthennetworks, which may fulfill career motives bygiving them access to connections that can helpthem advance (Muthuri et al., 2009; Peloza &Hassay, 2006). In these ways socially enrichedcorporate volunteering projects can substitutefor low knowledge enrichment in jobs, satisfyingdevelopmental and career motives and increas-ing the probability of repeated participation.

Second, beneficiary contact in corporate vol-unteering projects is also likely to fulfill theprosocial and self-enhancement motives trig-gered by depleted task characteristics. Studiessuggest that volunteers with strong prosocialmotives seek out more beneficiary contact fourand five months later (Penner & Finkelstein,1998). This is because beneficiary contact canfulfill prosocial motives by enabling employeesto see how their efforts have a meaningful im-pact (Grant, 2007; Grant et al., 2007). Beneficiarycontact is also likely to fulfill the self-enhance-ment motives triggered by depleted task char-acteristics. In her study of corporate volunteer-ing projects at Pillsbury, Bartel (2001) found thatinteracting with client beneficiaries enabledemployees to make social comparisons that por-trayed their own qualifications, fortunes, andidentities in a more favorable light. For exam-ple, employees stated that most clients “are nottreated well by society; we receive more re-spect,” “won’t have the opportunity to . . . holdthe types of high-paying jobs that we have,” and“don’t have the advantage of a college degreelike we do” (Bartel, 2001: 397). Interacting withthe beneficiaries of corporate volunteering proj-ects is therefore likely to fulfill employees’prosocial motives to help others and self-enhancement motives to increase their self-esteem, thereby encouraging repeatedparticipation.

Proposition 7: Enriched social charac-teristics in corporate volunteering

2012 601Grant

projects moderate the effects of (a)prosocial motives, (b) self-enhance-ment motives, (c) developmental mo-tives, and (d) career motives on re-peated participation such that theeffects are more positive when socialenrichment in volunteering projects ishigher.

Sustaining Long-Term Volunteering:Internalizing a Volunteer Identity andOrganizational Contingencies

Thus far I have proposed that depleted task,social, and knowledge characteristics of jobstrigger different motives that can be fulfilled bycharacteristics of corporate volunteering proj-ects, enhancing the likelihood of repeated par-ticipation. However, research suggests that asemployees participate in multiple volunteeringprojects, specific experiences are no longer themost important driver of sustained volunteeringover longer periods of time. According to the roleidentity perspective, the strongest predictor oflong-term engagement in volunteering is the in-ternalization of the volunteering role into one’sidentity or self-concept (Charng et al., 1988).From a sociological viewpoint, the repeated actof volunteering leads employees to internalizethe particular role as a more salient and centralpart of their identities (Grube & Piliavin, 2000;Lee, Piliavin, & Call, 1999).

From a psychological viewpoint, the develop-ment of a volunteer identity can be further illu-minated by theories of self-perception (Bem,1972) and sensemaking (Weick, 1995). After vol-unteering, employees make sense of theirchoices and identities by observing their behav-ior. Because they have repeatedly made a vol-untary choice to give, help, and contribute, em-ployees tend to make internal attributions fortheir behavior, inferring that they care about therecipient (Aronson, 1999; Flynn & Brockner, 2003;Jecker & Landy, 1969; Piliavin & Charng, 1990),that they are people who care about giving inthis particular role (Penner & Finkelstein, 1998),or that they are simply the type of person whocares about others in general (Dutton, Roberts, &Bednar, 2010). As Shamir proposed, when an em-ployee volunteers to contribute, this “clarifiesand affirms his or her self-concept. The higherthe relevant identity . . . the more likely is theperson to be motivated to contribute” (1990: 325).

Consistent with these arguments, several lab-oratory experiments have shown that when in-dividuals voluntarily help recipients, they cometo view themselves as caring more about help-ing these recipients (Aronson, 1999; Jecker &Landy, 1969) and as individuals who are helpful,generous, caring, and kind (Williamson & Clark,1989). Furthermore, in field research Grant et al.(2008) found that when employees at a Fortune500 company volunteered to contribute to othersin need, they perceived themselves as more car-ing, compassionate, and helpful individuals. Inaddition, field studies of volunteers have shownthat past experience with volunteering is posi-tively associated with the internalization of avolunteer identity, which, in turn, contributes tosustained participation (Grube & Piliavin, 2000;Piliavin & Callero, 1991; for reviews see Penner,2002, and Van Dyne & Farmer, 2004).

However, the reciprocal relationship betweenrepeated participation and the internalization ofa volunteer identity is likely to depend on con-tingencies at the organizational level. Grubeand Piliavin observed that “research on volun-teers has largely ignored the fact that most vol-unteering takes place within organizationalcontexts” (2000: 1109). To address this gap I ex-plore how the internalization of a volunteeridentity depends on organizational practices ofvolunteering pressure, matching incentives, rec-ognition, and managerial support. I also exam-ine how the contribution of a volunteer identityto long-term participation in corporate volun-teering depends on targeted causes. I selectedthese organizational practices because theyhave been identified as key dimensions alongwhich corporate volunteering programs vary(Basil et al., 2009; Boccalandro, 2009; Booth et al.,2009; LBG Associates, 2004; Peterson, 2004) andbecause they capture key organizational char-acteristics that are implicated by the role iden-tity perspective on volunteering (Grube & Pili-avin, 2000; Penner, 2002). To explain their effectsI draw on self-determination theory (Gagné &Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000), which is centrallyconcerned with the conditions under which be-haviors are internalized into one’s identity.

Organizational pressure for volunteering. Or-ganizations vary in the amount of pressure theyplace on employees to volunteer (Bartel, 2001;Brudney & Gazley, 2006; Houghton et al., 2009),sometimes going as far as including volunteer-ing in performance evaluations (Basil et al.,


2009; Peterson, 2004) or even requiring participa-tion (Duncan & Richardson, 2005). Researchshows that this pressure to participate, knownas the paradox of “mandatory volunteerism,” isassociated with a higher number of hours vol-unteered (Grube & Piliavin, 2000), yet it can re-duce future volunteering intentions (Stukas,Snyder, & Clary, 1999). These seemingly con-trasting findings can be explained by Kelman’s(1958) classic distinction between complianceand internalization, as well as by research onthe overjustification effect (Lepper, Greene, &Nisbett, 1973). When organizations place pres-sure on employees to volunteer, employees oftencomply by engaging in the behavior to avoidpenalties and/or obtain approval (O’Reilly &Chatman, 1986). However, the pressure providesan external justification to which they can attri-bute volunteering, preventing them from inter-nalizing it as a self-determined, intrinsicallymotivated choice (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Lepper et al., 1973). In the absence of pressure,employees are more likely to feel personallyresponsible for the decision to volunteer, whichwill increase the likelihood of internalizing thevolunteer identity (Stukas et al., 1999). Thus, Iexpect that repeated engagement will contrib-ute to the internalization of a volunteer identitywhen organizational pressure to volunteer islow rather than high.

Proposition 8: The effect of repeatedengagement in corporate volunteer-ing on the internalization of a volun-teer role identity is moderated by or-ganizational pressure to volunteersuch that the effect is positive whenpressure is low and negative whenpressure is high.

Matching incentives for volunteering. Organi-zations also vary in the degree to which theyprovide employees with matching incentives forvolunteering. Approximately half of U.S. andCanadian companies provide donations thatare directly linked to employee volunteering(Basil et al., 2009; LBG Associates, 2004). Theseincentives typically involve the company’s mak-ing a financial contribution to an organizationchosen by employees in exchange for volunteer-ing hours (Peterson, 2004) but can also includethe donation of prizes, gift certificates, food,clothing, and event fees (Booth et al., 2009). Forexample, Symantec designed a volunteer chal-

lenge in which employees who contributed atleast twenty-five hours received grants of $1,000to give to the nonprofit of their choice, whichappeared to yield an increase in hours volun-teered of over 230 percent from the previous year(Boccalandro, 2009). Although little empirical re-search has directly examined their conse-quences, in a rare exception Peterson (2004)found that matching incentives were associatedwith a greater number of hours volunteered byemployees.

However, incentives can undermine internal-ization by signaling that the behavior is exter-nally controlled rather than internally chosen(Deci et al., 1999). As such, the strength of impactof these matching incentives is likely to dependon the organization’s pay practices. Hourly pay-ment (DeVoe & Pfeffer, 2007a) and billing time(DeVoe & Pfeffer, 2010) are two organizationalpractices that have been documented to de-crease volunteering. These time-contingent paypractices are known to lead employees to viewtheir time in terms of money, making it moredifficult to justify volunteering without pay (De-Voe & Pfeffer, 2007b, 2010). For employees withthese types of time-contingent pay, matchingincentives for volunteering may be particularlyimportant in facilitating the internalization of avolunteer identity, since employees may viewrepeated volunteering as a waste of time if thereare no matching incentives to extend the contri-butions of their efforts. Indeed, Pfeffer and De-Voe found that “hourly payment as an organiza-tional practice . . . consistently makes salientthe monetary value of one’s time and serves tomake a portion of one’s chronic self-concept re-lated to economic evaluation more frequentlyaccessible to the active self-concept” (2009: 501).Research suggests that “the activation of moneyand economics as aspects of a person’s self-concept is one mechanism” that explains whytime-contingent pay reduces uncompensatedvolunteering (Pfeffer & DeVoe, 2009: 500). For em-ployees who receive time-contingent pay, giventhat money becomes a salient dimension of theself-concept, internalizing a volunteer identity islikely to depend on associating volunteeringwith money, which can be facilitated by thepresence of matching incentives. In contrast, foremployees who receive salaried pay, matchingincentives will be less relevant to their evalua-tions and identities; these employees will belikely to internalize a volunteer identity after

2012 603Grant

repeated volunteering even if matching incen-tives are not available. I thereby predict a three-way interaction in which matching incentivesstrengthen the effect of repeated volunteeringon the internalization of a volunteer identitywhen pay is time contingent.

Proposition 9: The effect of repeatedengagement in corporate volunteer-ing on the internalization of a volun-teer role identity is moderated bymatching incentives for volunteeringand pay practices such that the effectof matching incentives is stronger foremployees with time-contingent pay.

Organizational recognition and support forvolunteering. Research also suggests that rec-ognition and support for volunteering may influ-ence the effects of repeated volunteering on theinternalization of a volunteer identity. Recogni-tion is a symbolic reward (Mickel & Barron,2008), a frequently used communication of pub-lic appreciation for volunteering that often takesthe form of awards, mentions in company news-letters, or events such as special receptions andmeals (Basil et al., 2009; LBG Associates, 2004).Although many companies provide recognitionfor employee participation in volunteering pro-grams, by making employees’ volunteering ef-forts more visible, recognition can be self-verifying, aligning one’s public image withone’s private self-concept as a helpful person(Grube & Piliavin, 2000; see also Griskevicius,Tybur, & Van den Bergh, 2010). However, studieshave returned equivocal results with respect tothe relationship between recognition and long-term engagement in volunteering (Booth et al.,2009; Peterson, 2004).

These conflicting findings can be reconciledby exploring how the effects of recognition onthe internalization of a volunteer identity de-pend on managerial support for volunteering.According to self-determination theory, externalreinforcements such as recognition can increaseinternalization when delivered in a supportiverather than controlling manner (Gagné & Deci,2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). As such, recognition isonly likely to lead employees to internalize avolunteer identity if the volunteering programhas strong managerial support, which involvesa climate of encouragement, senior manage-ment role modeling, and facilitative proceduresthat varies substantially between organizations

(Boccalandro, 2009; see also Basil et al., 2009).Research shows that individuals are most likelyto internalize a volunteer identity when impor-tant others value their volunteering efforts (Fin-kelstein et al., 2005; Grube & Piliavin, 2000). Man-agerial support signals to employees thatcorporate volunteering efforts are valued, am-plifying the identity relevance of volunteering.Indeed, in a qualitative study of corporate vol-unteering, Peloza and Hassay found that “em-ployees reported that management support wasimportant if their involvement was to be recog-nized and rewarded” (2006: 371). Providing quan-titative evidence in line with this assertion, inlaboratory and field experiments Fisher andAckerman (1998) showed that recognition onlymotivated people to volunteer more hours whentheir efforts were important to the group provid-ing the recognition. From a self-determinationtheory perspective (Ryan & Deci, 2000), recogni-tion in conjunction with managerial support islikely to sustain employees’ experiences of voli-tional, autonomous self-regulation of volunteer-ing behavior, promoting internalization. If rec-ognition occurs without managerial support,employees may be more likely to interpret therecognition as controlling, which limits internal-ization (Deci et al., 1999). Accordingly, I predict athree-way interaction in which recognition andmanagerial support for volunteering in tandemstrengthen the effect of repeated volunteeringon the internalization of a volunteer identity.

Proposition 10: The effect of repeatedengagement in corporate volunteer-ing on the internalization of a volun-teer role identity is jointly moderatedby recognition and managerial sup-port such that the effect is most posi-tive when recognition and manage-rial support are high.

Targeted causes. Finally, research suggeststhat repeated engagement in volunteering canfoster a general role identity as a volunteer or aspecific role identity associated with the partic-ular cause, volunteering program, or beneficiaryorganization, such as an American Cancer Soci-ety volunteer (Grube & Piliavin, 2000), an IBMCorporate Service Corps volunteer, or a Writersto the Rescue volunteer at McGraw-Hill (Bocca-landro, 2009). Specific role identities are potentcatalysts for sustaining involvement in corpo-rate volunteering as a unique outlet for self-


expression, whereas general identities tend toencourage more dispersed volunteering effortsin a range of domains (Grube & Piliavin, 2000).When employees identify strongly with a target,they are willing to become involved in andmake sacrifices on behalf of initiatives that ben-efit the target, since these initiatives reflect ontheir private and public images (Haski-Lev-enthal & Cnaan, 2009). Thus, long-term partici-pation in corporate volunteering is most likelywhen the volunteer identity internalized is spe-cific to the program or cause.

Specific role identities are likely to be culti-vated by a corporate volunteering program’s fo-cus on targeted causes, such as health care,education, the arts, and the natural environment(Basil et al., 2009; Liu, Liston-Heyes, & Ko, 2009).In a survey of Fortune 500 companies, Bocca-landro (2009) identified focusing on targetedcauses as a key driver of the effectiveness withwhich a corporate volunteering program servesboth the public good and strategic business ob-jectives. According to the role identity perspec-tive, specific volunteer identities are fostered byorganizational-level attributes of prestige andvalue congruence (Grube & Piliavin, 2000). First,the prestige of the targeted cause refers to thedegree to which the issue and organization aregranted respect and status by organizationalmembers and outsiders (Dutton, Dukerich, &Harquail, 1994). Employees are more likely todevelop a specific role identity when the causecarries prestige, which makes it more worthy ofincorporating into one’s identity. Indeed, re-search suggests that when the cause is presti-gious, volunteers are more likely to internalize itas part of their specific role identities (Grube &Piliavin, 2000). For example, when a corporatevolunteering program contributes to solving animportant social problem or partners with aprestigious charity, employees will be morelikely to internalize the cause in their identities.

Second, value congruence can be fostered byeither granting employees choice in selectingthe cause or selecting causes that align with theorganization’s identity. Some organizations al-low employees to choose the cause for whichthey volunteer (Boccalandro, 2009). This facili-tates value congruence by creating a sense ofself-determination and ownership (Ryan & Deci,2000) and allowing employees to contribute inways they find personally meaningful (Clary etal., 1998), enhancing the likelihood that they will

develop a specific volunteer identity that is tiedto the program and their causes of choice(Peloza et al., 2009). Alternatively, the cause canalso be value congruent when it is aligned withthe organization’s identity, focusing on issuesthat are central, distinctive, and enduring (Al-bert & Whetten, 1985) to the organization (e.g.,Ellen, Mohr, & Webb, 2000; Menon & Kahn, 2003;Sen & Bhattacharya, 2001). Because employeestend to be attracted to, selected by, and retainedin organizations with congruent identities(Schneider, 1987), as well as socialized to em-brace these identities (Chatman, 1991), repeatedvolunteering for a cause that is aligned with theorganization’s identity is likely to resonate withemployees’ core values, enhancing the likeli-hood of internalization. For example, Porter andKramer (2006) described how Microsoft sendsvolunteers to community colleges to help solveIT problems, which is likely to be value congru-ent given that it aligns with Microsoft’s identityas an IT company. Similarly, Pajo and Lee (2011)found that IBM employees resonated with volun-teering initiatives that bring technology intoschools, since they view technology as a coredimension of the company’s distinctive identity.

Proposition 11: The effect of volunteeridentity on long-term corporate volun-teering is moderated by targetedcauses such that the effect is more pos-itive when the cause is (a) prestigious,(b) self-selected by employees, or (c)aligned with the organization’sidentity.

DISCUSSION

To explain why and when sustained em-ployee participation in corporate volunteeringoccurs, I have developed a model that integratesand extends theories of work design and volun-teering. I have proposed that depleted job char-acteristics can lead employees to pursue differ-ent motives in corporate volunteering, whichcan be fulfilled by enriched volunteering proj-ects, encouraging repeated participation. Overtime, repeated participation can be self-sustain-ing through the cultivation of a volunteer iden-tity, depending on organizational practices re-lated to volunteering.

2012 605Grant

Theoretical Contributions

These propositions offer important implica-tions for theory and research on caring and com-passion in organizations, on work design, andon volunteering.

Caring and compassion in organizations. Myframework complements the dominant focus onsocial responsibility at the top of organizations(e.g., Agle et al., 1999; Marquis et al., 2007), an-swering calls for new theoretical perspectives toexplain employee participation in corporate vol-unteering (Benjamin, 2001; Booth et al., 2009;Tschirhart, 2005; Wood, 2007). To this end, myapproach fills critical gaps in existing knowl-edge about the antecedents of sustained em-ployee participation. Whereas previous re-search focused on the consequences ofparticipation (e.g., Bartel, 2001; Grant et al., 2008)and the individual and program characteristicsthat predict the likelihood and extent of partici-pation (e.g., Booth et al., 2009; de Gilder et al.,2005; Peloza et al., 2009; Peterson, 2004), my per-spective introduces job and volunteering projectcharacteristics as central catalysts for repeatedparticipation in corporate volunteering. My ap-proach also calls attention to motives as inter-vening mechanisms that explain how volunteer-ing projects can compensate for depleted jobdesigns. In addition, my perspective under-scores that organizational practices are not onlydirect antecedents of participation but alsomoderate its reciprocal relationship withvolunteer identity. Together, these insights ad-vance our understanding of the factors that sus-tain employee participation in corporatevolunteering.

My approach also presents a new way of un-derstanding employees’ involvement in caringand compassion. In management research, em-ployees’ efforts to care and express compassionare studied as forms of prosocial or organiza-tional citizenship behaviors. By definition, citi-zenship is a class of discretionary actions un-dertaken by employees to contribute to otherpeople or the organization (Organ., 1988), suchas by providing help. However, researchershave typically limited citizenship behaviors tothose that are directed toward benefiting co-workers, supervisors, and customers (for a re-view see Podsakoff et al., 2000). Coworkers, su-pervisors, and customers are beneficiarieswhose interests often align directly with the or-

ganization’s. As such, engaging in citizenshipbehaviors toward these beneficiaries is fre-quently viewed as a role requirement and obli-gation (Morrison, 1994) and a core dimension ofjob performance (e.g., Harrison et al., 2006), andit tends to garner higher performance apprais-als, better reputations, more rewards, andhigher promotion rates (e.g., Podsakoff et al.,2000). This evidence calls into question the pro-priety of the prevailing view that helping co-workers, supervisors, or customers is truly anact of citizenship (Bolino, 1999).

Sustained participation in corporate volun-teering represents an alternative way of concep-tualizing citizenship behavior. Because it is of-ten directed toward beneficiaries and causesthat extend beyond the organization’s mission,volunteering is less likely to be formally ex-pected and rewarded than helping coworkers,supervisors, and customers. Volunteering alsomore closely resembles the view of citizenshipin political philosophy, which emphasizes act-ing out of concern for the welfare of an entirecommunity, not only one’s focal group or orga-nization (Van Dyne et al., 1994). By studying cor-porate volunteering as a purer, more unambig-uous form of citizenship behavior, managementscholars may gain a deeper grasp of the forcesthat motivate employees to offer care and com-passion to communities, charities, and disad-vantaged and underprivileged groups. Althoughwe know much about the factors that affectprosocial behaviors directed toward supervi-sors, coworkers, and customers who are directlyinvolved with the organization’s work (for a re-view see Podsakoff et al., 2000), scholars havedevoted scant attention to why employees en-gage in long-term prosocial behaviors on behalfof beneficiaries who fall outside the organiza-tion’s core activities, products, and services. Mymodel takes a step toward enriching our com-prehension of the forces that drive employees’expressions of care and compassion towardbeneficiaries outside the boundaries of the or-ganization’s work.

Work design. The unique value added of or-ganizational scholarship depends in part oncontributing back to the theoretical perspectivesthat inform our research (see Heath & Sitkin,2001). As such, it is worthwhile to consider howthis article contributes back to research on workdesign and volunteering. For work design theoryand research, my approach challenges the dom-


inant assumption that enriched job characteris-tics enhance employees’ contributions to theirorganizations. Extensive research suggests thatwhen employees work in jobs with enrichedtask, social, and knowledge characteristics, theytend to manifest more favorable attitudes,higher task performance, more frequent citizen-ship behaviors, and greater retention (e.g., Fried& Ferris, 1987; Griffin, 1991; Hackman & Oldham,1976; Humphrey et al., 2007). My perspectivecomplicates this assumption by suggesting thatjobs lacking in enrichment may motivate em-ployees to contribute to their organizations inother ways, such as through volunteering. Al-though scholars have recognized that jobs canbe too enriched (Elsbach & Hargadon, 2006;Warr, 2007; Xie & Johns, 1995), research has yet toexplore the possibility that low enrichment,when coupled with avenues for contributing tothe organization outside the scope of one’s jobresponsibilities, can enhance employees’ contri-butions. This strikes an interesting contrast withPenner’s speculation that “if companies want toincrease voluntary prosocial actions amongtheir employees, they need to design jobs thatare highly motivating and interesting, and thatprovide feedback to the job occupant” (2002: 459).Although this may be true for traditional citizen-ship behaviors, I have proposed that the oppo-site is the case for corporate volunteering, wherejobs lacking in enrichment may trigger motivesand free up time, energy, and attention.

Along with suggesting that job enrichmentmay carry the unintended consequence of re-ducing long-term volunteering, my approachalso highlights the interplay between work andother life domains as a significant force in shap-ing how employees respond to their jobs. In fo-cusing on job characteristics, work design re-searchers have traditionally overlooked the factthat these characteristics unfold in tandem withemployees’ experiences of other activities (cf.Kohn & Schooler, 1978, 1982). By accentuatinghow job designs can influence volunteering mo-tives and interact with volunteering projects, myapproach reinforces the value of investigatinghow work design affects employees’ actions be-yond the boundaries of their work.

The social science of volunteering. To the vol-unteering literature in psychology and sociol-ogy, my perspective offers three core contribu-tions. First, my model extends the motivationalperspective on volunteering by opening up new

insights about the contextual factors that affectvolunteering motives. As discussed previously,psychologists have assumed that these motivesare endogenous to the volunteer’s disposi-tions—rooted in basic personality traits and de-velopmental experiences (Clary et al., 1998; Erezet al., 2008; Okun & Schultz, 2003). My approachsuggests that jobs also play a critical role inshaping the motives that people attach to vol-unteering. In particular, I proposed that proso-cial and self-enhancement volunteering motivesare triggered by depleted task characteristics ofjobs, belonging and self-protective motives aretriggered by depleted social characteristics, anddevelopmental and career motives are triggeredby depleted knowledge characteristics. Thesepropositions suggest that although the disposi-tions that individuals carry with them can influ-ence volunteering motives, these motives canalso be shaped by work design as an importantbut neglected contextual and situational force.

Second, my approach extends the role identityperspective by identifying new contextual mod-erators of the reciprocal relationship betweenrepeated volunteering and volunteer identities.Little research has examined the role that orga-nizations play in shaping volunteer identities,and exceptions have focused on main effects ofa small subset of organizational practices(Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Penner, 2002). My per-spective offers fresh insights into how repeatedparticipation may have stronger effects on iden-tity internalization when pressure is low, match-ing incentives are available for those who re-ceive time-contingent pay, and recognition forvolunteering is coupled with managerial sup-port, as well as into how the internalization of avolunteer identity will lead to more sustainedparticipation when the cause is prestigious andidentity congruent. These insights fill a gap inextant knowledge about how organizationalpractices moderate the relationship betweenvolunteer role identities and participation.

Third, this article provides both psychologistsand sociologists with a framework for classify-ing the characteristics of volunteering tasks,projects, activities, and roles. In the majority ofexisting studies, researchers have measured theperceived fulfillment of volunteering motiveswithout investigating the characteristics of vol-unteering projects that cause this fulfillment(e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Finkelstein et al., 2005).The few studies that have measured character-

2012 607Grant

istics of volunteering projects have focused on arelatively narrow, arbitrary set of attributes. Forexample, Houle et al. (2005) presented a list ofeight different volunteering tasks, ranging fromtyping and data entry to reading and designingbrochures, seeking to identify volunteering mo-tives that predicted interest in each task withoutspecifying the underlying characteristics of thetasks. As another example, Grube and Piliavin(2000) examined the personal importance of con-tributions, which is analogous to task signifi-cance, as well as having friends who volunteer,which bears a resemblance to several socialcharacteristics. In comparison, my model offerspsychologists and sociologists a more compre-hensive, theoretically grounded, and empiri-cally supported framework for examining thetask, social, and knowledge characteristics ofvolunteering work, which may facilitate effortsto build and test theory about the factors thataffect satisfaction and participation in volun-teering roles.

Future Directions

Along with testing the model empirically, re-searchers may pursue several exciting lines ofinquiry into corporate volunteering. First, theremay be relationships between constructs in themodel that my propositions do not address. Asone example, employees’ volunteering motivesmay directly influence the internalization of avolunteer identity and repeated volunteering(e.g., Finkelstein et al., 2005; Peloza et al., 2009).Employees with strong self-enhancement andcareer motives may be particularly sensitive torecognition and the prestige of the cause,whereas employees with strong prosocial mo-tives may be more receptive to the notion of aself-concept as a volunteer, regardless of orga-nizational practices (Finkelstein et al., 2005). Asanother example, job design may moderate theeffects of the internalization of a volunteer iden-tity on repeated participation. From a resourceallocation perspective, enriched job designsmay limit the time, energy, and attention em-ployees have available for other activities(Bergeron, 2007), running the risk of creating roleconflict (Farmer & Fedor, 2001).

More generally, demands from other rolesmay curtail the deviation-amplifying spiral be-tween a volunteer identity and repeated partic-ipation (Musick, Herzog, & House, 1999). On a

related note, research has yet to provide clearevidence about the effects of corporate volun-teering on employees’ behaviors on the job(Rodell, 2010). Researchers may begin exploringthis question by using frameworks developed toexamine work-family spillover (e.g., Edwards &Rothbard, 2000). Enriching effects of volunteer-ing may include enhancing energy, social sup-port, knowledge, skills, organizational identifi-cation, and commitment; depleting effects mayinclude sapping energy, framing one’s job in amore negative light, and creating role conflict.We need a more comprehensive understandingof the conditions under which corporate volun-teering enriches versus depletes job perfor-mance and relevant job behaviors, as well as itsbroader effects on employee well-being and or-ganizational effectiveness.

Second, my model does not capture the dis-tinction between corporate volunteering pro-grams focusing on caring and those focusing oncompassion. Caring involves serving others bygiving one’s cognitive, emotional, and physicalself in meaningful relationships (Kahn, 1993),whereas compassion involves attending and re-sponding to pain and suffering caused by disas-ters, tragedies, and stressors (Dutton, Worline,Frost, & Lilius, 2006). Programs focusing on car-ing may be more conducive to sustainable par-ticipation, since projects can be scheduled on amore predictable basis, but programs focusingon compassion may attract a larger number ofemployees in times of need (e.g., Penner etal., 2005).

Third, my focus on the independent effects ofdifferent motives for corporate volunteeringoverlooks their potential interactive effects. Re-search has produced conflicting evidence, withsome studies suggesting that multiple motivescan lead to stress, perceived costs, and reducedfulfillment and satisfaction (Kiviniemi, Snyder,& Omoto, 2002), but with other studies suggest-ing that multiple motives can enhance persis-tence (Grant & Mayer, 2009). It will be critical toaddress this controversy by examining the con-ditions under which different types of volunteer-ing motives support versus undermine eachother. In addition, future research should ad-dress the impact of motivational incentives onparticipation, such as creating team competi-tions or offering corporate volunteering as a re-ward, as is common with pro bono work in con-sulting and law (Rhode, 2005). Such rewards


may enhance norms of professional responsibil-ity, embedding care and compassion moredeeply in organizations.

Fourth, I assume that because the desires formeaningfulness, connection, and competenceare thought to be universal (Baumeister & Leary,1995; Heine et al., 2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000), de-pleted task, social, and knowledge characteris-tics will activate compensatory motives in cor-porate volunteering. However, these effects maydepend on employees’ global motivations andpersonality traits, with employees varying intheir preferences for different job characteristics(e.g., Kulik et al., 1987)—and thus in the effects ofthese characteristics on their volunteeringmotives.

Fifth, it is unclear whether my model can ex-plain variations in participation within corpo-rate volunteering programs. For example, whena volunteering project satisfies a motive by com-pensating for a depleted job characteristic, doemployees choose different types of volunteer-ing projects, or do they seek out more sustainedfulfillment of the motive by repeating participa-tion in the same type of project? Sixth, on a moremacro level, it will be important to understandthe factors that influence organizational deci-sions about how to structure corporate volun-teering programs, especially with respect to theprovision of sustained volunteering projects.

Finally, given that the factors that initiate vol-unteering differ from those that maintain it(Penner, 2002; Penner et al., 2005), my focus onsustained participation provides little insightinto the initial decision to volunteer at ratherthan outside work. As noted earlier, researchsuggests that the decision is influenced by fac-tors such as motives; social expectations; orga-nizational commitment; and time, financial, andlogistical benefits (Basil et al., 2009; Booth et al.,2009; Peloza et al., 2009; Peterson, 2004). It will beuseful to understand the differential effects ofmotives on initial versus sustained participa-tion. Further, organizational scholarship callsattention to other factors that may be relevant toinitial participation. For example, research indi-cates that employees differ in their boundarymanagement preferences: segmentors prefer tomaintain a clear separation between work andother life domains, whereas integrators prefer toblur these boundaries (Rothbard, Phillips, & Du-mas, 2005). Corporate volunteering is an inte-grating policy (Rothbard et al., 2005), since it

brings what is traditionally a personal role intothe professional sphere (Houghton et al., 2009).Integrators are likely to be enthusiastic aboutcorporate volunteering because it allows themto build multiplex relationships, express multi-ple identities, and fulfill multiple roles simulta-neously in a “win-win” fashion (Rothbard et al.,2005). Segmentors are likely to react more nega-tively to corporate volunteering programs,which may interfere with their desires for pri-vacy and role separation, even if they are notpersonally involved (Rothbard et al., 2005; seealso de Gilder et al., 2005: 144). These prefer-ences may influence decisions to participate inand attitudes toward corporate volunteeringprograms. It would also be fascinating to exam-ine whether repeated engagement in corporatevolunteering begins to shift segmentors’ prefer-ences toward integration.

Practical Implications

The framework developed in this article hasvaluable implications for leaders, managers,and employees. For leaders and managers themodel can provide guidelines for sustainingparticipation in corporate volunteering. It is un-likely that leaders and managers would inten-tionally design depleted jobs to encourage sus-tained participation in volunteering. Rather,recognizing that depleted jobs are a reality inmany organizations around the world (Davis,2010; Grant & Parker, 2009), it may be fruitful forleaders and managers to approach volunteeringprojects as a substitute for enriched jobs. Insofaras employees whose jobs lack enrichment aremore likely to be motivated by and available forrepeated participation, leaders and managerscan seek to identify depleted job characteristicsand work with partner organizations to designvolunteering projects that compensate to fulfillemployees’ motives. By tailoring the task, social,and knowledge characteristics of initial volun-teering projects to substitute for enriched jobcharacteristics and satisfy relevant motives,leaders and managers can enhance the degreeto which employees continue to participate incorporate volunteering.

To encourage the internalization of a corpo-rate volunteer identity and the long-term sus-tainability of participation, leaders and manag-ers can work to reduce pressure, combinerecognition with support, target prestigious

2012 609Grant

causes that are selected by employees or alignwith the organization’s identity, and offermatching incentives when employees are paidhourly. These steps are likely to be useful toemployees as well, given that many corporatevolunteering programs and projects are initi-ated, organized, structured, and implemented byemployees themselves (Wainwright, 2005; Wood,2007). For employees the framework may alsoserve as a map for both choosing and craftingvolunteering projects. Employees can identifypreferred volunteering project characteristicsbased on job characteristics and motives, andcan select and modify projects accordingly toenhance satisfaction and the sustainability ofparticipation.

CONCLUSION

Corporate volunteering has taken organiza-tions by storm, but organizational scholars haveonly begun to take notice. Until very recently,research on corporate volunteering was domi-nated by practitioners. Insofar as problem-driven research remains a central starting pointfor scholarly inquiry (Davis & Marquis, 2005;Lawrence, 1992), we have a responsibility tocatch up and contribute to the conversation. Inthe wake of pressing social problems and risingexpectations for organizations to help, the timeis ripe to study corporate volunteering as anincreasingly widespread form of corporate so-cial responsibility. A work design lens repre-sents a generative first step toward both illumi-nating and enhancing sustained employeeparticipation in corporate volunteering pro-grams that deliver care and compassion to thosein need.

REFERENCES

Agle, B. R., Mitchell, R. K., & Sonnenfeld, J. A. 1999. Whomatters to CEOs? An investigation of stakeholder attri-butes and salience, corporate performance, and CEOvalues. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 507–525.

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J.2007. Putting the S back in corporate social responsibil-ity: A multilevel theory of social change in organiza-tions. Academy of Management Review, 32: 836–863.

Albert, S., & Whetten, D. 1985. Organizational identity. Re-search in Organizational Behavior, 7: 263–295.

Alderfer, C. P. 1972. Existence, relatedness, and growth. NewYork: Free Press.

Allen, D. G., Bryant, P. C., & Vardaman, J. M. 2010. Retainingtalent: Replacing misconceptions with evidence-basedstrategies. Academy of Management Perspectives, 24(2):48–64.

Anderson, S. E., & Williams, L. J. 1996. Interpersonal, job, andindividual factors related to helping processes at work.Journal of Applied Psychology, 81: 282–296.

Aronson, E. 1978. The jigsaw classroom. Oxford: Sage.

Aronson, E. 1999. The power of self-persuasion. AmericanPsychologist, 54: 875–884.

Bacharach, S. B., Bamberger, P. A., & Sonnenstuhl, W. J. 2001.Mutual aid and union renewal: Cycles of logics of action.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Baddeley, A. D. 1982. Domains of recollection. PsychologicalReview, 89: 708–729.

Barrick, M. R., Stewart, G. L., & Piotrowski, M. 2002. Person-ality and job performance: Test of the mediating effectsof motivation among sales representatives. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87: 43–51.

Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanningwork: Effects of community outreach on members’ orga-nizational identity and identification. AdministrativeScience Quarterly, 46: 379–413.

Bartel, C. A., Saavedra, R., & Van Dyne, L. 2001. Designconditions for learning in community service contexts.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22: 367–385.

Basil, D. Z., Runte, M. S., Easwaramoorthy, M., & Barr, C. 2009.Company support for employee volunteering: A nationalsurvey of companies in Canada. Journal of BusinessEthics, 85: 387–398.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong:Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamentalhuman motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497–529.

Bem, D. J. 1972. Self-perception theory. Advances in Experi-mental Social Psychology, 6: 1–62.

Benjamin, E. J. 2001. A look inside corporate employee vol-unteer programs. Journal of Volunteer Administration,19: 16–32.

Bergeron, D. M. 2007. The potential paradox of organizationalcitizenship behavior: Good citizens at what cost? Acad-emy of Management Review, 32: 1078–1095.

Berridge, K. C. 2004. Motivation concepts in behavioral neu-roscience. Physiology & Behavior, 81: 179–209.

Boccalandro, B. 2009. Mapping success in employee volun-teering: The drivers of effectiveness for employee volun-teering giving programs and Fortune 500 performance.Boston College Center for Corporate Citizenship, www.bcccc.net/document/docWindow.cfm?fuseaction�d o c u m e n t . v i e w D o c u m e n t & d o c u m e n t i d � 1 3 0 8&documentFormatId�2312, accessed June 23, 2010.

Bolino, M. C. 1999. Citizenship and impression management:Good soldiers or good actors? Academy of ManagementReview, 24: 82–98.

Booth, J. E., Park, K. W., & Glomb, T. M. 2009. Employer-supported volunteering benefits: Gift exchange among


employers, employees, and volunteer organizations. Hu-man Resource Management, 48: 227–249.

Brief, A. P., & Motowidlo, S. J. 1986. Prosocial organizationalbehaviors. Academy of Management Review, 11: 710–725.

Brown, G. 2006. Remarks by the Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP,Chancellor of the Exchequer, at the HMRC Corporate &Social Responsibility Conference with His Royal High-ness, The Prince of Wales, at HM Treasury. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/�/http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_79_06.htm, accessed June 23, 2010.

Brudney, J. L., & Gazley, B. 2006. Moving ahead or fallingbehind? Volunteer promotion and data collection. Non-profit Management and Leadership, 16: 259–276.

Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. 2008. How UK universities engagewith their local communities: A study of employer sup-ported volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofitand Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13: 363–378.

Cascio, W. F. 2003. Changes in workers, work, and organi-zations. In W. Borman, R. Klimoski, & D. Ilgen (Eds.),Handbook of psychology. Volume 12: Industrial and or-ganizational psychology: 401–422. New York: Wiley.

Charng, H., Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. L. 1988. Role identityand reasoned action in the prediction of repeated be-havior. Social Psychology Quarterly, 51: 303–317.

Chatman, J. A. 1991. Matching people and organizations:Selection and socialization in public accounting firms.Administrative Science Quarterly, 36: 459–484.

Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. 1999. The motivations to volunteer:Theoretical and practical considerations. Current Direc-tions in Psychological Science, 8: 156–159.

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas,A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. 1998. Understanding andassessing the motivations of volunteers: A functionalapproach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,74: 1516–1530.

Clegg, C., & Spencer, C. 2007. A circular and dynamic modelof the process of job design. Journal of Occupational andOrganizational Psychology, 80: 321–339.

Davis, G. F. 2010. Job design meets organizational sociology.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31: 302–308.

Davis, G. F., & Marquis, C. 2005. Prospects for organizationtheory in the early twenty-first century: Institutionalfields and mechanisms. Organization Science, 16: 332–343.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. 1999. A meta-analyticreview of experiments examining the effects of extrinsicrewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,125: 627–668.

de Gilder, D., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Breedijk, M. 2005. Effects ofan employee volunteering program on the work force:The ABN-AMRO case. Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 143–152.

de Jong, S. B., Van der Vegt, G. S., & Molleman, E. 2007. Therelationships among asymmetry in task dependence,perceived helping behavior, and trust. Journal of Ap-plied Psychology, 92: 1625–1637.

Deloitte. 2007. Executive summary: Volunteer IMPACT sur-vey. www.handsonnetwork.org/files/resources/Deloitte_impact_survey07.pdf, accessed December 31, 2010.

DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. 2007a. Hourly payment and volun-teering: The effect of organizational practices on deci-sions about time use. Academy of Management Journal,50: 783–798.

DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. 2007b. When time is money: Theeffect of hourly payment on the evaluation of time. Or-ganizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,104: 1–13.

DeVoe, S. E., & Pfeffer, J. 2010. The stingy hour: How thepractice of billing time affects volunteering. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 36: 470–483.

Disney. 2009. VoluntEARS efforts around the world. http://disney.go.com/disneyhand/voluntears/details.html andhttp://corporate.disney.go.com/responsibility/community.html, accessed June 23, 2010.

Duffy, M. K., Ganster, D. C., & Pagon, M. 2002. Social under-mining in the workplace. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 45: 331–351.

Duncan, A., & Richardson, K. 2005. Is corporate volunteeringfalling short? Business Community Intelligence, July:www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/bci_firstedition.pdf, ac-cessed June 23, 2010.

Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. 1994. Organi-zational images and member identification. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 39: 239–263.

Dutton, J. E., Roberts, L. M., & Bednar, J. 2010. Pathways forpositive identity construction at work: Four types of pos-itive identity and the building of social resources. Acad-emy of Management Review, 35: 265–293.

Dutton, J. E., Worline, M. C., Frost, P. J., & Lilius, J. 2006.Explaining compassion organizing. Administrative Sci-ence Quarterly, 51: 59–96.

Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linkingwork and family: Clarifying the relationship betweenwork and family constructs. Academy of ManagementReview, 25: 178–199.

Ellen, P. S., Mohr, L. A., & Webb, D. J. 2000. Charitable pro-grams and the retailer: Do they mix? Journal of Retail-ing, 76: 393–406.

Elsbach, K. D., & Hargadon, A. B. 2006. Enhancing creativitythrough “mindless” work: A framework of workday de-sign. Organization Science, 17: 470–483.

Erez, A., Mikulincer, M., van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & Kroonen-berg, P. M. 2008. Attachment, personality, and volunteer-ing: Placing volunteerism in an attachment-theoreticalframework. Personality and Individual Differences, 44:64–74.

Farmer, S. M., & Fedor, D. B. 2001. Changing the focus onvolunteering: An investigation of volunteers’ multiplecontributions to a charitable organization. Journal ofManagement, 27: 191–211.

Finkelstein, M. A., Penner, L. A., & Brannick, M. T. 2005.Motive, role identity, and prosocial personality as pre-

2012 611Grant

dictors of volunteer activity. Social Behavior and Person-ality, 33: 403–418.

Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. 1998. The effects of recognitionand group need on volunteerism: A social norm perspec-tive. Journal of Consumer Research, 25: 262–275.

Flynn, F. J., & Brockner, J. 2003. It’s different to give than toreceive: Predictors of givers’ and receivers’ reactions tofavor exchange. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 1034–1045.

Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. 1987. The validity of the job charac-teristics model: A review and meta-analysis. PersonnelPsychology, 40: 287–322.

Fried, Y., Levi, A. S., & Laurence, G. 2008. Motivation and jobdesign in the new world of work. In S. Cartwright & C. L.Cooper (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of personnel psy-chology, vol. 24: 586 – 611. Oxford: Oxford UniversityPress.

Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. 2005. Self-determination theory andwork motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26:331–362.

George, J. M., & Brief, A. P. 1992. Feeling good—doing good:A conceptual analysis of the mood at work–organiza-tional spontaneity relationship. Psychological Bulletin,112: 310–329.

Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. 2000. Toward aconceptual framework of employee volunteerism: Anaid for the human resource manager. Management De-cision, 38: 280–287.

Grant, A. M. 2007. Relational job design and the motivationto make a prosocial difference. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 32: 393–417.

Grant, A. M. 2008. The significance of task significance: Jobperformance effects, relational mechanisms, andboundary conditions. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93:108–124.

Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis,D., & Lee, K. 2007. Impact and the art of motivationmaintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiarieson persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 103: 53–67.

Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. 2008. Giving commit-ment: Employee support programs and the prosocialsensemaking process. Academy of Management Jour-nal, 51: 898–918.

Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. 2009. Good soldiers and goodactors: Prosocial and impression management motivesas interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behav-iors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 900–912.

Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. 2009. Redesigning work designtheories: The rise of relational and proactive perspec-tives. Academy of Management Annals, 3: 317–375.

Grant, A. M., & Wade-Benzoni, K. 2009. The hot and cool ofdeath awareness at work: Mortality cues, aging, andself-protective and prosocial motivations. Academy ofManagement Review, 34: 600–622.

Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. 2000. A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee

turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research impli-cations for the next millennium. Journal of Management,26: 463–488.

Griffin, R. W. 1991. Effects of work redesign on employeeperceptions, attitudes, and behaviors: A long-term in-vestigation. Academy of Management Journal, 34: 425–435.

Griskevicius, V., Tybur, J. M., & Van den Bergh, B. 2010. Goinggreen to be seen: Status, reputation, and conspicuousconservation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 98: 392–404.

Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. 2000. Role identity, organiza-tional experiences, and volunteer performance. Person-ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26: 1108–1119.

Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. 1976. Motivation through thedesign of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behav-ior and Human Performance, 16: 250–279.

Harlow, R., & Cantor, N. 1996. Still participating after allthese years. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 71: 1235–1249.

Harrison, D. A., Newman, D. A., & Roth, P. L. 2006. Howimportant are job attitudes? Meta-analytic comparisonsof integrative behavioral outcomes and time sequences.Academy of Management Journal, 49: 305–325.

Haski-Leventhal, D., & Cnaan, R. A. 2009. Group processesand volunteering: Using groups to enhance volunteer-ism. Administration in Social Work, 33: 61–80.

Hawkley, L. C., & Cacioppo, J. T. 2010. Loneliness matters: Atheoretical and empirical review of consequences andmechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 40: 218–227.

Heath, C., & Sitkin, S. 2001. Big-B versus big-O: What isorganizational about organizational behavior? Journalof Organizational Behavior, 22: 43–58.

Heine, S. J., Proulx, T., & Vohs, K. D. 2006. Meaning mainte-nance model: On the coherence of human motivations.Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10: 88–110.

Hertel, G., Konradt, U., & Orlikowski, B. 2004. Managing dis-tance by interdependence: Goal setting, task interde-pendence, and team-based rewards in virtual teams.European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychol-ogy, 13: 1–28.

Houghton, S. M., Gabel, J. T. A., & Williams, D. A. 2009.Connecting the two faces of CSR: Does employee volun-teerism improve compliance? Journal of Business Ethics,87: 477–494.

Houle, B. J., Sagarin, B. J., & Kaplan, M. F. 2005. A functionalapproach to volunteerism: Do volunteer motives predicttask preference? Basic and Applied Social Psychology,27: 337–344.

House, R. J., Shane, S. A., & Herold, D. M. 1996. Rumors of thedeath of dispositional research are vastly exaggerated.Academy of Management Review, 21: 203–224.

Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. 2007.Integrating motivational, social, and contextual workdesign features: A meta-analytic summary and theoret-


ical extension of the work design literature. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 92: 1332–1356.

JA Worldwide. 2009. The benefits of employee volunteer pro-grams. www.ja.org/files/BenefitsofEmployeeVolunteer-Programs.pdf, accessed June 23, 2010.

Jecker, J., & Landy, D. 1969. Liking a person as a function ofdoing him a favour. Human Relations, 22: 371–378.

Johns, G., Xie, J. L., & Fang, Y. 1992. Mediating and moderat-ing effects in job design. Journal of Management, 18:657–676.

Kahn, W. A. 1993. Caring for the caregivers: Patterns of or-ganizational caregiving. Administrative Science Quar-terly, 38: 539–563.

Kehr, H. M. 2004. Integrating implicit motives, explicit mo-tives, and perceived abilities: The compensatory modelof work motivation and volition. Academy of Manage-ment Review, 29: 479–499.

Kelman, H. C. 1958. Compliance, identification, and internal-ization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal ofConflict Resolution, 2: 51–60.

Kenrick, D. T., Griskevicius, V., Neuberg, S. L., & Schaller, M.2010. Renovating the pyramid of needs: Contemporaryextensions built on ancient foundations. Perspectives onPsychological Science, 5: 292–214.

Kiviniemi, M. T., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. M. 2002. Too manyof a good thing? The effects of multiple motivations onstress, cost, fulfillment and satisfaction. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 28: 732–743.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. 1978. The reciprocal effects of thesubstantive complexity of work and intellectual flexibil-ity: A longitudinal assessment. American Journal of So-ciology, 84: 24–52.

Kohn, M. L., & Schooler, C. 1982. Job conditions and person-ality: A longitudinal assessment of their reciprocal ef-fects. American Journal of Sociology, 87: 1257–1286.

Kulik, C. T., Oldham, G. R., & Hackman, J. R. 1987. Workdesign as an approach to person-environment fit. Jour-nal of Vocational Behavior, 31: 278–296.

Lawrence, P. R. 1992. The challenge of problem-oriented re-search. Journal of Management Inquiry, 1: 139–142.

LBG Associates. 2004. Measuring corporate volunteerism. http://cdn.volunteermatch.org/www/corporations/resources/docs/Measuring_Corporate_Volunteerism.pdf, accessedJanuary 6, 2011.

Lee, L., Piliavin, J. A., & Call, V. 1999. Giving time, money, andblood: Similarities and differences. Social PsychologyQuarterly, 62: 276–290.

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. 1973. Underminingchildren’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A testof the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 28: 129–137.

Lester, S. W., Tomkovick, C., Wells, T., Flunker, L., & Kickul, J.2005. Does service-learning add value? Examining theperspectives of multiple stakeholders. Academy of Man-agement Learning & Education, 4: 278–294.

Li, Y., & Ferraro, K. F. 2005. Volunteering and depression inlater life: Social benefit or selection processes? Journalof Health and Social Behavior, 46: 68–84.

Little, B. R. 1989. Personality and motivation: Personal actionand the conative evolution. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John(Eds.), Handbook of personality theory and research (2nded.): 501–524. New York: Guilford Press.

Liu, G., Liston-Heyes, C., & Ko, W.-W. 2009. Employee partic-ipation in cause-related marketing strategies: A study ofmanagement perceptions from British consumer serviceindustries. Journal of Business Ethics, 92: 195–210.

Lydon, J. E., & Zanna, M. P. 1990. Commitment in the face ofadversity: A value-affirmation approach. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 58: 1040–1047.

Margolis, J. D., & Walsh, J. P. 2003. Misery loves companies:Rethinking social initiatives by business. Administra-tive Science Quarterly, 48: 268–305.

Marquis, C., Glynn, M. A., & Davis, G. F. 2007. Communityisomorphism and corporate social action. Academy ofManagement Review, 32: 925–945.

Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. New York:Harper & Row.

McAdams, D. P., & de St. Aubin, E. 1992. A theory of genera-tivity and its assessment through self-report, behavioralacts, and narrative themes in autobiography. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 62: 1003–1015.

McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. 1989. Howdo self-attributed and implicit motives differ? Psycho-logical Review, 96: 690–702.

McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. 1998. Personal projects, happi-ness, and meaning: On doing well and being yourself.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74: 494–512.

Menon, S., & Kahn, B. E. 2003. Corporate sponsorships ofphilanthropic activities: When do they impact percep-tion of sponsor brand? Journal of Consumer Psychology,13: 316–327.

Mickel, A. E., & Barron, L. A. 2008. Getting “more bang for thebuck”: Symbolic value of monetary rewards in organi-zations. Journal of Management Inquiry, 17: 329–338.

Miner, J. B. 2003. The rated importance, scientific validity,and practical usefulness of organizational behavior the-ories: A quantitative review. Academy of ManagementLearning & Education, 2: 250–268.

Mojza, E. J., Lorenz, C., Sonnentag, S., & Binnewies, C. 2010.Daily recovery experiences: The role of volunteer workduring leisure time. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 15: 60–74.

Mojza, E. J., & Sonnentag, S. 2010. Does volunteer work duringleisure time buffer negative effects of job stressors? Adiary study. European Journal of Work and Organiza-tional Psychology, 2: 231–252.

Morgeson, F. P., & Campion, M. A. 2002. Minimizing tradeoffswhen redesigning work: Evidence from a longitudinalquasi-experiment. Personnel Psychology, 55: 589–612.

Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. 2006. The Work DesignQuestionnaire (WDQ): Developing and validating a

2012 613Grant

comprehensive measure for assessing job design andthe nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91:1321–1339.

Morrison, E. W. 1994. Role definitions and organizationalcitizenship behavior: The importance of the employee’sperspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37: 1543–1567.

Murray, H. A. 1938. Exploration in personality. New York:Oxford University Press.

Musick, M. A., Herzog, A. R., & House, J. S. 1999. Volunteeringand mortality among older adults: Findings from a na-tional sample. Journal of Gerontology: PsychologicalSciences and Social Sciences, 54B: S173–S180.

Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. 2009. Employee volun-teering and social capital: Contributions to corporatesocial responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20:75–89.

Okun, M. A., & Schultz, A. 2003. Age and motives for volun-teering: Testing hypotheses derived from socioemo-tional selectivity theory. Psychology and Aging, 18: 231–239.

O’Mahony, S., & Bechky, B. A. 2006. Stretchwork: Managingthe career progression paradox in external labor mar-kets. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 918–941.

Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. 1995. Sustained helping withoutobligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and per-ceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 68: 671–686.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Chatman, J. 1986. Organizational commit-ment and psychological attachment: The effects of com-pliance, identification, and internalization on prosocialbehavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 492–499.

Organ, D. W. 1988. Organizational citizenship behavior: Thegood soldier syndrome. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Pajo, K., & Lee, L. 2011. Corporate-sponsored volunteering: Awork design perspective. Journal of Business Ethics, 99:467–482.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Cordery, J. L. 2001. Future workdesign research and practice: Towards an elaboratedmodel of work design. Journal of Occupational and Or-ganizational Psychology, 74: 413–440.

Parker, S. K., Wall, T. D., & Jackson, P. R. 1997. “That’s not myjob”: Developing flexible employee work orientations.Academy of Management Journal, 40: 899–929.

Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. 2006. Intra-organizational volun-teerism: Good soldiers, good deeds, and good politics.Journal of Business Ethics, 64: 357–379.

Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. N. 2009. The marketing ofemployee volunteerism. Journal of Business Ethics, 85:371–386.

Penner, L. A. 2002. The causes of sustained volunteerism: Aninteractionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58:447–467.

Penner, L. A., Brannick, M. T., Webb, S., & Connell, P. 2005.Effects on volunteering of the September 11 2001 attacks:An archival analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychol-ogy, 35: 1333–1360.

Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. A.2005. Prosocial behavior: Multilevel perspectives. An-nual Review of Psychology, 56: 365–392.

Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. A. 1998. Dispositional andstructural determinants of volunteerism. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 74: 525–537.

Peterson, D. K. 2004. Recruitment strategies for encouragingparticipation in corporate volunteer programs. Journalof Business Ethics, 49: 371–386.

Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. 2006. A meta-analytic test ofintergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 90: 751–783.

Pfeffer, J., & DeVoe, S. E. 2009. Economic evaluation: Theeffect of money and economics on time use attitudes.Journal of Economic Psychology, 30: 500–508.

Piliavin, J. A., & Callero, P. 1991. Giving blood: The develop-ment of an altruistic identity. Baltimore: Johns HopkinsUniversity Press.

Piliavin, J. A., & Charng, H. 1990. Altruism: A review of recenttheory and research. Annual Review of Sociology, 16:27–65.

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Paine, J. B., & Bachrach,D. G. 2000. Organizational citizenship behaviors: A crit-ical review of the theoretical and empirical literatureand suggestions for future research. Journal of Manage-ment, 26: 513–563.

Points of Light Foundation and Allstate Foundation. 2000.The corporate volunteer program as a strategic resource:The link grows stronger. Washington, DC: Points of LightFoundation.

Points of Light Institute. 2006. Standards for employee vol-unteer programs developed. www.csrwire.com/press/press_release/16763-Standards-for-Employee-Volunteer-Programs-Developed, accessed June 23, 2010.

Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. 2006. Strategy and society: Thelink between competitive advantage and corporate so-cial responsibility. Harvard Business Review, 84(12): 78–92.

Rhode, D. L. 2005. Pro bono in principle and in practice:Public service and the professions. Stanford, CA: Stan-ford University Press.

Rodell, J. 2010. Antecedents and consequences of employeevolunteerism. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni-versity of Florida, Gainesville.

Rothbard, N. P., Phillips, K. W., & Dumas, T. L. 2005. Manag-ing multiple roles: Work-family policies and individu-als’ desires for segmentation. Organization Science, 16:243–258.

Roy, D. F. 1959. Banana time: Job satisfaction and informalinteraction. Human Organization, 18: 158–168.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. 2000. Self-determination theory andthe facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social develop-ment, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55: 68–78.

Saavedra, R., & Kwun, S. G. 2000. Affective states in jobcharacteristics theory. Journal of Organizational Behav-ior, 21: 131–146.


Schneider, B. 1987. The people make the place. PersonnelPsychology, 40: 437–453.

Schroer, J., & Hertel, G. 2009. Voluntary engagement in anopen web-based encyclopedia: Wikipedians and whythey do it. Media Psychology, 12: 1–25.

Sen, S., & Bhattacharya, C. B. 2001. Does doing good alwayslead to doing better? Consumer reactions to corporatesocial responsibility. Journal of Marketing Research, 38:225–243.

Shamir, B. 1990. Calculations, values, and identities: Thesources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Rela-tions, 43: 313–332.

Slattery, J. P., Selvarajan, T. T., Anderson, J. E., & Sardessai,R. 2010. Relationship between job characteristics andattitudes: A study of temporary employees. Journal ofApplied Social Psychology, 40: 1539–1565.

Spector, P. E. 1997. Job satisfaction: Application, assessment,causes, and consequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Statistics Canada. 2007. Highlights from the 2007 Canada sur-vey of giving, volunteering and participating. www.givingandvolunteering.ca/files/giving/en/csgvp_highlights_2007.pdf, accessed January 6, 2011.

Staw, B. M. 1991. Dressing up like an organization: Whenpsychological theories can explain organizational ac-tion. Journal of Management, 17: 805–819.

Steele, C. M. 1988. The psychology of self-affirmation: Sus-taining the integrity of the self. Advances in Experimen-tal Social Psychology, 21: 261–302.

Steers, R., Mowday, R., & Shapiro, D. 2004. The future of workmotivation theory. Academy of Management Review, 29:379–387.

Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. 1999. The effects of“mandatory volunteerism” on intentions to volunteer.Psychological Science, 10: 59–64.

Tiegs, R. B., Tetrick, L. E., & Fried, Y. 1992. Growth needstrength and context satisfaction as moderators of therelations of the Job Characteristics Model. Journal ofManagement, 18: 575–593.

Toppe, C. M., Kirsch, A. D., & Michel, J. 2002. Giving andvolunteering in the United States 2001: Findings from anational survey. Washington, DC: Independent Sector.

Tschirhart, M. 2005. Employee volunteer programs. In J. L.Brudney (Ed.), Emerging areas of volunteering: 13–29.Indianapolis: ARNOVA.

Turban, D. B., & Greening, D. W. 1997. Corporate social per-formance and organizational attractiveness to prospec-tive employees. Academy of Management Journal, 40:658–672.

Vallerand, R. J. 1997. Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsicand extrinsic motivation. Advances in Experimental So-cial Psychology, 29: 271–359.

Van Dyne, L., & Farmer, S. M. 2004. It’s who I am: Role identityand organizational citizenship behavior of volunteers.In D. L. Turnipseed (Ed.), Handbook of organizationalcitizenship behavior: A review of “good soldier” activityin organizations: 177–203. New York: Nova Science Pub-lishers.

Van Dyne, L., Graham, J. W., & Dienesch, R. M. 1994. Orga-nizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition,measurement, and validation. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37: 765–802.

Waddock, S. A., & Graves, S. B. 1994. Institutional owners andcorporate social performance. Academy of ManagementJournal, 37: 1034–1046.

Wainwright, C. 2005. Building the case for corporate volun-teering. Business Community Intelligence, July: www.ourcommunity.com.au/files/bci_firstedition.pdf, accessedJune 23, 2010.

Warr, P. 2007. Work, happiness, and unhappiness. Mahwah,NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Weick, K. E. 1984. Small wins: Redefining the scale of socialproblems. American Psychologist, 39: 40–49.

Weick, K. E. 1995. Sensemaking in organizations. ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.

Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice: Learning, mean-ing, and identity. New York: Cambridge UniversityPress.

Williamson, G. M., & Clark, M. S. 1989. Providing help anddesired relationship type as determinants of changes inmoods and self-evaluations. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 56: 722–734.

Wilson, J. 2000. Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology,26: 215–240.

Wilson, J., & Musick, M. 2003. Doing well by doing good:Volunteering and occupational achievement amongAmerican women. Sociological Quarterly, 44: 433–450.

Wood, E. 2007. What about me? The importance of under-standing the perspective of non-managerial employeesin research on corporate citizenship. In F. den Hond,F. G. A. de Bakker, & P. Neergaard (Eds.), Managingcorporate social responsibility in action: Talking, doingand measuring: 111–126. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate.

Wrzesniewski, A., & Dutton, J. E. 2001. Crafting a job: Revi-sioning employees as active crafters of their work. Acad-emy of Management Review, 26: 179–201.

Wuthnow, R. 1995. Learning to care. New York: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Xie, J. L., & Johns, G. 1995. Job scope and stress: Can job scopebe too high? Academy of Management Journal, 38: 1288–1309.

Adam M. Grant ([email protected]) is a management professor at TheWharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He received his Ph.D. in organizationalpsychology from the University of Michigan. His research focuses on work motivation,job design, and prosocial and proactive behaviors.

2012 615Grant

Documents

GIVING TIME, TIME AFTER TIME: WORK DESIGN …...how long they sustain participation in corporate volunteering. However, as Pajo and Lee observe, “Most studies have paid scant attention