CVP 49 Opoku Dakwa Manuscript

User Manual: CVP-49

Open the PDF directly: View PDF .
Page Count: 96

Download
Open PDF In Browser	View PDF

Dissertation Proposal[DRAFT]
Perceived impacts and employee engagement in corporate volunteering: An interactionist
perspective
Akwasi Opoku-Dakwa
PhD Candidate
Rutgers Business School

Page 1 of 96

Contents
INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 5
Research questions .......................................................................................................... 7
Theoretical contributions................................................................................................. 8
Practical contributions ................................................................................................... 10
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK ................................. 11
Employee engagement in corporate volunteering ......................................................... 11
Perspectives on corporate volunteering......................................................................... 14
Issue characteristics as drivers of engagement in CVP ................................................. 20
Beneficiaries of CVPs ................................................................................................... 20
Perceived impacts and motives for corporate volunteering .......................................... 23
Individual differences and contextual factors moderating engagement in CVP ........... 25
Outcomes of employee engagement ............................................................................. 27
Gaps in the literature ..................................................................................................... 27
Conceptual framework of this study ............................................................................. 29
CVP CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEIVED IMPACTS .......................................... 31
Perceived impacts on the employee, community and employer ................................... 31
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic characteristics of CVPs ............................................................... 34
Relationship of CVP characteristics to employee engagement ..................................... 35
The relationship of CVP characteristics to perceived impacts ...................................... 38
Page 2 of 96

Employee-focused characteristics of CVPs: Knowledge and skills opportunities ....... 39
Beneficiary-focused CVP characteristics ...................................................................... 40
Humanitarianism ....................................................................................................... 40
Beneficiary contact .................................................................................................... 42
Employer-focused CVP characteristics: Strategic alignment ....................................... 43
PERCEIVED IMPACTS AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT ..................................... 45
The effects of perceived impacts on employee engagement ......................................... 45
Perceived impact on the employee ............................................................................ 46
Perceived impact on the community and employer................................................... 46
The mediating role of perceived impacts ...................................................................... 48
MODERATING EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC CVP CHARACTERISTICS .................... 49
Perceived support for CVP............................................................................................ 49
Managerial feedback processes ..................................................................................... 54
THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS ON EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT ........................................................................................................................... 56
Individual differences moderating the effects of CVP characteristics on perceived
impacts ...................................................................................................................................... 56
Need growth strength................................................................................................. 56
Prosocial motivation .................................................................................................. 58
Identification with a group ........................................................................................ 62

Page 3 of 96

Identification with the employer................................................................................ 63
Identification with community stakeholders ............................................................. 64
Individual differences moderating the effects of perceived impacts on engagement ... 68
Prosocial motivation .................................................................................................. 68
Identification with community stakeholders and the employer ................................. 69
OUTCOMES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN CVP ............................................. 71
Work satisfaction........................................................................................................... 72
Employee well-being..................................................................................................... 75
Turnover intentions ....................................................................................................... 76
Figure 1: Conceptual framework ...................................................................................... 78
APPENDIX: MEASURES ............................................................................................... 79
Engagement (Rich et al., 2010) ..................................................................................... 79
Identification with the organization (Mael & Tetrick, 1992) ........................................ 80
Prosocial motivation (Grant & Sumanth, 2009)............................................................ 80
Individual growth need strength (Hackman & Lawler, 1971) ...................................... 81
Work satisfaction (D. Weiss, Dawis, & England, 1967)............................................... 82
Employee wellbeing (Berkman, 1971).......................................................................... 83
Turnover intentions ....................................................................................................... 83
REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 84

Page 4 of 96

INTRODUCTION
I set out to understand why and how employees are motivated to voluntarily engage in
socially responsible behavior (SRB). I define SRB as voluntary employee behaviors undertaken
ostensibly for the benefit of external stakeholders. SRB is distinguished from other prosocial
behaviors by three key characteristics. First, it refers to behaviors undertaken within an
organizational context as opposed to prosocial behaviors outside of work; secondly it is limited
to discretionary behaviors; and lastly it refers to behaviors targeted towards society rather than
the organization or its employees (Crilly, Schneider, & Zollo, 2008; Wood, 1991).
Why employees are motivated to engage in SRB is an interesting question for two
reasons. First, because the social responsibilities of employees and organizations continue to be
debated, there remains some question as to which types of socially-oriented behaviors are
appropriate at work (Barnett, 2007; Friedman, 1970). In engaging in SRBs at work, employees,
like managers, often face conflicting demands of different stakeholders including their
supervisors, co-workers and the external parties affected by their actions. Secondly, this is an
interesting question because of the complexity of motives for engaging in SRB at work. It is not
clear to what degree employees engage in SRB at work out of self-interest, out of compliance
with organizational or peer norms, or out of concern for beneficiaries. Despite this, employer
sponsored volunteering is a growing phenomenon (The Benefits of Employee Volunteer
Programs, 2009).
Antecedents and enablers of SRB include business and social norms (Cullen, Parboteeah,
& Hoegl, 2004; Maignan & Ralston, 2002; Matten & Moon, 2008; Mudrack, 2007), issue
Page 5 of 96

salience, visibility and emotivity (Bansal & Roth, 2000; Jiang & Bansal, 2003), collective moral
emotion and ethical efficacy (Arnaud & Schminke, 2012), and supervisor and co-worker support
(Ramus & Steger, 2000). In terms of motives for engaging in SRBs, scholars have identified
competitiveness, legitimacy and moral duty (social responsibility) as motives at the
organizational level (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012; Bansal & Roth, 2000). At the employee level, the
literature suggests that employees engage in SRB for multiple motives including concern for
stakeholders, relational motives such as the desire to be a good employee (organizational
citizenship), and self-interested motives that include impression management and personal and
professional development (Aguilera, Rupp, & Williams, 2007; Peloza & Hassay, 2006; Peloza,
Hudson, & Hassay, 2008).
Past research suggests that SRB differs from dyadic prosocial behaviors and that a model
of triadic relationships that includes the employee, the organization and external beneficiaries
provides a more accurate depiction. Grant, (2007) has suggested that impact on others increases
the motivation to make a prosocial difference. Assessing this proposition raises several
questions. First, how strong is the motivational influence of impact on others relative to that of
impact on self (the volunteer)? While SRB may be targeted at external social stakeholders, an
understanding of the drivers of SRB requires an expanded consideration of the morality of the
behavior that takes into account the consequences of SRB for the employer as well. Secondly,
what social information gives rise to employees’ perceptions of impact on self and others and
what individual factors moderate this process?
In this study I explore the role that perceived impact on the self, community stakeholders
and the employer play in motivating employee engagement in corporate volunteering programs
(CVP). I consider objective informational cues in the form of CVP characteristics that shape
Page 6 of 96

such perceptions. I focus on corporate volunteering as one form of SRB. Corporate volunteering
fits the definition of SRB because it is typically (though not always) a voluntary behavior
directed at external (community) stakeholders that occurs within the work context. The
discretionary nature of corporate volunteering also facilitates teasing out more intrinsic vs.
extrinsic motivations for engaging in SRB.
Research questions
To approach the overarching research question, considered three research questions.
First, I examine how the characteristics of CVPs affect employee engagement in volunteering.
CVPs are “programs created by organizations to coordinate and encourage community service
among their paid employees” (Henning & Jones, 2013). CVPs address issues that include
education, health, economic development, the environment, homelessness, hunger, diversity,
welfare-to-work, and arts & culture (The Corporate Volunteer Program as a Strategic Resource:
The Link Grows Stronger, 1999). Most studies of the characteristics of CVPs have focused on
structural factors such as the degree of formalization of the programs and the degree of
integration of volunteering programs with the core business; the extent of resources deployed in
support of the programs; and on effects of recognition and rewards and employer-provided
benefits on employee participation. This approach has neglected the importance of substantive
characteristics of CVPs such as the morality of the task and the perceived impacts of the
programs.
Secondly, I consider how individual differences in prosocial motivation, and
identification with stakeholders, shape cognitions and motivations related to engagement in
volunteering. Finally, I consider consequences of engagement in volunteering – specifically, job

Page 7 of 96

satisfaction, employee well-being and turnover intentions. The final model suggests how
situational factors (the program) interact with relatively stable individual factors shape employee
engagement in CVPs, thus taking into account the influence of both information processing and
individual identity (Lazarus, 1982; Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978).
Finally, I consider how engagement in CVPs might influence employee and
organizational outcomes of work satisfaction, employee well-being and turnover intentions.
Theoretical contributions
Prior research suggests that SRB is driven by multiple motives and is enabled or
constrained by contextual factors. While moral and altruistic motives arguably play an important
role in driving SRB, a full understanding of SRB requires a consideration also of self-interested
and social motives unrelated to altruism. One of the motivations for the current research is to
further explore an integrated model of employee motivation for SRB that illustrates how
antecedents, motives and contextual factors interact to predict one form of SRB: engagement in
corporate volunteering. In the current research model, I distinguish self-interested from otheroriented motives and demonstrate the importance of distinguishing impacts on specific others in
considering other-oriented motives. I also suggest how the distinct motives may be triggered by
different antecedent characteristics of the work – in this case, characteristics of the CVP. I look
for evidence that the different types of motives may lead to qualitatively different outcomes in
engagement in CVP. Finally, I consider the relationship of employee engagement in CVPs,
which is a new construct in the literature, to employee and organizational outcomes of work
satisfaction, employee well-being and turnover intentions.

Page 8 of 96

The major contribution of the dissertation is in demonstrating how characteristics of
CVPs influence employee engagement. To-date, despite calls for more research at the program
(Wood, 2010) and individual (Aguinis & Glavas, 2012) levels, few studies have examined how
program characteristics drive employee engagement and none have considered how the nature of
the task characteristics influences employee engagement. While I focus on CVPs, the
characteristics of CVPs examined in this study can apply to other types of socially responsible
corporate programs. For example, I consider the degree of humanitarianism of CVPs. One could
also consider the degree of humanitarianism of product quality initiatives, distinguishing
between initiatives that focus on safety issues as more humanitarian than those that focus on
ergonomics. The model presented here in the context of CVPs therefore suggests future research
approaches to other types of engagement in SRB.
A second contribution of the paper is to expand on Grant’s theory of relational job design
(Grant, 2007, 2008a, 2012; Grant et al., 2007), which stresses impact on beneficiaries as a
motivational aspect of work. I suggest that perceived impact of ones work on others is in general
motivational and that a consideration of the impact of work on all beneficiaries of the work
provides a more comprehensive understanding of how work can be motivating. In the case of
SRB, these beneficiaries include both community stakeholders and the employing organization.
Impact of SRBs on these stakeholders thus captures the moral consequences of the SRB that lead
to feelings of task significance. This study also provides insight into how employees come to
know what impact their work has on others by considering the role of sources of social
information such as contact with beneficiaries and managerial feedback processes.
Finally this study makes a number of contributions to the identity literature. First, I
suggest how individual differences in personality and identification with the employer and
Page 9 of 96

community stakeholders affected by SRB can act as boundary conditions on employee
engagement in SRB. This study seeks to provide evidence that personality differences in the
desire to behave morally shape the likelihood of moral behavior, contributing to the existing
literature on the moderating effects of personality characteristics in shaping moral behavior.
However, the research design provides a more precise approach to examining the effects of
personality differences because I distinguish moral motives from instrumental motives thus
reducing noise in the relationship being studied. Departing from prior studies, I also suggest that
beyond personality factors, social identification of employees with beneficiaries (community
stakeholders or the employer) also moderates employee engagement in SRB. This perspective
emphasizes the importance of the identity of beneficiaries in moderating employee engagement
in SRB.
The relationships studied in this paper also suggest how the concept of employee
identification can be extended to external stakeholders. In the management literature, the concept
of identification has traditionally focused on identification with the employing organization.
However as the concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR), triple bottom line accounting
and stakeholder thinking gain acceptance, employee identification with community stakeholders
may play an important role in how employees perceive and act towards external stakeholders.
Practical contributions
The theory and findings presented in this dissertation have several practical implications.
First, they suggest how program design can influence employee engagement in CVPs. CVP
design can shape which motives for employee engagement are more salient and how these
motives result in qualitatively different employee engagement. For example, I expect to find that

Page 10 of 96

more altruistic motives are associated with more enduring commitment to volunteering, and
increased affect associated with volunteering. I also examine whether positive affect associated
with engagement in CVPs will spillover to work satisfaction, employee well-being and turnover
intentions.
Findings may also suggest practical implications for how communication about CVPs
can be tailored to promote employee engagement. If the hypothesized effects CVP characteristics
on engagement are supported, they will suggest which characteristics of CVPs can be
communicated to promote employee engagement. If the hypothesized moderating effects of
managerial feedback mechanisms are supported, this will demonstrate the effectiveness of
frequent feedback about CVP performance vs. goals in driving employee engagement. Finally, I
test the proposition that those high in prosocial motivation and those who identify strongly with
both the organization and with community beneficiaries of CVPs tend to be more engaged in
CVPs. If this proposition is supported, it will suggest identifying characteristics of employees
who may make effective internal champions of CVPs.
LITERATURE REVIEW AND CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
Employee engagement in corporate volunteering
Employee engagement in corporate volunteering is the dependent variable of interest in
this study. Engagement refers to the “simultaneous employment and expression of a person's
‘preferred self’ in task behaviors that promote connections to work and to others, personal
presence (physical, cognitive, and emotional), and active, full role performances” (Kahn,
1990:700). Maslach, Schaufeli, & Leiter (2001) describe engagement as characterized by high
levels of activation and pleasure, vigor, dedication and absorption. Engagement has physical,
Page 11 of 96

cognitive and emotional components (Rich, Lepine, & Crawford, 2010; Rothbard, 2001). The
physical component captures the amount of effort exerted at work; the cognitive component
captures absorption and attention to the work; and the emotional component captures the
employee’s positive feelings about the work such as pride or enthusiasm about the work.
Within the management literature, the concept of engagement has been applied primarily
to jobs (Kahn, 1990; May, Gilson, & Harter, 2004; Rich et al., 2010). Rich, Lepine, & Crawford
(2010) view job engagement as the simultaneous holistic interaction of job involvement, job
satisfaction and intrinsic motivation. Job involvement captures “the cognitive energy individuals
invest to maintain identities related to work”; job satisfaction the affective attitudes towards the
task; and intrinsic motivation the “individual’s effort and persistence dedicated to maintaining
autonomy and control” (Rich et al., 2010: 618). This view of engagement supports the approach
taken in this paper, which builds on the literatures of identity and motivation to understand
employee engagement in CVPs. Beyond job engagement, (Rothbard, 2001) associated
engagement with roles, distinguishing between engagement in work vs. family roles. Saks (2006)
considered organizational engagement. However, his definition of that construct overlaps
significantly with that of affective organizational commitment (Meyer & Allen, 1991; Mowday,
Steers, & Porter, 1979; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and may be redundant with it.
The definitions of engagement discussed so far suggest that the construct has broad
application within and across contexts. Essentially, individuals can be more or less engaged with
any task or role either at work or elsewhere. In this study I focus on employee engagement in
SRBs at work (that is, on company time) – specifically employee engagement in CVPs. The
physical and emotional dimensions of engagement extend straightforwardly to engagement in
CVPs: volunteers can exert more or less quantity (physical engagement) or quality (cognitive
Page 12 of 96

engagement) of effort in volunteering, and may be more or less proud and enthusiastic about a
CVP (emotional engagement). While some scholars have investigated engagement as a trait
(Macey & Schneider, 2008), I follow Kahn (1990) in conceptualizing engagement as a more
dynamic and multi-dimensional construct influenced over time by events, emotions and social
information among other things. In this study, I consider how social information provided by the
characteristics of the task, traits such as prosocial motivation, and cognitions about the task and
role of volunteering (the latter related to the duties of the volunteer with respect to the
community stakeholders) act in concert to explain employee engagement.
The construct of engagement is well suited to the question of why employees are selfmotivated to engage in SRBs because engagement suggests self-determined motivation to exert
cognitive or physical energy in a task or role. Individuals may be self-determine to engage in
SRB either because they find engagement to be intrinsically motivating or because they
internalize and integrate social obligations towards the employer or community (Ryan & Deci,
2000). Obviously, in practice, employees may also engage in corporate volunteering for extrinsic
reasons. For example, if explicit corporate volunteering goals are set by the organization,
employees may feel pressured to participate. Employees may also experience social pressure
from peers to volunteer. In some organizations, volunteering is discussed as part of employee
evaluations. However, there is strong evidence that engaging in SRB can be intrinsically
meaningful to employees (cf. Bolton, Kim, & O’Gorman, 2011; Pajo & Lee, 2010; Rupp, Shao,
Paddock, Kim, & Nadisic, 2013; Rupp, Shao, Thornton, & Skarlicki, 2013). I therefore define
engagement in CVP as the employee's internal motivation to be involved in a CVP, manifested
in the display of high levels of effort and attention in volunteering and positive affect towards
volunteering.
Page 13 of 96

Whether employees are engaged by CVPs is an important outcome for organizations. The
success of most CVPs is contingent on employee participation and support. Benefits of corporate
volunteering to the organization include improving public perceptions of the company,
enhancing business operations, building employee skills in team work, leadership and project
management, valuing diversity, and indirect positive effects on recruiting and retention of
employees (The Benefits of Employee Volunteer Programs, 2009). Further, employee
engagement in CVPs has been related to organizational outcomes such as increased employee
identification with the organization and organizational attachment (D. A. Jones, 2010; Kim, Lee,
Lee, & Kim, 2010). In keeping with the idea that volunteering can be viewed as a type of work
(Wilson & Musick, 1997), I suggest that the construct of engagement, because it covers physical,
cognitive and emotional engagement, can shed light on why employees participate in CVPs and
what CVPs mean to employees.
In the remainder of this document, the term “engagement” refers to physical, cognitive
and emotional engagement in CVPs. Hypotheses made in reference to engagement refer to all
three distinct components even though, for the sake of brevity I will refer to them simply as
engagement. However, in testing the hypotheses I will measure and present results for each
component of engagement separately.
Perspectives on corporate volunteering
Corporate volunteering is a form of socially responsible behavior (Crilly et al., 2008),
which in turn is a specific form of prosocial behavior (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin, & Schroeder,
2005). Below, I discuss past research on both of these constructs to shed light on what drives
engagement in CVPs. While corporate volunteering occurs in a different context from

Page 14 of 96

volunteering outside of work, which I refer to as public volunteering, I also consider knowledge
from the public volunteering literature that suggests drivers of engagement in CVPs.
Brief & Motowidlo (1986: 711) define prosocial behavior as “behavior which the actor
expects will benefit the person or persons to whom it is directed”. They distinguish prosocial
behaviors from other constructs such as altruism by noting that the criteria for classifying
behaviors as prosocial does not require distinguishing the motive for the helping behavior. Moral
and ethical behaviors are one subset of prosocial behaviors in which altruistic motives are more
salient. However, prosocial behavior can also be motivated by instrumental or self-interested
needs.
In organizational settings, prosocial behavior has been studied primarily as behaviors
intended to benefit co-workers or the organization (Crilly et al., 2008). Such behaviors are
typically referred to as organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (LePine, Erez, & Johnson,
2002; Morrison, 1994; Organ, 1990). However, prosocial organizational behaviors may also
benefit external stakeholders. Brief & Motowidlo (1986:711) define prosocial organizational
behavior as “behavior which is (a) performed by a member of an organization, (b) directed
toward an individual, group, or organization with whom he or she interacts while carrying out his
or her organizational role, and (c) performed with the intention of promoting the welfare of the
individual, group, or organization toward which it is directed”. This “deliberately broad” (Brief
& Motowidlo, 1986:711) definition accommodates behaviors that promote the welfare of
external stakeholders. For example, whistle-blowing to external bodies is considered as a form of
prosocial organizational behavior (Brief & Motowidlo, 1986).

Page 15 of 96

Whereas OCB focuses on prosocial behaviors towards the organization, SRB explicitly
refers to behaviors “primarily targeted at the societal level” (Crilly et al., 2008:6). CVPs are a
form of SRB to the degree that they have a positive impact on society. If we accept that
organizational roles extend beyond employees’ narrow job descriptions, corporate volunteering
fits the definition of an “organizational role” because corporate volunteering is a role undertaken
by the employee that has the potential to impact the image, reputation and other outcomes of the
organization.
In this paper, I focus on individual rather than organizational SRB, specifically
engagement of a particular employee in corporate volunteering. However, at the organizational
level of analysis, the socially responsible collective behaviors and decisions of an organization
have also been considered a form of socially responsible organizational behavior. Multi-level
studies have elaborated on the processes by which employee issue selling and voice at the
individual level promote socially responsible behavior at the organizational level (Aguilera et al.,
2007; Bansal, 2003; Dutton & Ashford, 1993). Because CVPs are both an individual (employee)
and collective (organizational) pursuit, I consider both SRB and socially responsible
organizational behavior in my literature review in order to gain insight into the drivers of
employee engagement in volunteering.
Prosocial behavior is driven by moral, rational and affective mechanisms. From a moral
perspective, prosocial behavior has been shown to be related to contextual factors such as the
salience of consequences, and to individual factors such as the dispositional tendency to ascribe
responsibility to the self vs. others, or to think in empathic terms about the situations of others
(Schwartz, 1974). The rationalist theories of prosocial behavior focus on the cost-benefit
calculations on which helping behavior is contingent (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Omoto & Snyder,
Page 16 of 96

1995; Perlow & Weeks, 2002; Piliavin, Dovidio, Gaertner, & Clark III, 1981). Benefits may be
material or psychological, such as the opportunity to learn new skills, to demonstrate competence
or to uphold sacred values. Costs reflect the potential sacrifices required of the helper (Penner et
al., 2005). Emotions have also been found to play an important role in facilitating or inhibiting
prosocial behavior. Weiner’s Attribution-Affect-Action Model of Helping Behavior suggests
helping behavior is mediated by the emotion of sympathy, while the withholding of assistance is
mediated by anger (caused by the belief that the needy individual caused his or her own
predicament; Weiner, 1980). Studies have shown that the decision to help is fully mediated by
this cognition-affect chain (Reisenzein, 1986; Schmidt & Weiner, 1988). As in the case of more
general prosocial behaviors, the literature on prosocial organizational behavior suggests the
presence of multiple motives (i.e. moral and rational) driving prosocial organizational behavior.
For example, McNeely & Meglino (1994) found that prosocial behavior towards the employing
organization was predicted by reward equity and recognition while prosocial behavior towards
co-workers was more strongly related to empathy and concern for others.
While moral motives are not inherent in the definitions of SRB, there is an implicit
assumption of morality associated with such behaviors. By morality I refer to concern about the
effects of our actions on others (Haidt, 2007). Motives towards others are particularly complex
and to understand them I build on the literature on morality. Moral philosophy is dominated by
three approaches to considering the effects of our actions on others: teleological, deontological
and aretaic approaches (Etzioni, 1988). The teleological approach focuses on the consequences
of our actions for others, while the deontological approach focuses more on intentions. From a
deontological perspective, positive outcomes guided by callous intentions are immoral. The
deontological approach also focuses on duties, which are typically associated with specific social
Page 17 of 96

or relational roles. For example, one may have duties towards family members that do not apply
to work colleagues. Finally, the aretaic or virtue approach focuses on personality traits such as
honesty, integrity and courtesy that predispose individuals to show concern for others rather than
being purely self-interested (Hosmer, 1994). Each of these three approaches to considering
motives for SRB has different theoretical and practical implications.
A teleological approach focusing on consequences suggests the importance of the impact
of SRB on others. This approach is not concerned with motives, with the virtue of the
organization or the individual, or with the identity of the benefactor. Rather, it focuses on the
direct effects of actions taken on stakeholders affected and the practical implication is that
engagement can be increased by emphasizing impact on CVP stakeholders. This teleological
viewpoint guided my selection of mediators of the effects of CVPs on employee engagement.
A deontological approach focuses less on impact and more on why a volunteer is
motivated to help a particular stakeholder. Here the theoretical focus is on the fit between
intentions and duties, and the nature of the relationship between the volunteer and the beneficiary
is important. We may feel a duty towards certain stakeholders and not towards others depending
on social or role identities. For example, a Hispanic employee may be motivated to participate in
a CVP that helps Hispanics in the community because he feels a sense of duty towards that
community. He may also derive some personal satisfaction or benefit from the advancement of
the interests of the Hispanic community. A deontological approach suggests that identities are
motivational and that social identities in particular blur the lines between purely self-interested
and purely altruistic motives (both of which are likely rare extremes in practice). The practical
implication of this approach is that beneficiary selection will be an important driver of
engagement in CVPs. This deontological viewpoint guided my selection of constructs that
Page 18 of 96

capture the relationship of the individual to the other two beneficiaries of CVPs (the employer
and community stakeholders) that are likely to moderate the effects of CVP characteristics on
engagement.
Finally, an aretaic or virtue perspective emphasizes characteristics of individuals that
cause them to behave in altruistic ways consistently across situations and relationships. The
theoretical focus of the aretaic approach is on personality characteristics that promote altruistic
behavior and the practical implication is that engagement in CVP will be driven by volunteer
self-selection. This aretaic viewpoint guided my selection of constructs that capture the personal
qualities (or virtues) of the individual that are likely to moderate the effects of CVP
characteristics on engagement.
What a CVP means (meaning) and how much it means to an individual (meaningfulness)
are two separate cognitive evaluations (Rosso, Dekas, & Wrzesniewski, 2010). The first is likely
to be a more objective evaluation than the second. An assessment of the impacts of CVP
characteristics on the self and others beneficiaries is primarily a cognitive assessment of meaning
and is one way of answering the question: “what does this CVP mean to me and other affected
groups?” (H. M. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In the study, this cognitive evaluation is
considered by examining how perceived impacts mediate the effects of CVP characteristics on
employee engagement. How much a CVP means to an individual is a secondary assessment that
is more likely to be colored by individual differences. This assessment will reflect the degree to
which the perceived meaning of the CVP is thought to advance or inhibit the goals of the
individual. Considering the deontological and aretaic perspectives suggests that identification
with others a personal tendency towards altruism will moderate the effects of CVP
characteristics on engagement. Overall, this suggests that the main effects of cognitions may be
Page 19 of 96

augmented by the presence of relational motives arising from the degree to which the volunteer
identifies with a specific beneficiary stakeholder (i.e. the social beneficiary or the employing
organization); or it may be attenuated by the absence of such relational motives. In addition, for
individuals more predisposed to altruistic or virtuous behavior, the main effect of impact-based
cognitions will be augmented for all beneficiary stakeholders (compared to those low in
altruism).
Issue characteristics as drivers of engagement in CVP
The moral perspective on prosocial behavior suggests that the nature of the issue –
specifically the consequences at stake – is an important antecedent of engagement. For example,
the literature on ethical behavior suggests that magnitude, likelihood and immediacy of
consequences will all be positively related to ethical behavior (T. M. Jones, 1991). The literature
on socially responsible organizational behavior also acknowledges the role of issue
characteristics as antecedents of socially responsible organizational behavior. Bansal & Roth
(2000) find that transparency, certainty and emotivity around a social issue increase the salience
of the issue to organizational members and the likelihood of socially responsible organizational
behavior. In the current study, the role of the characteristics of the issue as antecedents of
engagement in volunteering is examined by hypothesizing how CVP characteristics that signal
consequences for the self and others are related to engagement through the mediation of
perceived impacts.
Beneficiaries of CVPs
While benefiting the community is an important organizational goal, there is no
consistent evidence that it is the primary goal of CVPs. In a study of organizations in Chicago,
Page 20 of 96

Benjamin (2001:72) found that 54% of respondents report that goals of volunteer programs
include intended benefits to employees, 46% reported corporate image and 31% meeting the
needs of the community. This contrasts with a national survey in which 83% of large companies
indicated they measure benefits to the community (The Corporate Volunteer Program as a
Strategic Resource: The Link Grows Stronger, 1999). However, the low response rate of 9% to
the national survey suggests a possible selection bias in the sample of the national study; the
percentage of companies measuring the benefits of their CVPs is probably much lower than
83%.
Bansal & Roth (2000) found socially responsible organizational behavior was undertaken
to increase competitiveness, increase legitimacy or achieve social goals. Socially responsible
organizational behaviors can increase competitiveness if they attract or retain customers or help
the organization to innovate or reduce costs. An example of this is Walmart’s sustainability
initiative which is undertaken primarily to reduce Walmart’s costs1. Socially responsible
organizational behaviors undertaken to increase competitiveness obviously have a positive
impact on the organization. Socially responsible organizational behaviors can increase
organizational legitimacy if they win the approval of powerful external stakeholders such as
government or powerful NGOs. In this case, the focus is not so much on gaining a competitive
advantage, but rather on not being at a disadvantage because of non-compliance with social or
regulatory expectations. Finally, companies may engage in socially responsible organizational
behavior to achieve social goals. Sometimes such efforts may also result in increased legitimacy
or competitiveness of the organization, such as in the case of Patagonia, a manufacturer of sports

1

http://corporate.walmart.com/global-responsibility/environmental-sustainability/environmental-sustainability

Page 21 of 96

equipment famous for its focus on sustainable business practices. Other times, companies may
choose to sustain a potential competitive disadvantage on order to achieve social goals that they
consider important. An example of this would be McCulloch Corporation, a manufacturer of
chainsaws that chose to install chain brakes as safety features on all of its products (Carroll &
Buchholtz, 2011:202-203). Despite data showing that chainsaw-related injuries had almost
doubled in five years, the Chainsaw Manufacturer’s Association’s had refused to accept this
standard. McCulloch installed the safety brakes as standard features on all its products despite
evidence that consumers were unwilling to pay a premium for this features, thus potentially
putting themselves at a cost disadvantage vs. competitors.
These findings on the reasons for socially responsible organizational behavior are
consistent with other research in the literature on corporate citizenship and CSR, which include
many tripartite formulations of organizational motives for engaging in socially responsible
organizational behavior: Maignan, Ferrell, & Hult (1999) imply market, humanistic and
competitive motives for corporate citizenship. In the marketing literature, studies distinguish
between egoistically- or strategically driven (competitive), stakeholder-driven (legitimacy) and
values-driven (socially responsible) organizational behaviors (Ellen, Webb, & Mohr, 2006;
Vlachos, Tsamakos, Vrechopoulos, & Avramidis, 2008). These studies provide compelling
evidence that organizations engage in socially responsible organizational behaviors, including
CVPs to achieve positive outcomes for themselves, for the community and for interested
stakeholders. Thus employee, community stakeholders and employers are all beneficiaries of
CVPs.

Page 22 of 96

Perceived impacts and motives for corporate volunteering
Consistent with the theories of the prosocial behavior, the functional theories of public
volunteering also recognize the interplay of both moral and rational motives. They suggest that
individuals volunteer because volunteering meets both moral and instrumental needs (Atkins,
Hart, & Donnelly, 2005; Clary et al., 1998; Wilson, 2000). People may volunteer to express
tightly held personal or social values; to reinforce their views of themselves as “good” people;
because they seek rewarding experiences; to foster relationships with important others; or to
advance their careers (Clary et al., 1998). Continued commitment to volunteering is predicted by
the degree to which the experience of volunteering continues to meet instrumental needs (Grube
& Piliavin, 2000; Omoto & Snyder, 1995; Penner & Finkelstein, 1998; Piliavin, Grube, &
Callero, 2002). Theories of volunteering have not focused on emotion as a driver of
volunteering, possibly because of the previously noted pre-meditated nature of volunteering as
compared to helping behaviors that are driven by proximal immediate need. However, emotions
attached to volunteering – such as feelings of pride and self-importance – are given a central
place as outcomes of volunteering that promote continued commitment to volunteering (Grube &
Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin et al., 2002).
Corporate volunteering differs from public volunteering in important ways. First, because
in corporate volunteering the employer often acts as an intermediary between the employee and
the community, attitudes and motives about corporate volunteering are directed not only at
community stakeholders but also at the employer (Grant & Mayer, 2009; D. A. Jones, 2010).
Secondly, in addition to self-interested and altruistic motives, corporate volunteering may be
motivated by impression management (Grant & Mayer, 2009) or by the desire to be a good
member of the employing organization (Peloza & Hassay, 2006). Peloza & Hassay (2006)
Page 23 of 96

suggested three categories of motives for employee involvement in CVPs: egoism, charity and
organizational citizenship. These categories of motives mirror the types of CVP goals identified
in the practitioner literature and discussed earlier in this paper.
At the individual level, there is evidence that, in corporate volunteering, self-interested
motives for skill development, new experiences and organizational rewards may play a more
significant role than altruistic motives. Peloza et al. (2008) suggest that the pre-selected nature of
employer-led volunteer programs may reduce the relevance of altruistic motives for engaging in
these programs.
In summary, the literature suggests that engagement in corporate volunteering (or any
SRB) can arise from multiple disparate motivations. These motivations may differ across
individuals or may work in tandem to drive the behaviors of a single individual. Corporate
volunteering may be a form of altruistic behavior, conforming to more moralist perspectives of
prosocial behavior including ethical behavior. It may also be a form of more self-interested or
instrumental behavior that serves the ego functions identified in the functional views of
volunteering and the rational views of prosocial behavior. Finally, corporate volunteering may be
a type of OCB if undertaken primarily for the benefit of the employer. These three categories of
motives at the individual level correspond to the three categories of motives for SRB identified at
the organizational level – specifically, socially responsible, competitiveness, and legitimacy
motives (Bansal & Roth, 2000). This pattern of tri-partite motives associated with the socially
responsible actor, the community beneficiary and the employer may provide a general model for
understanding SRB (see also Rupp, Ganapathi, Aguilera, & Williams, 2006). In the case of this
study they provide an organizing framework for examining the cognitions that lead to employee
engagement in SRBs.
Page 24 of 96

The tripartite approach suggests three different cognitions that would facilitate employee
engagement in CVPs: cognitions about benefits to the employee, to the community, and to the
employer. Cognitions about benefits to the self may trigger more egoistic motivations for
personal and professional growth through the developmental and experiential opportunities
provided by CVPs. Cognitions about benefits to the community may trigger socially responsible
motives arising from the desire to improve the wellbeing of the community. Finally, cognitions
about the benefits of CVPs to the organization may trigger the motivation to be a good
organizational citizen who upholds the values of the employer. Perceived impacts of the CVP on
the community, the self and the employing organization are therefore important cognitions that
would be associated with employee engagement in CVPs. The degree to which each of the 3
motives for engagement will be triggered or made salient will in turn depend on the degree to
which the characteristics of the CVP suggest positive impacts on each of these three stakeholders
of the CVP.
Individual differences and contextual factors moderating engagement in CVP
The moral perspective on prosocial behavior suggests that personality differences that
increase the likelihood of empathic feelings and acceptance of personal responsibility will
moderate the relationship between perceived consequences and engagement in volunteering.
Personality differences may also affect the intensity with which the individual perceives the
moral issue and consequences. For example, Treviño (1986) suggests that individuals high in
moral development are more likely to recognize an issue as having moral consequences and to
act morally as a result. Crilly et al. (2008) find that values (universalism and benevolence)
increase the propensity to engage in SRB, as do moral and reputation-based reasoning. The
volunteering literature also suggests that volunteering is predicted by individual factors including
Page 25 of 96

personality types (cf. Gillath et al., 2005), prior volunteer experience, human capital (education,
occupational status), social networks, and organizational memberships (Wilson, 2000). The
effects of individual socialization on volunteering are illustrated in the spillover theory of
volunteering, which holds that those who acquire greater human capital through education,
increased experience and job complexity volunteer more because they have greater awareness of
social issues and acquire through work the skills that make them more effective volunteers and
the drives that lead them to seek out new opportunities to make a contribution (Wilson &
Musick, 1997). In contrast, compensation theory holds that workers volunteer to compensate for
meaning that is lacking in their work (Rodell, 2013). The affective perspective on prosocial
behavior suggests that relational factors – specifically identification with other stakeholders
involved in the CVP – can influence engagement in corporate volunteering by predisposing the
individual to feel more or less sympathetic or obligated towards the community stakeholder or
employing organization. In the current study, I focus on assessing the moderating effects of
prosocial motivation – a dispositional trait that captures the degree to which the individual
aspires to helping behavior in general – on the effects of CVP characteristics on engagement. I
also consider how differences in the degree to which employees identify with the organization
and beneficiary moderate employee engagement.
Finally, the rational perspective on prosocial behavior suggests that any contextual
factors that affect the balance of costs vs. benefits will moderate the relationship between
perceived consequences and engagement in volunteering (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Omoto &
Snyder, 1995; Perlow & Weeks, 2002; Piliavin et al., 1981). In this study, I consider the effects
of various forms of employer support for CVP that determine the relative costs and benefits of
volunteering for the employee (Booth, Park, & Glomb, 2009).
Page 26 of 96

Outcomes of employee engagement
Engagement in corporate volunteering has never explicitly been measured. Its
relationship to work and organizational outcomes is therefore unknown. However, volunteering
(outside of work) has been linked with increased OCB, reduced antisocial behavior, and
improved physical and mental health (Gillath et al., 2005; Wilson, 2000). In the engagement
literature, work engagement is positively associated with task performance, OCB, job
satisfaction, organizational commitment; and negatively related to intentions to quit (Christian,
Garza, & Slaughter, 2011; Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). In this study, I examine the relationship
of engagement in CVP to employee well-being, work satisfaction and turnover intentions. These
three outcomes are selected because they respectively suggest the potential of engagement in
CVP to influence employee, work and organization outcomes.
Gaps in the literature
Overall, the literature on corporate volunteering suggests that it differs in several ways
from public volunteering and is significantly influenced by organizational factors. To-date this
literature has focused on the effects of organizational structure, support and incentives on
employee participation but few studies have looked at how the substantive characteristics of the
volunteering programs – that is, the non-separable content of the volunteering task – influence
employee participation and engagement in volunteering. Exceptions to this include Grant et al.
(2008) and Pajo & Lee (2010). Grant, Dutton, & Rosso (2008) demonstrated that interpretations
of volunteering work as caring mediated the positive effects of volunteering on affective
organizational commitment. Pajo & Lee (2010) suggested that opportunities for altruism and

Page 27 of 96

organizational citizenship through volunteering may increase the meaningfulness of volunteering
for employees.
Relational theories of work design (Grant & Parker, 2009; Grant, 2007) suggest that
impact on beneficiaries will be positively related to physical engagement (effort). These studies
suggest that impact on others is an important determinant of meaningfulness but more research is
needed to understand the role that impact plays in motivating engagement at work. This study
explores the idea that impacts on the self, community stakeholders and the employer mediate
employee engagement. It also explores the extent to which these impacts are communicated
through the objective characteristics of the work – in this case, the characteristics of the CVP.
There is wide variation in the types of projects for which employees volunteer and these
differences are likely to affect employees’ motives for volunteering. Measuring how different
perceived impacts of CVPs mediate employee engagement will suggest different motives for
employee engagement in volunteering. These suggested motives may be associated with
variation in the quality of engagement. Functional theories of volunteering suggest that
egoistically motivated volunteering is likely to last until ego motives are satisfied. In contrast,
values-based or altruistically motivated volunteering is more likely to persist until needs of
beneficiaries are met (Grant et al., 2008; Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin et al., 1981, 2002;
Shantz, Saksida, & Alfes, 2013). Research to-date has not shed light on whether different
motives lead to qualitatively different types of engagement.
Establishing the mediating role of perceived impacts has additional practical and
theoretical implications for understanding what drives engagement. For example, it may suggest
other factors not considered in this study that could have positive effects on employee

Page 28 of 96

engagement through their effects on perceived impacts. Distinguishing the mediating role of
perceived impacts also allows for a more refined consideration of how individual differences
moderate the effects of CVP characteristics on employee engagement. These individual
differences can help explain why subjective assessments of impact may differ among employees
given similar objective characteristics of the CVP. This would be one factor explaining variation
in employee engagement in CVPs.
Conceptual framework of this study
The preceding literature review suggests that CVP characteristics can be motivating to
employees primarily because they have positive impacts on the self and on others. This
motivation leads employees to become more engaged in CVPs. The strength of this relationship
would be moderated by the degree to which employees feel related to the other parties affected
by the CVP and by the degree to which employees possess a strong sense of motivation to help
others. This is the basic model that I explore in the following sections.
The relationships suggested in the theoretical model for this study are shown in figure 1.
Together, the theoretical model suggests some antecedents of employee engagement in CVPs,
giving a central role to perceived impacts of the CVP on the employee, the Community and the
employer. I have identified characteristics of CVPs that signal impact on employees, the
community and the employer – the three key relationships that define CVPs. I also describe how
cognitions of perceived impacts on each of these three stakeholders mediate the effect of CVP
characteristics on employee engagement. I suggest that the degree to which the employee
identifies with the other stakeholders involved in the CVPs will influence the meaning of
perceived impacts for employees. Increased identification with the organization or beneficiaries

Page 29 of 96

will increase the valence of the cognitive and emotional meaning of the CVP to employees
through its effects on perceptions as well as its effects on the how strongly perceptions influence
subsequent behaviors and psychological states of engagement. I specify the role that individual
prosocial motivation plays in moderating the effects of CVP characteristics on employee
engagement. I also consider how extrinsic characteristics of a CVP, comprised of perceived
support and managerial feedback processes, would moderate the effect of perceived impacts on
engagement in CVPs. Finally, I consider how engagement in CVPs influences employee and
organizational outcomes of work satisfaction, employee well-being and turnover intentions. The
resulting model suggests how the characteristics of CVP programs shape employees’ cognitive,
emotional and physical engagement in those programs through perceived impacts on self and
others; taking into account the individual’s prosocial motivation and identification with said
others.
The overarching theory used to explore the research question builds on theories of ethical
decision-making and behavior. In this literature, it is argued that issue characteristics, personal
characteristics and social cues interact to shape decision-making and behavior (T. M. Jones,
Felps, & Bigley, 2007; T. M. Jones, 1991; Sonenshein, 2007; Treviño, 1986). In this study, the
CVP represents an opportunity for helping behavior; the specific characteristics of the CVP act
as social cues that signal meaning to the employee in the form perceived impact of the CVP on
the employee, the community and the employer. The resulting meaningfulness of the CVP for
the employee drives engagement. I integrate theories of work design and moral intensity to
explain how CVP characteristics are related to perceived impacts on beneficiaries. I use selfdetermination theory as well as theories of moral reasoning to explain the mechanisms by which
perceived impacts motivate employee engagement in CVPs by satisfying fundamental needs for
Page 30 of 96

competence and relatedness; and I build on identification theory to explain individual differences
in engagement.
There are several variables involved in testing the hypotheses presented in this paper. For
the sake of brevity, rather than take the traditional approach of providing formal relationships
between the independent and dependent variable (IV and DV) and then specifying the
relationships of each to the mediator, I rather present hypotheses for the relationship between IV
and mediator, mediator and DV and then state the hypothesis for the mediating effect.
Specifically, in the following sections, I discuss the main effects of characteristics of the CVP on
engagement. I then present arguments for how perceived impacts mediate the effects of CVP
characteristics engagement. Following this, I consider how contextual factors moderate
engagement and finally consider outcomes of engagement. I then describe how individual
differences in prosocial motivation and identification moderate employee engagement.
CVP CHARACTERISTICS AND PERCEIVED IMPACTS
In this section I propose relationships between CVP characteristics and perceived impacts
on the employee, the community and the employer.
Perceived impacts on the employee, community and employer
By perceived impact of CVPs I refer to positive or negative impacts on the employee,
community and employer. An example of a negative impact is when participation in CVPs
causes employees to feel overworked. In some cases CVPs may be seen as appropriation of
organizational resources that should be spent on other activities. My primary focus in presenting
theory and hypotheses about perceived impact is on the role that positive impacts of CVPs play
in mediating the effects of CVP characteristics on engagement. Implicit in this approach is the
Page 31 of 96

hypothesis that perceived negative impacts will have the opposite effects to perceived positive
impacts.
Grant (2007) distinguishes different types of positive impacts that our actions can have.
He identifies impact on physical well-being (i.e. health and safety), hedonic well-being (i.e.
enjoyment and satisfaction), the eudaimonic well-being (i.e. growth and development), and
material well-being of beneficiaries (e.g. financial well-being). Here I consider these categories
of impact to illustrate the range of impacts that CVPs can have on beneficiaries.
Perceived impacts of a CVP on employees will be a result of the employee’s assessment
of how the CVP can contribute to or impede attainment of valued goals. This is equivalent to
what Weiss & Cropanzano (1996) refer to as “concern relevance”, which is part of the
individual’s initial appraisal of what a given event or situation means for her. Positive impacts
of CVPs on employees are primarily eudaimonic. CVPs can positively impact employees’
growth and development primarily in two ways. First, they can provide employees with
opportunities to grow through learning – that is by acquiring new knowledge and skills or by
leveraging existing skills to demonstrate personal agency. In so doing, CVPs provide
opportunities for employees to increase their sense of competence, self-efficacy and self-esteem.
Secondly, CVPs can positively impact employees’ well-being by creating or strengthening
affective bonds between employees and others, or by increasing the employee’s sense of
relatedness to valued others. CVPs might possibly also have hedonic benefits for employees.
However, given that volunteering is typically viewed as a form of personal sacrifice, I assume in
this paper that enjoyment beyond that arising from the eudaimonic impacts already discussed is
not a primary driver of employee engagement in CVPs.

Page 32 of 96

The positive impacts of CVPs on community stakeholders could be physical, hedonic,
eudaimonic or material. For example, a disaster relief program aims to impact the physical wellbeing of community stakeholders. A CVP that focuses on taking orphans out for a day could
have a positive impact on their hedonic well-being. A program that focuses on mentoring high
school students would impact their eudaimonic well-being. And pro-bono services offered to the
poor by tax consultants would impact their material well-being.
The positive impacts of CVPs on the employer can be eudaimonic or material. They can
be eudaimonic in the sense that CVPs that pursue goals that are important to the organization can
have positive impacts on organizational morale, which would be a positive eudaimonic impact
on other employees. They can also have a material impact on the organization if the CVP
supports achievement of the organization’s financial goals. I give several examples of CVPs that
have financial impacts on the employer when I discuss the employer-focused characteristics of
CVPs.
Perceived impacts on the employee, community and organization are likely to be
interrelated. For example, perceived impact on the community will likely be related to perceived
impact on the employer because of its effects on the employer’s public relations and reputation.
Similarly, perceived positive impacts on employees may be seen as benefits also to the employer.
While these interrelationships are acknowledged, they are not the focus of the study. Main
effects are proposed only for relationships that occur independently of the interrelated effects of
perceived impacts on each other.

Page 33 of 96

Intrinsic vs. extrinsic characteristics of CVPs
Studies assessing the CVP characteristics that affect employee outcomes have considered
organizational structure of the program and its leadership, participatory mechanisms, employer
and co-worker support, and the degree to which the programs provide opportunities for selfdevelopment and skills acquisition (Booth et al., 2009; Brammer & Millington, 2003; Clary et
al., 1998; Ramus & Steger, 2000). Pajo & Lee (2010) found that volunteer perceptions of role
variety, teamwork and opportunities for networking had a positive motivational effect on
employee volunteers. The practitioner literature has looked at the positive effects of linking
CVPs to the organizational mission; defining and leveraging clear goals of CVPs for the
business, employees and the community; providing adequate resources (e.g. leadership and
budget); and utilizing policies and procedures to encourage employee involvement. Studies have
also looked at the effects of differences in program duration; employee autonomy in selection of
projects / beneficiaries; incentives and rewards for volunteering and evaluation of business and
community outcomes (Benjamin, 2001; Boccalandro, 2009). The importance of CVPs as a tool
for developing employees is given significant attention in both the academic and practitioner
literatures. A few studies have also considered whether volunteering is team-based or individual
(Benjamin, 2001; Muthuri, Matten, & Moon, 2009).
My choice of CVP characteristics that influence employee engagement is based on
characteristics identified in the academic and practitioner literatures and is guided by a
consideration of those characteristics of CVPs that have the potential to be trigger selfdetermined engagement. One reason employee engagement may be self-determined is because
the content of the volunteering task is intrinsically motivating. For this reason, in considering the
main effects of CVP characteristics on employee engagement, I focus on CVP characteristics
Page 34 of 96

that identify the non-separable content of the volunteering work (the “what”) from those that
describe how the program is implemented (the “how”). I refer to these two types of
characteristics as intrinsic and extrinsic CVP characteristics respectively. This distinction has not
previously been made in the literatures on volunteering and SRB, but it is useful for
understanding employee’s personal motivations for SRB. Such a distinction is appropriate since
the focus of the study is on voluntary behaviors of employees requiring the exercise of personal
discretion.
Changes to intrinsic characteristics of CVPs fundamentally change the task at hand. For
example, if we change the community stakeholder beneficiary of a CVP, we have changed the
task. If we announce on day one that the CVP will benefit the homeless in the neighborhood and
later change our minds and decide that we will instead assist the local farmers, the task is no
longer the same. In contrast, changes to extrinsic characteristics of the program such as the
decision to award a prize for the best volunteer (a form of recognition) may vary independently
of the nature of the task. Extrinsic characteristics of the CVP are therefore more likely to
moderate than cause self-determined employee engagement by affecting the costs and benefits of
engagement.
Relationship of CVP characteristics to employee engagement
For the sake of brevity, I do not present specific hypotheses relating the CVP
characteristics to employee engagement. However, the rationale for the direct effect of CVP
characteristics on employee engagement is based on the argument that CVP characteristics
motivate employee engagement because they signal, or provide, opportunities for employees to
basic needs for competence and relatedness. Self-determination theory (SDT) is a motivational

Page 35 of 96

theory that specifies the drivers of self-determined motivation in a task or role. SDT is concerned
with “human learning, interpersonal relations, and the general mastery and management of
people’s physical and social environments” (Deci & Ryan, 2000:230). SDT is thus well suited to
the study of volunteering because volunteering is an approach to positively influencing one’s
physical and social environment through personal agency. SDT focuses on the motivating effects
of psychological (as opposed to physiological) needs, specifically the needs for competence,
relatedness and autonomy. In contrast to other needs such as the need for achievement
(McClelland, 1985) which are considered to be learned, needs for competence, relatedness and
autonomy are considered to be innate and therefore universal (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Competence
refers to the need to “have an effect on the environment as well as to attain valued outcomes
within it” (Deci & Ryan, 2000:231). Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others.
Autonomy refers to regulation by the self as opposed to regulation that occurs without selfendorsement (Ryan & Deci, 2006). The SDT literature suggests that autonomy rather than
having independent motivational effects, may be a necessary condition for individuals to express
their competence and to pursue meaningful relationships (Ryan & Deci, 2006). I therefore
consider autonomy later in this paper as a contextual factor that will promote or attenuate
employee engagement. In this section I focus on explaining how CVPs can meet the other two
needs for competence and relatedness.
Many other needs have been identified within the literature, some of which may overlap
with, subsume or form parts of the needs for competence, relatedness and autonomy. For
example, the three needs that are the focus of SDT are respectively similar if not identical to the
needs for (i) achievement / growth (ii) affiliation / belonging and (iii) power / control cited by
others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Leotti, Iyengar, & Ochsner, 2010; Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997;
Page 36 of 96

Spector, 1986; Steel & Konig, 2006). I therefore accept the SDT typology of needs as broadly
capturing the basic human needs identified within need theory though they may be called by
other names. The relationship of needs to motivation is that needs represent an “internal energy
force” that directs behavior toward satisfaction of the need (Steel & Konig, 2006: 895). Satiation
of needs can thus be thought of as the source of intrinsic motivation.
SDT suggests that engagement will be self-motivated when volunteering meets basic
psychological needs for competence and relatedness. When CVP characteristics satisfy basic
psychological needs of employees, the volunteering task and role become more meaningful to
employees. Meaningfulness is one of the antecedents of engagement. Kahn (1990:703) describes
meaningfulness as “a feeling that one is receiving a return on investments of one's self in a
currency of physical, cognitive, or emotional energy.” While the engagement literature does not
make explicit the role of needs in defining what is meaningful, need satisfaction is one way of
thinking of, or more clearly defining, “a return of investments of one’s self“. My key argument
for the effect of CVP characteristics on employee engagement is that those characteristics which
both signal and create the opportunity for satisfaction of the basic needs for competence and
relatedness will increase employee engagement in the CVP because they increase the
psychological meaningfulness of the volunteering task and role to the employee. To the degree
that the actual experience of competence or relatedness is rewarding to the employee, this will
result in increased cognitive absorption with the work and increased emotional engagement in
the form of enjoyment or enthusiasm for the work (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Omoto & Snyder,
1995; Penner, 2002; Piliavin et al., 1981, 2002). Intrinsic characteristics of CVPs should
therefore (i) be essential to the definition of the task (ii) signal impacts on the employee,
community and employer and (iii) have the potential to meet the fundamental needs of the
Page 37 of 96

employee for competence and relatedness. These are the three criteria used to select CVP
characteristics in the following sections.
The relationship of CVP characteristics to perceived impacts
Engagement in CVP can be viewed as a moral decision, choice and behavior. T. M. Jones
(1991:367) defines a moral issue as being “present where a person's actions, when freely
performed, may harm or benefit others. In other words, the action or decision must have
consequences for others and must involve choice”. CVPs represent an opportunity for employees
to help others, and the employee’s decision to participate and to exert effort in the CVP (or not)
has consequences for the employer and the community stakeholders. These consequences are
reflected in the employee’s perceptions of the impacts that the CVP will have on the community
and the employer.
Work design theory sheds further light on how task characteristics signal perceived
impacts of one’s work. Historically, work design theory has focused on how task-oriented jobs
could be made more intrinsically motivating for employees. The most widely used model of
work design is Hackman & Oldham's (1976) job characteristics model (JCM) which has
subsequently been expanded (cf. Grant & Parker, 2009; Humphrey et al., 2007). Job
characteristics models define perceptions about work, such as the perceived significance of the
task and the perceived level of worker autonomy, that are hypothesized to either motivate or
demotivate. The relational approach to work design additionally considers the architecture of
jobs that “affect employees’ interpersonal interactions and connections” with others (Grant,
2007:395). This approach gives greater focus to the impact of work on others.

Page 38 of 96

A closer examination of job characteristics models suggests that work impacts the
employee, the beneficiary of the work (who could be a co-worker or customer) and the
organization. For example, perceived job characteristics such as skills variety, job complexity
and specialization (Humphrey et al., 2007) are about what the work means for the employee.
Perceived job characteristics such as feedback from the job and feedback from others may also
impact the employee, but they may also communicate what the work means for the organization,
co-workers and customers. Finally, perceived impact on beneficiaries (Grant, 2007) is
specifically about how the job impacts beneficiaries outside the organization. In the following
section, I relate relevant intrinsic characteristics of CVPs to the perceived impacts with which
they would be positively associated.
Employee-focused characteristics of CVPs: Knowledge and skills opportunities
CVPs often provide opportunities for employees to develop or demonstrate skills such as
project management, leadership development and self-management (Measuring Employee
Volunteer Programs : The Human Resources Model, 2005). Often, these skills are essential to
the task. For example, if the volunteering task is to teach science to local students then the task
cannot be accomplished with employees who do not have expertise in science. Opportunities to
acquire or demonstrate knowledge and skills can be an objective characteristic of volunteering
programs to the degree that they are explicitly called out in the program description or in the
volunteer recruiting processes.
Knowledge and skills opportunities associated with CVPs are primarily related to impact
on the employee. Such opportunities signal to employees the experiential, learning and status
opportunities associated with the CVP as well as opportunities for personal and professional

Page 39 of 96

development. As a result they provide opportunities for fulfillment of personal competence needs
and for achievement of personal and professional development goals. Both need fulfillment and
goal fulfillment are positive outcomes for the employee. As a result, knowledge and skills
opportunities of CVPs will be perceived by the employee as having a positive impact on herself.
Hypothesis 1: More challenging knowledge and skills opportunities associated with a
CVP will be positively related to perceived impact on employees
There does not appear to be any reason to believe that knowledge, skills and interaction
requirements would be associated with perceived impact on the employer (beyond the fact that
positive impacts on the employee may partially accrue also to the employer – an effect of
interactions between perceived impacts).
Beneficiary-focused CVP characteristics
Humanitarianism
In situations in which helping behavior is critical, individuals are more likely to recognize
the impact of their actions on others. Criticality can be viewed either from the perspective of
those requiring help or from the perspective of those in a position to give it (cf. Chen, Au, &
Komorita, 1996; Markóczy, 2007). From the perspective of the beneficiary, criticality refers to
the extent to which the cooperation or help is critical to the well-being of the beneficiary. From
the perspective of the focal actor (benefactor), criticality refers to the degree to which the wellbeing of the beneficiary is contingent on action by the focal actor as opposed to action by other
parties that may be able to offer assistance.

Page 40 of 96

One way of considering criticality of the situation is by looking at the needs of the
beneficiary that are being fulfilled through the program. Grant (2007) distinguishes between
helping that focuses on the physical well-being (i.e. health and safety), hedonic well-being (i.e.
enjoyment and satisfaction), the eudaimonic well-being (i.e. growth and development), and
material well-being of beneficiaries (e.g. financial well-being). These can be considered intended
outcomes and impacts to the beneficiary of volunteering. While Grant’s typology of impacts is
qualitatively meaningful, it is not obvious how the types can be arranged to capture increasing or
decreasing criticality. For example, it is not clear whether hedonic well-being is less critical than
eudaimonic well-being; whether happiness is less critical than personal growth; and whether the
impact of a clown who entertains children in a hospice is less critical than the impact of a
kindergarten teacher. However, there is likely to be high social consensus that physical wellbeing is more critical than the other types of well-being because physical needs are often
considered to be the most fundamental needs, and fulfillment of physical needs is often thought
to be a necessary prerequisite for fulfillment of higher order needs (Maslow, 1943).
By humanitarianism I refer to the degree to which the mission of a CVP is related to the
amelioration of life-threatening situations. Life threatening situations include those in which
there is imminent physical danger or life-threatening ill-health. Examples of more humanitarian
CVPs would be disaster relief programs and programs that target the sick. CVPs of a more
humanitarian nature, will be perceived as having greater moral intensity (T. M. Jones, 1991)
because the consequences for the community beneficiaries will be high and social consensus
around the need for help will be high. When the moral intensity of the situation being addressed
by the CVP is high, employees are more likely to perceive the CVP as having a greater impact
on the community.
Page 41 of 96

Hypothesis 2a: More humanitarian CVPs will be associated with increased perceived
impact on community stakeholders
Beneficiary contact
Beneficiary contact refers to “opportunities for employees to interact and communicate
with the people affected by their work” (Grant, 2007:389). Grant (2007) argues that beneficiary
contact will be more motivational as frequency and duration of contact increases, when there is
increased physical proximity with beneficiaries, and when contact enables mutual expression of
cognitions, emotions and identities. Some of these characteristics of beneficiary contact can be
objectively associated with a CVP based on the program description and requirements. While in
some cases beneficiary contact may be at the discretion of the employee, often it will be an
inherent requirement of the task. For example, a volunteering project that involves cleaning up a
public space will provide and require less beneficiary contact than one that involves coaching
school children to take the scholastic aptitude test. We can therefore consider whether
beneficiary contact of a CVP is ad-hoc or more or less frequent and whether it requires physical
proximity. Other aspects of beneficiary contact such as the opportunity for mutual expression of
cognitions, emotions and identities may be inferable based on program descriptions.
High beneficiary contact suggests the creation of an ongoing social relationship in which
the employee / volunteer is not easily substitutable. For employees who are not yet involved in
CVPs, high beneficiary contact requirements can signal that the volunteering role is critical to
the well-being of the community stakeholder. High beneficiary contact also means that impacts
are more proximal (T. M. Jones, 1991). Increased perceptions of criticality and proximity will
likely lead to increased perceptions of impact. For those already involved in the CVP, high

Page 42 of 96

beneficiary contact will also allow employees to receive direct feedback from community
stakeholders regarding the positive impacts that the program has on them.
Hypothesis 2b: Increased beneficiary contact will be positively related to perceived
impact on the community.
Beneficiary contact may also impact employees in several ways. If increased beneficiary
contact contributes to the employee’s sense that her role is critical to the community beneficiary,
this will contribute to the employee’s sense of importance and self-esteem. It is also often the
case that part of the appeal of volunteering is in the opportunity to learn more about a group of
interest. For example, employees may value opportunities to interact with youth in order to stay
or feel more in touch with the concerns and preferences of young people. Feelings of closeness
with beneficiaries often do not exist at the onset of volunteering but rather develop over time as
volunteers are exposed to the volunteering role and beneficiaries (Grube & Piliavin, 2000;
Piliavin et al., 2002). Increased beneficiary contact will provide opportunities for the employee
to satisfy such relatedness needs by forming new social bonds. For these reasons I argue that
beneficiary contact will be positively related to perceived impact on the employee.
Hypothesis 3: Increased beneficiary contact will be positively related to perceived impact
on the employee.
Employer-focused CVP characteristics: Strategic alignment
Strategic alignment refers to the degree to which the objectives of a CVP are related to
the strategic goals of the organization (Hess & Warren, 2008; Wood, 1991). CVPs that are more
aligned with organizational strategies will be more critical to organizational well-being.
Examples of CVPs with high strategic alignment are Campbell’s program on childhood obesity
Page 43 of 96

and hunger2 and IBM’s smarter cities challenge3. Campbell’s program focuses on educating
young students about nutritious eating. Employees volunteer in schools to teach students about
diet and also to monitor behavioral change and health outcomes such as body mass index. The
program is strategic for Campbell’s because it raises awareness of the company in the
community, raises awareness of Campbell’s healthy food products, and drives behavior change
among the youth that converts young potential consumers of junk foods made by Campbell’s
competitors into potential consumers of healthier foods made by Campbell’s. IBM’s smarter
cities challenge allows cities to apply for pro-bono services of IBM personnel who advise the
municipalities on how to run more effectively through the use of cutting-edge technologies.
These experts advise on the use of technology infrastructure to drive efficiency – infrastructure
that IBM is uniquely positioned to provide. In contrast, a CVP by any of these companies that
was focused on activities tangential to core strategic objectives – for example, clearing litter
from a local park – would have low strategic alignment.
Strategic alignment can be an objective characteristic of CVPs to the degree that such
links are explicitly stated in the program description or formally articulated by organizational
leaders. CVPs that are more aligned with organizational strategy have the potential for greater
impact on the material and collective psychological well-being of the organization. They impact
material well-being of the organization through their anticipated instrumentality in achieving the
future business objectives of the organization. As a result, strategic alignment of a CVP signals a
positive impact on the collective well-being of the organization and its members.

2
3

http://www.campbellsoupcompany.com/csr/pages/neighbors/childhood-obesity-and-hunger.asp#.UazlgUB5mSo
http://smartercitieschallenge.org/

Page 44 of 96

Hypothesis 4: Increased strategic alignment of a CVP will be positively associated with
perceived impact on the organization
PERCEIVED IMPACTS AND EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT
In this section I present arguments for why perceived impacts are more proximal
antecedents of employee engagement in CVPs than CVP characteristics, and for why they
mediate the effects of CVP characteristics on employee engagement. I first explain how
perceived impacts will be positively related to engagement. I then discuss moral and rational
psychological mechanisms through which CVP characteristics will positively influence
engagement through their effects on perceived impacts.
The effects of perceived impacts on employee engagement
Work design research (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Humphrey et al., 2007; Johns, Xie, &
Fang, 1992; Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006) shows that task significance, which measures
perceived impact of the work on others, is positively related to psychological meaningfulness of
work and to intrinsic work motivation. Work design research also shows that perceived feedback
from work and others, and social interaction at work, are positively related to psychological
meaningfulness and work motivation. These relationships suggest that perceived impacts can be
intrinsically motivating and are related to psychological meaningfulness, which is an antecedent
of engagement. Perceived impacts on others should therefore have a positive relationship with
engagement.
The psychological mechanisms through which perceived impacts affect engagement can
be understood by considering the effects of moral reasoning on engagement as well as by

Page 45 of 96

considering how perceptions of impact suggest opportunities for individuals to satisfy basic
individual needs of competence and relatedness.
Perceived impact on the employee
CVP characteristics and the impacts that they signal might be meaningful to employees
because they satisfy the employee’s personal needs. Perceived impacts on the employee capture
the positive eudaimonic impacts of CVPs on employees, which may include positive impacts on
the employee’s personal or professional development and growth. These positive impacts may
accrue from the development of new knowledge and skills or the exercise of existing knowledge
and skills that reinforce the employee’s sense of competence, self-efficacy and self-esteem.
Positive impacts on the employee also include positive emotions arising from satisfaction of
competence needs or enriched relationships with others. Rational self-interest and goal-seeking
behavior (Ambrose & Kulik, 1999) all suggest that when an employee perceives a task as having
a positive impact on her well-being, she is more likely to be engaged in that task.
Hypothesis 5: Perceived impact on the employee will be positively related to engagement
Perceived impact on the community and employer
The need for competence is fundamentally a need to be able realize one’s goals within
one’s environment. Achieving positive impacts on one’s environment is therefore one way of
satisfying this need. Because one’s employing organization and local community are part of
one’s environment, realizing positive impacts on the community or on one’s employer is a means
of demonstrating competence and control. As a result, perceived positive impacts of CVPs on the
community and on the employer will lead employees to recognize participation in the CVP as an
opportunity for satisfaction of competence (and control) needs through the display of self- or
Page 46 of 96

collective-efficacy within her environment. This perceived opportunity for need satisfaction will
motivate employees to engage in the CVP.
From a more moral perspective, perceived impacts on the community are likely to be
positively associated with engagement because they trigger socially responsible motives to help
others. To the degree that CVPs present moral choices to employees, T. M. Jones' (1991) theory
of moral intensity suggests that moral action is more likely when consequences are large, highly
probable, and more temporally immediate. The idea that the effect of one’s work on others is
important is also supported by work design research, which shows that feedback from others is
positively related to psychological meaningfulness and work motivation. This suggests that, even
in contexts in which the moral consequences of one’s actions are not dire, perceived impacts on
others is still meaningful and likely to increase engagement.
Hypothesis 6: Perceived impact on the community will be positively related to
engagement
In contrast to perceived impacts on the community, perceived impacts on the employer
will trigger organizational citizenship motives. Organizational citizenship motives include the
desire to make a good impression on supervisors and colleagues or to help the organization and
its members to achieve shared goals. The greater the impact of a CVP on the employer is
perceived to be, the more salient will be organizational citizenship motives. When such motives
are more salient, they increase the likelihood that employees will engage in a CVP. Additionally,
the more is at stake for the employer, the more effort and emotional concern will be associated
with the employee’s engagement in the CVP.
Hypothesis 7: Perceived impact on the employer will be positively related engagement
Page 47 of 96

The mediating role of perceived impacts
In this section, I build on motivational need theories and theories of moral decisionmaking to present arguments that illustrate why CVP characteristics would have a main effect on
employee engagement, and why this effect would be fully mediated by perceived impacts.
CVPs provide the opportunity to demonstrate competence and self-efficacy by having a
positive impact on the community and potentially also on one’s own organization. CVPs also
provide opportunities to strengthen relationships or psychological bonds with members of the
community and of the employing organization (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). The CVP
characteristics related to knowledge and skills opportunities provide an opportunity to realize
competence and relatedness needs through engagement. Beneficiary contact provides
opportunities for mutually enriching social exchanges. CVPs of a more humanitarian nature will
be perceived as having high moral intensity. As a result, employees will be more attentive to the
task and are likely to be more emotionally engaged. In critical situations, individuals are also
more likely to experience emotions of guilt if they do not act and emotions of relief and pride if
they do. Employees will therefore be motivated to engage because engagement helps them feel
more competent and related by promoting positive emotions or preventing negative ones.
Engagement in CVPs that have high strategic alignment will strengthen feelings of
organizational membership and collective self-efficacy. The more CVPs have these
characteristics, the more employees will see engagement in CVPs as a means to personally
valued ends, and the more they will engage in the CVP (Vroom, 1964).
Understanding how CVP characteristics signal opportunities for satisfaction of basic
needs elucidates the psychological mechanisms underlying the main direct effect of CVP

Page 48 of 96

characteristics on employee engagement. However, these psychological mechanisms may not
necessarily be explicit or conscious. Considering the mediating role of perceived impacts in this
relationship provides an organizing framework for the cognitions that mediate the effects of CVP
characteristics on engagement. The CVP characteristics provide social information and social
cues that will shape employee’s perceptions of the positive impacts that the CVP may have on
them, on the community, and on the employer. The effects of the objective CVP characteristics
will therefore be mediated by the employee’s subjective perceptions of positive impacts. Thus
the perceptions of physical, hedonic, eudaimonic or material impact on the self or on others are
the means through which CVP characteristics signal to employees the utility of engagement.
H7: Perceived impact on the (a) employee (b) community and (c) employer will mediate
the effects of intrinsic CVP characteristics on engagement.
MODERATING EFFECTS OF EXTRINSIC CVP CHARACTERISTICS
So far, I have discussed the effects on employee engagement of the CVP characteristics
that I characterized as intrinsic to the volunteering task and role. However, contextual factors not
essential to the task have been shown to influence employee engagement in volunteering. I refer
to these as extrinsic characteristics of the programs and discuss in this section how they moderate
employee engagement in volunteering.
Perceived support for CVP
Extrinsic characteristics that have been shown to increase employee engagement in
volunteering can generally be grouped under the umbrellas of employer, supervisor and coworker support for volunteering. I refer to these collectively as support for CVP. Employers may
support volunteering programs by allowing employees to volunteer on company time, providing
Page 49 of 96

financial and logistical support, organizing volunteering events, providing placement services, or
providing incentives and rewards for volunteering (Benjamin, 2001; Booth et al., 2009; The
Corporate Volunteer Program as a Strategic Resource: The Link Grows Stronger, 1999). Booth,
Park, & Glomb (2009) find that employer-supported volunteering benefits (e.g. volunteering on
company time, employer donations of cash or kind, logistical support, rewards and recognition
for volunteers) are positively related to employee hours of volunteering. They explain this link
using social exchange theory. However, employer support could also lead to increased employee
engagement in volunteering by increasing both perceived psychological safety and psychological
availability of the employee (Kahn, 1990; May et al., 2004).
Both work engagement research (Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006) and research on socially
proactive employee behavior at work (Booth et al., 2009; Ramus & Steger, 2000) point to the
importance of organizational support as antecedents of engagement. These studies suggest that
any policies associated with a CVP that reduce the psychological and material costs of either
participating in or visibly supporting the CVP will facilitate employee engagement. Such policies
include paid time to volunteer, autonomy in scheduling volunteering time, any material
assistance provided by the employer (e.g. funds, equipment, logistical support), and formal
recognition and rewards for employees (Booth et al., 2009). Peloza & Hassay (2006) suggest that
autonomy in selection of volunteering projects may influence employee’s attitudes about, and
motivations for, volunteering. Other authors have suggested that task characteristics that give rise
to feelings of autonomy will increase employees’ intrinsic motivations for volunteering (Pajo &
Lee, 2010).
Autonomy can be considered within the context of support for CVP. Autonomy refers to
the degree to which employees are free to participate in CVPs (or choose not to participate) and
Page 50 of 96

the degree to which they have choice in scheduling and arranging the volunteering work. When
autonomy is high, it suggests increased support for the CVP. Increased autonomy will increase
engagement in two ways. First, flexibility in scheduling and structuring of the work will allow
for optimal physical engagement because employees will be able to volunteer when it is most
convenient. Secondly, autonomy will allow for self-selection of employees into volunteering
resulting on higher levels of engagement on average. In contrast, when autonomy is low – for
example, if participation in a CVP is required, while more employees may participate, on
average the quality of their participation (i.e. attention, absorption, pride and enthusiasm in the
program) will be lower.
The attitudes about volunteering held by key organizational referents such as supervisors
and co-workers can increase or reduce the psychological costs of supporting CVPs (D. A. Jones,
2007; Ramus & Steger, 2000; Treviño, 1986). Supervisors and co-workers may see involvement
in CVPs as a form of shirking work. Even if supervisors and co-workers have more tolerant
views about CVPs, employees may nevertheless experience guilt about spending precious time
supporting CVPs while others work. Thus either perceived resistance to volunteering among
supervisors and co-workers or ambiguity about the attitudes of supervisors and co-workers
towards volunteering can create a psychological burden on employees that may reduce employee
engagement even when employees are actually motivated to support a CVP. Finally, the “scope”
(Bansal, 2003) of the program, which refers to the relative number of organizational members
who participate, is both an indication of organizational support for the CVP and also an impetus
in itself for individual participation. If most of the employees in an organization participate in a
CVP then the likelihood that supervisors and co-workers support the program is high.

Page 51 of 96

Perceived support for CVP refers to the employee’s subjective perception of support for
the CVP. Employee perceptions of support for CVP may be more or less accurate but are more
proximal to and will have a more direct effect on employee engagement than will the objective
levels of support. Because of this, and because examining the antecedents of perceived support is
not the focus of this study, I treat perceived support for CVP as a single construct that captures
the employee’s perception of organizational and co-worker support for the CVP. Perceived
support for CVP should positively moderate the relationship between CVP characteristics and
perceived impacts on the employee, community and employer. This negative moderating effect
should be strongest for the relationship between CVP characteristics and perceived impacts on
the employee. This is because the construct of support CVP effectively captures cost and benefits
of volunteering to the employee. When support for CVP is low, the employee faces a situation in
which she must potentially volunteer on her own time, without the support of her supervisor and
co-workers, and is one of very few employees in the organization to volunteer for the CVP. In
this case, the social and material costs of volunteering are high and have a negative impact on the
employee. This negative impact on the employee may offset perceived positive impacts related
to knowledge and skills opportunities. In contrast, when support for CVP is high, employees will
perceive less material costs of engaging and may even perceive positive social benefits of doing
so, such as an increased sense of organizational membership (if most of their colleagues are
participating). When support for CVP is high, employees are less likely to feel that the costs of
volunteering outweigh the benefits.
Support for CVP will also moderate the effects of CVP characteristic on perceived
impact on the community. Low support for CVP may suggest that the organization is not
committed to the volunteering task. This may objectively be the case if the CVP is more
Page 52 of 96

symbolic than substantive (Ashforth & Gibbs, 1990; Hess & Warren, 2008). If employees
perceive the organization as not committed to the CVP, they will conclude that the organization
is more interested in appearances than in maximizing social impact. They will factor this into
their assessments of the real impacts that the CVP will have. Thus low support for CVP will
likely attenuate the effects of CVP characteristics on perceived impacts on the community while
high support for CVP will amplify the effects of CVP characteristics on perceived impacts on the
community.
One might assume that if a CVP has high strategic alignment that the organization would
show strong support for CVP. In general this is likely to be the case. However, it is possible for a
CVP that is of high strategic importance to the organization to have low support for CVP. This
may occur either because of poor communication or poor implementation on the part of
organizational leaders. For example, organizational leaders may view the CVP as strategically
important, but managers and co-workers may not share this belief because they do not have
access to the same data as organizational leaders or because they have different perspectives.
Alternatively, a CVP can be of strategic importance to an organization but organizational leaders
may fail to provide adequate organizational support for the program either due to lack of
awareness of the importance of support, or simply due to lack of attention to doing so (Cyert &
March, 1963). In the event that support for CVP is low for programs that have high strategic
alignment, employees will receive mixed cues – one cue from the CVP characteristics that
suggest high strategic importance and a conflicting cue from their assessment of support for the
CVP, which suggests that the CVP is not that important to the organization.
Hypothesis 8: Perceived support for CVP will moderate the relationship between CVP
characteristics and perceived impacts on (a) the employee (b) the community and (c) the
Page 53 of 96

employer such that when perceived support for CVP is high, the effects of CVP
characteristics on perceived impacts will be stronger.
Managerial feedback processes
Another extrinsic characteristic of CVP programs that may moderate the effects of
perceived impacts on engagement are the feedback mechanisms utilized as part of CVP
implementation. The practitioner literature on corporate volunteering suggests that there is
variation in whether organizations establish measurable goals for CVPs and in the degree to
which they measure outcomes (Boccalandro, 2009; The Corporate Volunteer Program as a
Strategic Resource: The Link Grows Stronger, 1999). In this section, I argue that, consistent with
goal-setting theory (E. A. Locke & Latham, 2002), feedback processes associated with a CVP
will enhance engagement by increasing the perceived instrumentality of effort.
By a feedback process, I refer to managerial processes that facilitate access to data about
performance of a CVP vs. goals. Examples would include periodic reviews with community
stakeholders or discussion of volunteering as part of performance review. Feedback processes
requires that goals exist and that data about outcomes can be obtained to compare to these goals.
Feedback processes are weakest when no goals exist and no outcomes are measured. They are
stronger when goals are not set but some data about outcomes is collected. Assuming some
outcomes are measured, feedback processes can be considered stronger depending on the
frequency with which these outcomes are communicated to the organization. Robustness of
feedback processes can also be considered in terms of the stakeholders for whom outcomes are
measured. Outcomes can be measured for employees, community stakeholders or the employing
organization. Not all CVPs will measure outcomes for all 3 stakeholders. Feedback processes

Page 54 of 96

will be most robust when goals are established for all 3 stakeholders and outcomes data is
obtained for all three stakeholders, and outcomes vs. goals are communicated frequently to
employees. We can therefore consider the robustness of feedback processes for each stakeholder.
In practice, the positive effect of goals is contingent on the quality of the goals – whether they
are specific, realistic and so on. However, assessing quality of goals is beyond the scope of this
study. Here I focus only on the degree to which the robustness of feedback processes affects
employee engagement in volunteering.
When employees see a CVP as impactful, robust feedback processes will increase effort
and persistence primarily by directing effort and attention (E. A. Locke & Latham, 2002).
Positive feedback will increase effort by increasing feelings of competence and self-efficacy.
Negative feedback could either create a sense of urgency or a sense of failure – depending on
how constructively the feedback is delivered. However, consistent with goal-setting theory, I
argue that even negative feedback would generally be more motivating than no feedback.
Hypothesis 9: Beneficiary-focused feedback processes will moderate the relationship
between perceived impacts on the community and engagement such that when
beneficiary-focused feedback processes are more robust the relationship will be stronger
Hypothesis 10: Employee-focused feedback processes will moderate the relationship
between perceived impacts on the employee and engagement such that when employeefocused feedback processes are more robust the relationship will be stronger
Hypothesis 11: Employer-focused feedback processes will moderate the relationship
between perceived impacts on the organization and engagement such that when
employer-focused feedback processes are more robust the relationship will be stronger
Page 55 of 96

THE INFLUENCE OF INDIVIDUAL CHARACTERISTICS ON EMPLOYEE
ENGAGEMENT
Because motivations can be seen as aspirations for the self or for others with whom we
strongly identify (Haslam, Powell, & Turner, 2000), differences in how employees view
themselves and their relationships with others should moderate motivation to engage in CVPs. In
this section, I discuss how differences in personality and identification affect employee
engagement. An identity perspective sheds light on how the employee views herself in relation to
others and can help understand how personal and relational identities motivate engagement. I
consider first how individual differences in growth need strength moderate the effects of
knowledge and skills characteristics of the CVP program on perceived impact on the employee. I
then consider how dispositional prosocial motivation moderates the effects of CVP
characteristics on engagement irrespective of employees’ identification with community
stakeholders or the employer. Finally, I discuss how identification with community stakeholders
and the employer respectively moderate employee engagement in CVPs.
Individual differences moderating the effects of CVP characteristics on perceived impacts
Need growth strength
Work design theory suggests that the motivational effects of challenging work are
dependent on individuals having high growth need strength. Growth need strength refers to the
degree to which individuals are “desirous of obtaining higher order need satisfactions from their
work” (Hackman & Lawler, 1971:269). In theory, individuals high in growth need strength find
challenging work more motivating whereas those low in growth need strength find challenging
work less motivating or even demotivating. The theory has received considerable empirical
Page 56 of 96

support (Fried & Ferris, 1987; Hackman & Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976) though
white collar samples often do not show sufficient variation in growth need strength to have a
significant effect (Johns et al., 1992). I consider growth need strength here as an individual
difference that acts as a boundary constraint for the positive effects of knowledge and skills
opportunities on perceived impact on the employee.
While it may increasingly be the norm that employees seek out opportunities to acquire
knowledge and skills at work, such opportunities may not be viewed positively by all employees.
Differences in expectations about work and work goals may arise from differences in individual
disposition, attitudes about work, or the nature of the work itself. For example individuals have
differ in whether they have a prevention or promotion focus (self-regulatory focus, Gorman et
al., 2012; Higgins, Roney, Crowe, & Hymes, 1994; Higgins, 1989, 1997). These differences may
be chronic or situationally primed. Individuals with a chronic promotion focus are more likely to
find challenging work – specifically opportunities to develop or demonstrate knowledge and
skills – more rewarding. Individuals with a chronic prevention focus may see such opportunities
as raising the specter of possible failure or as additional unnecessary work. Self-regulatory focus
may also be primed by the work. An individual may view learning opportunities as desirable in
one type of work that she finds intrinsically motivating, but may find them a drag in another type
of work that she finds tedious.
Growth need strength captures at a point in time the degree to which an individual is
desirous of challenge, learning and independent thought in her work. Conceptually, one can think
of it as the degree to which an individual has a promotion focus towards work. Growth need
strength should therefore moderate the effects of knowledge and skills characteristics of CVPs

Page 57 of 96

on perceived impact on the employee such that the effect will be stronger for those higher in
growth need strength.
Hypothesis 12: Growth need strength will moderate the effects of challenging knowledge
and skills opportunities on perceived impact on the employee such that the effect will be
stronger when growth need strength of the individual is higher.
Prosocial motivation
As the classic bystander experiments (Latane & Darley, 1970; Schwartz & Clausen,
1970) show, some individuals among us are more motivated to help strangers than are others. In
this section, following the aretaic approach to moral behavior, which focuses on how virtues or
(behavioral values) instilled in individuals shape moral behavior, I consider how differences in
individual personality might moderate the relationship between CVP characteristics and
perceived impacts, and between perceived impacts and engagement in CVP.
Broadly speaking, the literatures on prosocial behavior and volunteering suggest three
individual characteristics that increase the likelihood of helping behavior: (i) sensitivity to the
plight of others (empathy) (ii) ascription of personal responsibility and (iii) moral identity
(Aquino & Reed, 2002; Blasi, 1980; Detert, Treviño, & Sweitzer, 2008; Hogan, 1973; Penner et
al., 2005; Schwartz, 1974). Empathy refers to an individual’s tendency and ability to see things
from the perspective of another and is essentially the characteristic primarily associated with the
motive of altruism (Batson & Powell, 2003). Ascription of personal responsibility refers to the
individual’s tendency to accept personal responsibility in social situations and has often been
examined under the guise of perceived locus of control (cf. Treviño, 1986). In practice,
ascription of personal responsibility is likely a function of dispositional locus of control and
Page 58 of 96

perceived self-efficacy in a specific situation. Finally, the construct of moral identity seeks to
capture the degree to which behaving morally is central to the individual’s self-identity. It
measures the degree to which it is important to the individual to behave in ways perceived as
compassionate, friendly, hardworking and honest…to name a few virtues.
Of the three individual characteristics that increase the likelihood of moral action,
empathy and moral identity are likely to be related: a person high in moral identity is more likely
to develop empathy skills by virtue of interest and effort over time. The construct that is less
related to the other two is the tendency to ascribe personal responsibility in social situations.
Individuals who are high in empathy and moral identity are less likely to exhibit prosocial
behavior if they either have a dispositional tendency to view outcomes as being beyond their
control or if they are low in generalized self-efficacy (Erez & Judge, 2001). The fact that
variables such as empathy, moral identity and altruism alone are insufficient to predict behavior
is suggested by Batson & Powell's (2003:463) observation that “there is no one-to-one
correspondence between prosocial behavior and altruism. Prosocial behavior need not be
motivated by altruism; altruistic motivation need not produce prosocial behavior”. To increase
explanatory power, an individual difference construct that moderates the effects of CVP
characteristics on employee engagement should capture not only how one thinks about others but
also how one ascribes responsibility for the welfare of others.
Two constructs that capture the individual differences of empathy, ascription of personal
responsibility and moral identity emerged from my literature review. The first was Penner &
Finkelstein's (1998) prosocial personality orientation. Prosocial personality orientation refers to
“an enduring tendency to think about the welfare and rights of other people, to feel concern and
empathy for them, and to act in a way that benefits them” (Penner & Finkelstein, 1998:526).
Page 59 of 96

Their composite measure of prosocial personality orientation measures empathy, moral
reasoning and altruism (i.e. acts of helping) via self-reports. The second measure that emerged
from the literature on individual differences in prosocial behavior was Grant's (2008b) prosocial
motivation . Grant (2008b:49) describes prosocial motivation as the desire to expend effort to
benefit other people, a relatively enduring individual difference reflected in the personality trait
of agreeableness, dispositions toward empathy and helpfulness, and values of concern for others.
This definition covers the three individual differences highlighted in the prosocial behavior
literature and is also well reflected in the measures of the construct, which reflect a concern for
others (empathy), a sense of personal agency (ascription of responsibility), and a high value
placed on benefiting others through ones behaviors (moral identity).
For this study I focus on the construct of prosocial motivation for two reasons. First,
rather than focusing on helping behavior, the measure of prosocial behavior focuses on the
motivation to work to benefit others. It is conceptually therefore more applicable to the corporate
volunteering context than prosocial personality orientation, which was conceived with more of a
focus on prosocial behavior in general social situations (such as the bystander situation).
Secondly, the measure of prosocial motivation is shorter than that for prosocial orientation but
still effectively captures the three individual characteristics predictive of prosocial behavior. For
these reasons, I selected the construct of prosocial motivation as the best reflection of an
individual characteristic – or aretaic virtue – that captures the personality traits most predictive of
prosocial behavior across situations and independent of the identity of the beneficiaries.
Prosocial motivation captures personality (agreeableness and empathy) and values
(concern for others). The five questionnaire items used to measure the construct respectively
begin with “I get energized by…I like to work on…I prefer to work on….I do my best when
Page 60 of 96

working on…It is important to me to have…”. As Ashforth and colleagues note, statements
about what we value and care about are statements of identity (Ashforth, Harrison, & Corley,
2008). According to Ashforth & Mael (1989:25) "individuals tend to choose activities congruent
with salient aspects of their identities, and they support the institutions embodying those
identities.” The idea that personality and identify variables influence the tendency both to
volunteer and to engage in prosocial behavior has received significant empirical support (Penner
& Finkelstein, 1998; Penner, 2002; Shantz, Saksida, et al., 2013). For example, Grant (2008)
found that, in the presence of intrinsic motivation, prosocial motivation predicted effort and
persistence among firefighters and fundraisers. Role identities have also been shown to predict
volunteering behavior (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin et al., 2002). Those who volunteer often
develop role identities as volunteers that result in volunteering becoming a core component of
their identities. In other words, people come to see part of their identity as “someone who
volunteers”. The centrality of volunteering role identities can be driven by altruistic motivations
but may also be driven by the experience of prestige and importance that comes from being a
volunteer. The relevant motivational effects of both individual and role identities that employees
have as volunteers would be reflected in the measure of prosocial motivation.
Prosocial motivation will moderate the effects of CVP characteristics on perceived
impacts on the community and on the employer. I present the same rationales with respect to the
two focal beneficiaries – the community stakeholders and the employer – because, from the
perspective of individual differences in prosocial motivation, they are theoretically the same.
Both are, in theory, equally legitimate beneficiaries of prosocial motivations and prosocial
behaviors. The only theoretical difference between the two is in the motives that tend to be
associated with each. As previously discussed, prosocial behavior towards the organization may
Page 61 of 96

be less altruistically motivated than prosocial behaviors towards the community (Grant & Mayer,
2009; McNeely & Meglino, 1994; Peloza & Hassay, 2006; Peloza et al., 2008). However, in
discussing the moderating effects of individual prosocial motivation on employee engagement, I
am not distinguishing motives.
The interactionist approach to ethical behavior argues that individual differences (such as
differences in moral development) cause variation in perceptions of the moral implications of our
actions (Sonenshein, 2007; Treviño, 1986). Social cues are interpreted through the lens of
individual personality such that, given the same social cues, different individuals will arrive at
different interpretations because of differences in needs, values and personal history. This
perspective appears to have applicability to meaning-making in general including at work
(Wrzesniewski, Dutton, & Debebe, 2003) and in volunteering (Penner, 2002). When faced with a
situation, opportunity or other social cue, the interactionist view suggests that individuals high in
prosocial motivation are more likely to notice the need for help and to interpret it as such. This
suggests that individual prosocial motivation will moderate the effects of CVP characteristics on
perceived impacts on the community and employer.
Hypothesis 13: Prosocial motivation of the employee will moderate the effects of CVP
characteristics on perceived impact on (a) the community and (b) the employer such that,
for employees high in prosocial motivation, CVP characteristics will have a stronger
effect on perceived impacts
Identification with a group
Identification with a group is defined by Mael & Tetrick (1992:814) as “a feeling of
oneness with a defined aggregate of persons, involving the perceived experience of its successes
Page 62 of 96

and failures”. In the context of corporate volunteering, identification with others occurs through
the comparison of social identities. Social identities are constructed when an individual
categorizes herself as a member of a psychological group (men, women, soldiers, teachers,
cancer survivors etc.) and subsequently accepts characteristics of the group as part of her own
identity (Hogg & Terry, 2000). Social identities differ from personal identities in that social
identities focus on shared qualities whereas personal identities tend to focus on the
characteristics that uniquely identify the individual (Ashforth et al., 2008:327).
Identification can to refer either to a process whereby individuals identify more and more
with a social identity, or to a relatively stable state of identification with a particular group. As a
state, the more proximal or central a social identity is to an individual’s personal identity the
more stable will be the individual’s identification with that social identity (Rousseau, 1998).
Here I refer to identification as a state that may vary over time but that is related to the stable
personal identity of the individual.
Identification with the employer
Identification with the employer (also referred to as organizational identification, OI) is a
well-established construct in organizational research that refers to “psychological attachment that
occurs when members adopt the defining characteristics of the organization as defining
characteristics for themselves” (Dutton, Dukerich, & Harquail, 1994:242). It is predictive of
several organizational outcomes including commitment to the organization, OCB and reduced
turnover (Riketta, 2005).
Individuals vary in the degree to which they identify with their organizations. Consistent
with the interactionist perspective presented in the discussion of the moderating role of prosocial
Page 63 of 96

motivation, individuals high in OI will be more sensitive to social cues about potential
consequences of a CVP to the employing organization. The main effect of strategic alignment of
a CVP on perceived impact on the organization operates through the mechanism of making more
salient shared organizational goals and values (Haslam et al., 2000). The effects of strategic
alignment as a social cue on perceived impact on the organization will therefore be strengthened
for those who identify more strongly with the organization because these individuals will pay
greater attention the impact of the program on the company.
Hypothesis 13: Identification with the employer will moderate the effects of CVP
strategic alignment on perceived impact on the employer such that the effect will be
stronger when identification with the employer is high
Identification with community stakeholders
While identification research in the management field has focused on identification with
a past, current or future employer, there is a growing acknowledgment that identification with
other groups is an important driver of employee motivation and organizational behavior (cf.
Grant, 2007; Johnson & Chang, 2010). In some cases volunteers donate their time and energies
to strangers, such as in the case of blood donation or volunteering at soup kitchens. In other
cases, people volunteer to benefit groups and causes in which they have a personal interest.
Choice of community beneficiary for CVPs is rarely arbitrary. Typically, beneficiaries are either
selected by the organizational leaders or by the employees. Beneficiaries selected by
organizational leaders are typically of strategic importance to the organization or the result of
collective decision making or both (Bansal, 2003; Dutton & Ashford, 1993; Grant & Ashford,
2008; Morrison & Phelps, 1999; Muller, Pfarrer, & Little, 2013; Soderstrom, 2010). Because

Page 64 of 96

selection of beneficiaries of CVPs is not random, we can assume some level of affiliation
between employers and community beneficiaries, which suggests some level of identification
with community stakeholders.
The degree to which corporate volunteering is motivated by the desire to help one’s own
community or preferred others (in contrast to just helping in general) has received little attention
in the literature. To what degree does the motivation to help other women drive the engagement
of female employees in a particular CVP? To what degree are minorities more likely to volunteer
on projects that help their particular minority group? I refer to this desire to help one’s own
group or to help those more similar to us as the identification motive. It is an example of
behavior that combines at once both altruistic motives and in-group self-interest. The
identification motive is altruistic in that its focus is helping others; but it is self-interested in that
its motive is helping others like me or solving issues that are important to me. The identification
motive suggests that employees are partly motivated to engage in CVPs because they identify
with community stakeholders.
When community stakeholders are preselected, identification with community
stakeholders will likely have a significant influence on employee engagement. Because CVPs
typically focus on community groups rather individuals, the employee’s perception of the
community stakeholder will be based on a depersonalized social identity associated with the
community group rather than on the identities of individual members. Identification with
community stakeholders will then be a function of the proximity between the employee’s
personal identity and the perceived social identity of the community beneficiary group.
Identification with community stakeholders will be highest when there is high overlap between
the employee’s personal identity and the perceived social identity of the community beneficiary
Page 65 of 96

group. In this case the employee will perceive greater similarity with the community beneficiary
group and may be more cognizant of shared goals, values and experiences. Identification with
community stakeholders will be highest when the employee considers herself a prototypical
member of the community beneficiary group. Example of this would be when female engineers
volunteer in schools to encourage young girls to choose careers in the sciences. The female
engineers will likely see younger versions of themselves in the students with whom they interact.
Identification with community stakeholders may also arise as result of work roles. For
example, we may expect an employee working in public relations to feel a greater sense of
responsibility for contributing to the local community than an employee working in the
accounting department who has little exposure to community stakeholders. The greater
identification of the public relations employee with community stakeholders may be partly
because of increased contact (Pettigrew, 1998), but it is also partly because of the role-taking
responsibilities required of the public relations employee’s job that require her to think about
issues from the perspective of community stakeholders (Treviño, 1986). In this case,
identification arises not from overlap of identities but from the relational responsibilities and
practices of the work role. Work related role identities may also emerge that suggest a moral
obligation to certain external stakeholders – for example, in the case of teachers who may feel a
moral obligation for the social well-being of young people (Sluss & Ashforth, 2007).
Identification with community stakeholders, whether arising from overlap of social
identities or from role identities, will cause CVP characteristics of beneficiary contact and
humanitarianism to have a stronger effect on perceived impact on the beneficiary. The rationale
and underlying mechanisms for these relationships is again based on the interactionist
perspective presented in the discussion of the moderating role of prosocial motivation. That is,
Page 66 of 96

identification with community stakeholders will increase attention to social information about
consequences for community stakeholders and will therefore increase the effect of such
information on perceptions of impact on the community. This argument is identical to that
offered by T. M. Jones (1991) in arguing that the perceived moral intensity of ethical issues will
be greater for those who have greater proximity with those affected. Identification with a
community stakeholder would increase feelings of empathy towards the beneficiary which will
heighten awareness of interpersonal consequences (Schwartz, 1974) of prosocial behavior
towards that group. As a result, when identification with community stakeholders is high,
individuals will be more attentive to social cues, or CVP characteristics, that are related with that
beneficiary and will be more attentive to how those characteristics affect the community
stakeholder.
Hypothesis 14: Employee identification with community stakeholders will moderate the
effects of (a) humanitarianism and (b) beneficiary contact on perceived impact on the
community such that the effect will be stronger when identification with community
stakeholders is high
When employees identify more with a community stakeholder, beneficiary contact will
also have greater significance and meaning for the employee personally because it will signal the
opportunity for a relationship that is more likely to provide opportunities for mutual expression
of cognitions, emotions and identities. As a result beneficiary contact will have a stronger effect
on perceived impact on the employee.

Page 67 of 96

Hypothesis 15: Employee identification with community stakeholders will moderate the
effects of beneficiary contact on perceived impact on the employee such that the effect
will be stronger when identification with community stakeholders is high
Individual differences moderating the effects of perceived impacts on engagement
Prosocial motivation
Empathy and awareness of consequences for others are insufficient to predict prosocial
behavior. Ascription of personal responsibility and moral identity are required to translate
cognitive awareness of need into helpful action. The construct of prosocial motivation was
selected because it captures all three of these characteristics. As a result, I expect prosocial
motivation to explain individual differences in the effects of perceived impacts on the
community and employer, which are altruistic cognitions, on engagement. Assuming that two
individuals differing in prosocial motivation arrive at similar perceptions of the impact of a CVP
on others, the individual higher in prosocial motivation should be more likely to choose to
exercise personal agency and possibly to incur personal cost in order to make good on perceived
positive impacts. This is because the individual higher in prosocial motivation is more likely to
feel personal responsibility for achieving the perceived impacts. Additionally, to the degree that
personal costs are incurred in volunteering, the individual higher in prosocial motivation is more
likely to see the benefits of prosocial behavior, which may include maintaining a self-image as a
prosocial person, as justifying the costs. This latter argument is consistent with Grant’s finding
that prosocial motivation, which is driven by a desire to realize positive benefits for others, can
be a substitute for or complement to intrinsic motivation when the task itself is not enjoyable.

Page 68 of 96

From a less rational perspective, the business ethics literature suggests that moral
behavior may be more likely to be intuitively triggered by salient identities than through
conscious moral reasoning (Treviño, Weaver, & Reynolds, 2006). While the relatively low
urgency of volunteering decisions might suggest a greater role rational decision-making, the
volunteering literature also confirms the notion that volunteering is not typically based on
extensive moral reasoning (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Piliavin et al., 2002; Wilson, 2000). As a
result, prosocial motivation should moderate the effects of perceived impacts on the community
and employer on engagement.
Hypothesis 16: Prosocial motivation of the employee will moderate the effects of
perceived impact on (a) the community and (b) the employer on engagement such that,
for employees high in prosocial motivation, perceived impacts on the community and
employer will have a stronger effect on employee engagement
Identification with community stakeholders and the employer
The previous hypotheses focused on prosocial motivation, which captures employees’
aspirations to have a positive impact on others based on altruistic motives. These altruistic
motives are assumed to act independently of the specific identity of the parties being helped.
However, pure altruism may not be the only salient individual difference moderating employee
engagement in helping others. For example, social pressure from peers and significant others has
been shown to play a significant role in predicting initial volunteering (Grube & Piliavin, 2000;
Piliavin et al., 2002). This suggests that the identity of those with whom we volunteer and those
for whom we volunteer matters. If we identify strongly with either group, then we will
experience greater social pressure to volunteer. Personality and identity factors that capture

Page 69 of 96

altruism are therefore insufficient to explain volunteering behavior. Consideration of differences
in identification allows us to capture variance in relational motives. In this section, following the
deontic approach to moral behavior, I focus on how identification with the employer or a
community stakeholder of a CVP will moderate engagement by moderating feelings of duty or
felt responsibility that are triggered by perceived impacts on the community and employer. In
this regard, the degree of identification of employees with community stakeholders and the
employer is likely to be an important boundary condition for engagement.
The idea that identification with others affects the likelihood of prosocial behavior is
supported by studies that show that psychological distance (the conceptual opposite of
identification) is negatively related to prosocial behavior (Henderson, Huang, & Chang, 2012;
Levine & Crowther, 2008; Spence, Poortinga, & Pidgeon, 2012). Thus, identification with others
has motivational properties that explain helping behavior above and beyond individual altruism.
Identification with others is predictive of the degree to which we are likely to internalize and
integrate the goals of others as our own. When we identify with others, we are more likely to feel
a sense of self-determined moral obligation towards them and more likely to voluntarily embrace
the goals of others, resulting in self-determined motivation to help. As a result, identification
with community stakeholders or the employer will strengthen the effects of perceived impacts on
each respective stakeholder on engagement.
Hypothesis 17: Identification with community stakeholders will moderate the effects of
perceived impact on the community on engagement such that, when identification with
community stakeholders is high, the effects of perceived impacts on the community will be
stronger

Page 70 of 96

Hypothesis 18: Identification with the employer will moderate the effects of perceived
impact on the employer on engagement such that when identification with the employer is
high the effects of perceived impacts on the employer will be stronger
OUTCOMES OF EMPLOYEE ENGAGEMENT IN CVP
Volunteering (outside of work) has been linked to individual and organizational
outcomes including increased OCB, reduced antisocial behavior, and improved physical and
mental health (Gillath et al., 2005; Wilson, 2000). Within the engagement literature, work
engagement is positively associated with task performance, OCB, job satisfaction, organizational
commitment and negatively related to intentions to quit (Christian, Garza, & Slaughter, 2011;
Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006). Work engagement is also negatively related to job burnout, which
is reflected in symptoms of exhaustion, cynicism, and inefficacy at work (Maslach et al., 2001).
These prior findings suggest that employee engagement in CVP may be related to some
individual and organizational outcomes of interest. In this section, I hypothesize effects of
employee engagement in CVPs on work satisfaction, employee well-being, and turnover
intentions. The purposes of these hypotheses is to begin to explore (i) the degree to which
employee engagement in CVP has consequences similar volunteering outside of work and
employee engagement in work (Kahn, 1990; Rich et al., 2010; Saks, 2006) and (ii) the degree to
which engagement in CVPs spills over in to domains of personal well-being, job attitudes and
attitudes towards the organization.
The effects of engagement in CVPs on the outcomes of job satisfaction, employee wellbeing and turnover intentions will depend less on how many hours of volunteering the employee
engages in (physical engagement) or how much attention the employee commits to volunteering

Page 71 of 96

(cognitive engagement) than it will on the feelings that the employee takes away from
volunteering (emotional engagement). I argue that any correlation between physical and
cognitive engagement and these outcomes may arise because employees who enjoy volunteering
more may volunteer more and with greater effort. The underlying mechanism I propose for how
engagement in CVPs affects employee well-being, job satisfaction and turnover intentions is
based on spillover of positive affect from emotional engagement in volunteering to other
domains (job, life, organization).
Work satisfaction
Job satisfaction refers to “a pleasurable or positive emotional state resulting from the
appraisal of one's job or job experiences” (E. Locke, 1976:1300). Job satisfaction has several
distinct facets including satisfaction with work, pay, supervision, coworkers, and promotion
opportunities (Igalens & Roussel, 1999; Judge & Kammeyer-Mueller, 2012). Here I present
hypotheses about the relationship of engagement to work satisfaction. I choose to focus on work
satisfaction because viewing CVPs as a form of extra-role work suggests that it may affect work
satisfaction whereas there is not as obvious a logical link between engagement in CVP and the
other facets of job satisfaction. There is some debate as to whether job satisfaction is an
emotional state or a cognitive evaluation (Lazarus, 1982; H. M. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).
Here I focus on work satisfaction as an evaluative judgment.
There are two ways in which employee engagement in CVP might result in increased
work satisfaction of volunteers. The first possibility is based on the enrichment hypothesis
(Marks, 1977). Roles, such as volunteering roles, can be depleting if we do not find them
intrinsically motivating. The more roles we have that are associated with a sense of negative duty

Page 72 of 96

or in which we feel reduced autonomy, the more we feel depleted. The key premise of the
enrichment hypothesis is that multiple life roles can be energy enriching rather than depleting if
these roles energize us. As Rothbard (2001:658) simply puts it: “people tend to find energy for
things they like doing”. Rothbard (2001) found evidence of the both the enrichment and
depletion hypothesis in her study of engagement in work and home domains. She found that
negative or positive affect associated with a role was a good indicator of whether that role would
be enriching or depleting: positive affect was associated with enrichment while negative affect
was associated with depletion. Rothbard also found evidence that enrichment at work spilled
over into the home domain and vice versa.
Positive affect associated with self-determined engagement in CVP can spillover into
attitudes about one’s job as a subconscious transfer of emotion from one domain into another.
Affective events theory (H. M. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) suggests that job attitudes are
malleable and that, in addition to being shaped by the work environment and by individual
dispositions, they are shaped by discrete affective episodes associated with events at work. While
past research and definitions of the job satisfaction construct have focused on job satisfaction as
an outcome of experiences associated with the job, it is reasonable to consider that experiences
proximal to the job also influence job satisfaction. To the degree that engagement in CVP
provides employees with emotionally satisfying episodes and relationships, engagement in CVP
should be positively related to work satisfaction.
Spillover from corporate volunteering to the job may also occur as part of a more rational
sensemaking process that results in feelings of increased task significance. Task significance
refers to the perception that one’s work is important for others. In work design research, task
significance has been shown to be an antecedent of job satisfaction (Grant, 2012; Hackman &
Page 73 of 96

Lawler, 1971; Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Humphrey et al., 2007; Morgeson & Humphrey,
2006) and recent studies suggest that work engagement mediates this relationship (Shantz, Alfes,
Truss, & Soane, 2013). To the degree that engagement in CVP makes employees feel that their
work is more significant, it should therefore have a positive effect on job satisfaction.
In some cases, corporate volunteering can provide employees with exposure to customers
or other stakeholders that the employee would not otherwise meet who benefit from their work.
For example, consider an employee working in the supply chain department of a food
manufacturer that runs a community program to educate children in inner city neighborhoods
about nutrition. The employee may not view her job as particularly important outside of her
contribution to achieving intra-organizational work goals. If the employee participates in the
volunteering program she may learn about the difficulty for low income families in inner city
neighborhoods of accessing nutritious food. She may, as a result, see her role in increasing and
improving the distribution of her (healthy) products as a task that has social importance beyond
that associated with the business expectations of her supervisor and co-workers. As a result, she
may feel that her job has greater significance. This suggests that corporate volunteering may
provide opportunities for employees to obtain feedback from external stakeholders about the
broader significance of their work. Positive affect arising from increased task significance will be
a result of positive feedback from volunteering that stimulates more positive feelings about one’s
work.
Hypothesis 19: Emotional engagement in CVP will be positively associated with work
satisfaction

Page 74 of 96

Employee well-being
Management research has focused on the consequences of job satisfaction probably
because, of the different types of life satisfaction, job satisfaction is the one most within the
control of organizations. However, employee well-being, which measures individual’s more
general satisfaction with their lives, has been shown to be a better predictor of job performance
than job satisfaction (Wright & Bonett, 2007; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000) and has been shown
to moderate the relationship between job satisfaction and turnover intentions (Wright,
Cropanzano, & Bonett, 2007).
The lay definition of employee well-being is simply “happiness” (Wright et al., 2007).
More specifically, the construct, also referred to in the literature as subjective well-being or
psychological well-being, refers to “people's emotional responses, domain satisfactions, and
global judgments of life satisfaction” (Diener, Suh, Lucas, & Smith, 1999:277). To the degree
that activities such as corporate volunteering are able to influence employee satisfaction beyond
just the job, they may positively impact employee well-being and, as a result, have stronger
effects on satisfaction-related outcomes. Positive affect from volunteering (emotional
engagement) should contribute to the employee’s more general affective well-being. Here I
provide rationales for why it makes sense that positive affect from volunteering should spillover
into the broader life domain by explaining how affect from volunteering can have lasting rather
than just fleeting effects.
Engagement in CVPs has the potential to have lasting positive impacts on employee’s
affective well-being and life satisfaction in two ways. First, engagement in CVPs can result in
discrete emotionally rewarding events (H. M. Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996) that increase positive

Page 75 of 96

affect. Secondly, engagement in CVPs can have sustained effects on employee’s affective wellbeing by creating or strengthening the ongoing relationships with members of the community or
with co-workers, meeting the employee’s fundamental needs for relatedness – need satisfaction
being one of the sources of employee well-being (Diener et al., 1999).
Hypothesis 20: Emotional engagement in CVP will be positively associated with
employee well-being
Turnover intentions
Turnover intentions refer to the intentions of the employee to quit her job in the near
future. Turnover has significant adverse consequences for employers who must deal with the
psychological and material costs of regretted losses of employees. Turnover also has adverse
consequences for employees, who must find new jobs and adjust to a new environment (Holtom,
Mitchell, Lee, & Eberly, 2008). While job satisfaction captures an employee’s feelings about her
job and employee well-being captures an employee’s feelings about life in general, turnover
intentions capture more holistically an employee’s feelings and cognitions about her relationship
with her employer. Turnover intentions are thought to be a consequence of employee attitudes
including job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and well-being as well as employee
perceptions of organizational justice, fit, interpersonal relationships and job alternatives (Holtom
et al., 2008).
If employee engagement in CVP is positively related to work satisfaction and employee
well-being as I have suggested above, then employee engagement in CVP should be negatively
related to turnover intentions. because of turnover intentions are negatively related to job
satisfaction and employee well-being. Additionally, to the degree that engagement in CVPs is
Page 76 of 96

promoted by CVP characteristics that reaffirm the shared goals of the organization (strategic
alignment) they may improve the employee’s sense of fit by affirming value congruence between
the employee and the organization, thus acting against intentions to quit. Engagement in CVPs
may also strengthen interpersonal relationships either internally amongst co-workers who
volunteer together, or extra-organizationally between employees and the local community. Any
valued relationships that the employee develops that are geographically bound and associated
with the employer should increase the psychological costs to the employee of turnover.
Hypothesis 21: Emotional engagement in CVP will be negatively associated with
turnover intentions

Page 77 of 96

Figure 1: Conceptual framework

Page 78 of 96

APPENDIX: MEASURES
Engagement (Rich et al., 2010)

Page 79 of 96

Identification with the organization (Mael & Tetrick, 1992)

Prosocial motivation (Grant & Sumanth, 2009)

Page 80 of 96

Individual growth need strength (Hackman & Lawler, 1971)

Page 81 of 96

Work satisfaction (D. Weiss, Dawis, & England, 1967)

Page 82 of 96

Employee wellbeing (Berkman, 1971)

Turnover intentions
Adams, Gary A & Beehr, Terry A. (1998). Turnover and retirement: A comparison of their
similarities and differences. Personnel Psychology, 51, 643-665. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1998.tb00255.x
1.

I am planning to leave my job for another in the near future.
2. I often think of quitting this job and finding another.
3. I would like to quit this job and find another in the near future.

Page 83 of 96

REFERENCES

Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., & Williams, C. A. (2007). Putting the S back in corporate social
responsibility : a multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of
Management Review, 32(3), 836–863.
Aguinis, H., & Glavas, A. (2012). What We Know and Don’t Know About Corporate Social
Responsibility: A Review and Research Agenda. Journal of Management, 38(4), 932–968.
doi:10.1177/0149206311436079
Ambrose, M. L., & Kulik, C. T. (1999). Old Friends, New Faces: Motivation Research in the
1990s. Journal of Management, 25(3), 231–292. doi:10.1177/014920639902500302
Aquino, K., & Reed, A. (2002). The self-importance of moral identity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1423–1440. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.83.6.1423
Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2012). The ethical climate and context of organizations: A
comprehensive model. Organization Science, 23(6), 1767–1780.
Ashforth, B. E., & Gibbs, B. W. (1990). The Double-Edge of Organizational Legitimation.
Organization Science, 1(2), 177–194. doi:10.1287/orsc.1.2.177
Ashforth, B. E., Harrison, S. H., & Corley, K. G. (2008). Identification in Organizations : An
Examination of Four Fundamental Questions. Journal of Management, 34(3), 325–374.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. (1989). Social Identity Theory and the Organization. Academy of
Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
Atkins, R., Hart, D., & Donnelly, T. M. (2005). The Association of Childhood Personality Type
With Volunteering During Adolescence. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 51(2), 145–162.
doi:10.1353/mpq.2005.0008
Bansal, P. (2003). From Issues to Actions: The Importance of Individual Concerns and
Organizational Values in Responding to Natural Environmental Issues. Organization
Science, 14(5), 510–527. doi:10.1287/orsc.14.5.510.16765
Bansal, P., & Roth, K. (2000). Why companies go green: a model of ecological responsiveness.
Academy of management Journal, 43(4), 717–736.
Barnett, M. L. (2007). Stakeholder Influence Capacity and the Variability of Financial Returns
To Corporate Social Responsibility. Academy of Management Review, 32(3), 794–816.
doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.25275520

Page 84 of 96

Batson, C. D., & Powell, A. A. (2003). Altruism and Prosocial Behavior. In T. Millon, M. J.
Lerner, & I. B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology (Volume 5:, Vol. 5). John Wiley &
Sons, Inc.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological bulletin, 117(3), 497–529.
Benjamin, E. (2001). A look inside corporate employee volunteer programs. Journal of
Volunteer Administration, XXIV(3), 16–32.
Berkman, P. L. (1971). Life stress and psychological well-being: a replication of Langner’s
analysis in the Midtown Manhattan Study. Journal of health and social behavior, 12(1), 35–
45.
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the literature.
Psychological Bulletin, 88(1).
Boccalandro, B. (2009). Mapping Success in Employee Volunteering.
Bolton, S. C., Kim, R. C., & O’Gorman, K. D. (2011). Corporate Social Responsibility as a
Dynamic Internal Organizational Process: A Case Study. Journal of Business Ethics,
101(1), 61–74. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0709-5
Booth, J., Park, K., & Glomb, T. (2009). Employer supported volunteering benefits: Gift
exchange among employers, employees, and volunteer organizations. Human Resource
Management Journal, 48(2), 227–249. doi:10.1002/hrm
Brammer, S., & Millington, A. (2003). The Effect of Stakeholder Preferences , Organizational
Structure and Industry Type on Corporate Community Involvement. Journal of Business
Ethics, 45, 213–226.
Brief, A., & Motowidlo, S. J. (1986). Prosocial organizational behaviors. Academy of
management Review, 11(4), 710–725.
Carroll, A. B., & Buchholtz, A. (2011). Business and Society: Ethics, Sustainability, and
Stakeholder Management (8th ed.). South-Western Cengage Learning.
Chen, X., Au, W., & Komorita, S. (1996). Sequential choice in a step-level public goods
dilemma: The effects of criticality and uncertainty. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 65(1), 37–47.
Christian, M. S., Garza, A. S., & Slaughter, J. E. (2011). Work Engagement: a Quantitative
Review and Test of Its Relations With Task and Contextual Performance. Personnel
Psychology, 64(1), 89–136. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2010.01203.x

Page 85 of 96

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, a a, Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998).
Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: a functional approach. Journal
of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1516–30.
Crilly, D., Schneider, S. C., & Zollo, M. (2008). Psychological Antecedents to Socially
Responsible Behavior. European Management Review, 5(3).
Cullen, J. B., Parboteeah, K. P., & Hoegl, M. (2004). Cross-National Differences in Managers’
Willingness to Justify Ethically Suspect Behaviors: A Test of Institutional Anomie Theory.
Academy of Management Journal, 47(3), 411. doi:10.2307/20159590
Cyert, R. M., & March, J. G. (1963). The behavioral theory of the firm. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The“ what” and“ why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and
the self-determination of behavior. Psychological inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Detert, J. R., Treviño, L. K., & Sweitzer, V. L. (2008). Moral disengagement in ethical decision
making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. The Journal of applied psychology, 93(2),
374–91. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.2.374
Diener, E., Suh, E., Lucas, R., & Smith, H. (1999). Subjective well-being: Three decades of
progress. Psychological bulletin.
Dutton, J. E., & Ashford, S. J. (1993). Selling Issues to Top Management. Academy of
Management Review, 18(3), 397. doi:10.2307/258903
Dutton, J. E., Dukerich, J. M., & Harquail, C. V. (1994). Organizational Images and Member
Identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 239. doi:10.2307/2393235
Ellen, P. S., Webb, D. J., & Mohr, L. A. (2006). Building Corporate Associations: Consumer
Attributions for Corporate Socially Responsible Programs. Journal of the Academy of
Marketing Science, 34(2), 147–157. doi:10.1177/0092070305284976
Erez, A., & Judge, T. A. (2001). Relationship of core self-evaluations to goal setting, motivation
and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(6), 1270–1279.
Etzioni, A. (1988). The moral dimension. New York: Basic Books.
Fried, Y., & Ferris, G. R. (1987). The Validity of the Job Characteristics Model: a Review and
Meta-Analysis. Personnel Psychology, 40(2), 287–322. doi:10.1111/j.17446570.1987.tb00605.x
Friedman, M. (1970). The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits. The New
York Times Magazine.

Page 86 of 96

Gillath, O., Shaver, P. R., Mikulincer, M., Nitzberg, R. E., Erez, A., & Van Ijzendoorn, M. H.
(2005). Attachment, caregiving, and volunteering: Placing volunteerism in an attachment‐
theoretical framework. Personal Relationships, 12, 425–446. doi:10.1111/j.14756811.2005.00124.x
Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., &
Godbey, J. N. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Workrelated antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 80(1), 160–172.
doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005
Grant, A. M. (2007). RELATIONAL JOB DESIGN AND THE MOTIVATION TO MAKE A
PROSOCIAL DIFFERENCE. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393–417.
Grant, A. M. (2008a). The significance of task significance: Job performance effects, relational
mechanisms, and boundary conditions. The Journal of applied psychology, 93(1), 108–24.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.108
Grant, A. M. (2008b). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational synergy in
predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. The Journal of applied psychology,
93(1), 48–58. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.93.1.48
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with Meaning: Beneficiary Contact, Prosocial Impact, and the
Performance Effects of Transformational Leadership. The Academy of Management
Journal, 55(2), 458–476. doi:10.5465/amj.2010.0588
Grant, A. M., & Ashford, S. J. (2008). The dynamics of proactivity at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 28, 3–34. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2008.04.002
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007). Impact
and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with beneficiaries on
persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 103(1), 53–
67. doi:10.1016/j.obhdp.2006.05.004
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. (2008). GIVING COMMITMENT : EMPLOYEE
SUPPORT PROGRAMS AND THE PROSOCIAL SENSEMAKING PROCESS. Academy
of Management Journal, 51(5), 898–918.
Grant, A. M., & Mayer, D. M. (2009). Good soldiers and good actors: prosocial and impression
management motives as interactive predictors of affiliative citizenship behaviors. The
Journal of applied psychology, 94(4), 900–12. doi:10.1037/a0013770
Grant, A. M., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Redesigning Work Design Theories: The Rise of
Relational and Proactive Perspectives. The Academy of Management Annals, 3(1), 317–375.
doi:10.1080/19416520903047327

Page 87 of 96

Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially
motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. The Journal of applied
psychology, 94(4), 927–44. doi:10.1037/a0014391
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role Identity, Organizational Experiences, and Volunteer
Performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108–1119.
doi:10.1177/01461672002611007
Hackman, J. R., & Lawler, E. E. (1971). EMPLOYEE REACTIONS TO JOB
CHARACTERISTICS. Journal of Applied Psychology, 55(3).
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a
theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 9(170).
Haidt, J. (2007). The new synthesis in moral psychology. Science, 316(5827), 998–1002.
doi:10.1126/science.1137651
Haslam, S. A., Powell, C., & Turner, J. C. (2000). Social Identity , Self-categorization, and Work
Motivation : Rethinking the Contribution of the Group to Positive and Sustainable
Organisational Outcomes. Applied Psychology, 49(3), 319–339.
Henderson, M. D., Huang, S., & Chang, C. A. (2012). When others cross psychological distance
to help: Highlighting prosocial actions toward outgroups encourages philanthropy. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 220–225. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2011.07.003
Henning, J. B., & Jones, D. A. (2013). Volunteer programs in the corporate world. In J. B.
Olson-Buchanan, L. L. K. Bryan, & L. F. Thompson (Eds.), Using IndustrialOrganizational Psychology for the Greater Good: Helping Those Who Help Others (pp.
110–147).
Hess, D., & Warren, D. E. (2008). The Meaning and Meaningfulness of Corporate Social
Initiatives. Business and Society Review, 113(2), 163–197. doi:10.1111/j.14678594.2008.00317.x
Higgins, E. T. (1989). Continuities and discontinuities in self-regulatory and self-evaluative
processes: a developmental theory relating self and affect. Journal of personality, 57(2),
407–44.
Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond Pleasure and Pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300.
Higgins, E. T., Roney, C. J. R., Crowe, E., & Hymes, C. (1994). Ideal Versus Ought
Predilections for Approach and Avoidance: Distinct Self-Regulatory Systems. Journal of
personality and social psychology, 66(2), 276–286.
Hogan, R. (1973). Moral conduct and moral character: a psychological perspective.
Psychological Bulletin, 79(4).
Page 88 of 96

Hogg, M. A., & Terry, D. I. (2000). Social Identity And Self- Categorization Processes In
Organizational Contexts. Academy of Management Review, 25(1), 121–140.
Holtom, B., Mitchell, T., Lee, T., & Eberly, M. (2008). Turnover and Retention Research: A
Glance at the Past, a Closer Review of the Present, and a Venture into the Future. Academy
of Management Annals, 2(791784088), 231–274. doi:10.1080/19416520802211552
Hosmer, L. T. (1994). Strategic planning as if ethics mattered. Strategic Management Journal,
15, 17–34.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social,
and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of
the work design literature. The Journal of applied psychology, 92(5), 1332–56.
doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1332
Igalens, J., & Roussel, P. (1999). A study of the relationships between compensation package ,
work motivation and job satisfaction. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20(February
1998), 1003–1025.
Jiang, R., & Bansal, P. (2003). Seeing the need for ISO 14001. Journal of Management Studies,
7(June).
Johns, G., Xie, J., & Fang, Y. (1992). Mediating and moderating effects in job design. Journal of
Management, 18(4).
Johnson, R. E., & Chang, C. D. (2010). COMMITMENT AND MOTIVATION AT WORK :
THE RELEVANCE OF EMPLOYEE IDENTITY AND REGULATORY FOCUS.
Academy of Management Review, 35(2), 226–245.
Jones, D. A. (2007). Associations between a Corporate Volunteerism Program and Employee
Outcomes: Evidence for Program Benefits and Insight into Volunteer Decisions (pp. 1–60).
Jones, D. A. (2010). Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational
identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a
volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83(4),
857–878. doi:10.1348/096317909X477495
Jones, T. M. (1991). Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent
model. Academy of Management Review, 16(2), 366–395.
Jones, T. M., Felps, W., & Bigley, G. A. (2007). Ethical theory and stakeholder- related
decisions: the role of stakeholder culture. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 137–155.
Judge, T. a, & Kammeyer-Mueller, J. D. (2012). Job attitudes. Annual review of psychology, 63,
341–67. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100511

Page 89 of 96

Kahn, W. A. (1990). PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONS OF PERSONAL ENGAGEMENT
AND DISENGAGEMENT AT WORK. Academy of Management Journal, 33(4), 692–725.
Kim, H.-R., Lee, M., Lee, H.-T., & Kim, N.-M. (2010). Corporate Social Responsibility and
Employee–Company Identification. Journal of Business Ethics, 95(4), 557–569.
doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0440-2
Latane, B., & Darley, J. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Lazarus, R. S. (1982). Thoughts on the relations between emotion and cognition. American
Psychologist, 37, 1019–1024.
Leotti, L. a, Iyengar, S. S., & Ochsner, K. N. (2010). Born to choose: the origins and value of the
need for control. Trends in cognitive sciences, 14(10), 457–63.
doi:10.1016/j.tics.2010.08.001
LePine, J. A., Erez, A., & Johnson, D. E. (2002). The nature and dimensionality of
organizational citizenship behavior: A critical review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 87(1), 52–65. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.87.1.52
Levine, M., & Crowther, S. (2008). The responsive bystander: how social group membership and
group size can encourage as well as inhibit bystander intervention. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 95(6), 1429–39. doi:10.1037/a0012634
Locke, E. (1976). The Nature and Causes of Job Satisfaction. In M. D. Dunnette (Ed.),
Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a Practically Useful Theory of Goal Setting and
Task Motivation. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. doi:10.1037//0003066X.57.9.705
Macey, W. H., & Schneider, B. (2008). The Meaning of Employee Engagement. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 1, 3–30.
Mael, F., & Tetrick, L. E. (1992). Identifying Organizational Identification. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52(4), 813–824. doi:10.1177/0013164492052004002
Maignan, I., Ferrell, O. C., & Hult, G. T. M. (1999). Corporate Citizenship: Cultural Antecedents
and Business Benefits. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 27(4), 455–469.
doi:10.1177/0092070399274005
Maignan, I., & Ralston, D. A. (2002). Corporate Social Responsibility in Europe and the U.S.:
Insights from Businesses’ Self-presentations. Journal of International Business Studies,
33(3), 497–514. doi:10.1057/palgrave.jibs.8491028

Page 90 of 96

Markóczy, L. (2007). Utilitarians Are Not Always Fair and the Fair Are Not Always Utilitarian:
Distinct Motives for Cooperation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1931–1955.
Marks, S. R. (1977). Multiple Roles and Role Strain: Some Notes on Human Energy, Time and
Commitment. American sociological review, 42(6), 921–936.
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W. B., & Leiter, M. P. (2001). Job Burnout. Annual review of
psychology, 52, 397–422.
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological Review, 50(4), 370–396.
Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2008). “Implicit” and “explicit” CSR: a conceptual framework for a
comparative understanding of corporate social responsibility. Academy of Management
Review, 33(2), 404–424.
May, D. R., Gilson, R. L., & Harter, L. M. (2004). The psychological conditions of
meaningfulness, safety and availability and the engagement of the human spirit at work.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 77(1), 11–37.
doi:10.1348/096317904322915892
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. American
Psychologist, 40(7), 812–825. doi:10.1037//0003-066X.40.7.812
McNeely, B., & Meglino, B. (1994). The role of dispositional and situational antecedents in
prosocial organizational behavior: An examination of the intended beneficiaries of prosocial
behavior. Journal of applied psychology, 79(6).
Measuring Employee Volunteer Programs : The Human Resources Model. (2005).
Meyer, J. P., & Allen, N. J. (1991). A three-component conceptualization of organizational
commitment. Human Resource Management Review, 1(1), 61–89. doi:10.1016/10534822(91)90011-Z
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design and the nature
of work. The Journal of applied psychology, 91(6), 1321–39. doi:10.1037/00219010.91.6.1321
Morrison, E. W. (1994). Role Definitions And Organizational Citizenship Behavior: The
Importance Of The Employee’s Perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 37(6),
1543–1567. doi:10.2307/256798
Morrison, E. W., & Phelps, C. C. (1999). TAKING CHARGE AT WORK : EXTRAROLE
EFFORTS TO INITIATE WORKPLACE CHANGE. Academy of Management Journal,
42(4), 403–420.

Page 91 of 96

Mowday, R. T., Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. (1979). The measurement of organizational
commitment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 14, 224–247.
Mudrack, P. E. (2007). Individual Personality Factors That Affect Normative Beliefs About the
Rightness of Corporate Social Responsibility. Business & Society, 46(1), 33–62.
doi:10.1177/0007650306290312
Muller, A., Pfarrer, M., & Little, L. (2013). A Theory of Collective Empathy in Corporate
Philanthropy Decisions. Academy of Management Review.
Muthuri, J. N., Matten, D., & Moon, J. (2009). Employee Volunteering and Social Capital:
Contributions to Corporate Social Responsibility. British Journal of Management, 20(1),
75–89. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8551.2007.00551.x
O’Reilly, C., & Chatman, J. (1986). Organizational Commitment and Psychological
Attachment : The Effects of Compliance , Identification , and Internalization on Prosocial
Behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71(3), 492–499.
Omoto, a M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: motivation, longevity
of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers. Journal of personality
and social psychology, 68(4), 671–86.
Organ, D. W. (1990). The motivational basis of organizational citizenship behavior. In L. L.
Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), (Vol. 12, pp. 43–72). Greenwhich, CT: JAI Press.
Pajo, K., & Lee, L. (2010). Corporate-Sponsored Volunteering: A Work Design Perspective.
Journal of Business Ethics, 99(3), 467–482. doi:10.1007/s10551-010-0665-0
Peloza, J., & Hassay, D. N. (2006). Intra-organizational Volunteerism: Good Soldiers, Good
Deeds and Good Politics. Journal of Business Ethics, 64(4), 357–379. doi:10.1007/s10551005-5496-z
Peloza, J., Hudson, S., & Hassay, D. N. (2008). The Marketing of Employee Volunteerism.
Journal of Business Ethics, 85(S2), 371–386. doi:10.1007/s10551-008-9734-z
Penner, L. A. (2002). Dispositional and Organizational Influences on Sustained Volunteerism:
An Interactionist Perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 447–467. doi:10.1111/15404560.00270
Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., Piliavin, J. A., & Schroeder, D. a. (2005). Prosocial behavior:
multilevel perspectives. Annual review of psychology, 56, 365–92.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070141
Penner, L. A., & Finkelstein, M. (1998). Dispositional and structural determinants of
volunteerism. Journal of personality and social …, 74(2), 525–537.

Page 92 of 96

Perlow, L., & Weeks, J. (2002). Who’s helping whom? Layers of culture and workplace
behavior. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23(4), 345–361. doi:10.1002/job.150
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology, 49, 65–85.
doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.65
Piliavin, J. A., Dovidio, J., Gaertner, S., & Clark III, R. (1981). Emergency intervention. New
York: Academic Press.
Piliavin, J. A., Grube, J. a., & Callero, P. L. (2002). Role as Resource for Action in Public
Service. Journal of Social Issues, 58(3), 469–485. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.t01-1-00027
Ramus, C. A., & Steger, U. (2000). THE ROLES OF SUPERVISORY SUPPORT BEHAVIORS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY IN EMPLOYEE “ ECOINITIATIVES ” AT
LEADING-EDGE EUROPEAN COMPANIES. Academy of Management Journal, 43(4).
Reisenzein, R. (1986). A structural equation analysis of Weiner’s attribution--affect model of
helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(6), 1123–1133.
doi:10.1037//0022-3514.50.6.1123
Rich, B. L., Lepine, J. A., & Crawford, E. R. (2010). JOB ENGAGEMENT : ANTECEDENTS
AND EFFECTS ON JOB PERFORMANCE. Academy of Management Journal, 53(3),
617–635.
Riketta, M. (2005). Organizational identification: A meta-analysis. Journal of Vocational
Behavior, 66(2), 358–384. doi:10.1016/j.jvb.2004.05.005
Rodell, J. B. (2013). Finding meaning through volunteering: Why do employees volunteer and
what does it mean for their jobs? Academy of Management Journal.
Rosso, B. D., Dekas, K. H., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2010). On the meaning of work: A theoretical
integration and review. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 91–127.
doi:10.1016/j.riob.2010.09.001
Rothbard, N. P. (2001). Enriching or Depleting ? The Dynamics of Engagement in Work and
Family Roles. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46, 655–684.
Rousseau, D. M. (1998). Why workers still identify with organizations. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 19(December 1997), 217–233.
Rupp, D. E., Ganapathi, J., Aguilera, R. V., & Williams, C. a. (2006). Employee reactions to
corporate social responsibility: an organizational justice framework. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 27(4), 537–543. doi:10.1002/job.380

Page 93 of 96

Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Paddock, E. L., Kim, T.-Y., & Nadisic, T. (2013). Corporate Social
Responsibility and Employee Engagement: The Moderating Role of Self- Autonomy and
Individualism. In Academy of Management Annual Meeting (pp. 1–40).
Rupp, D. E., Shao, R., Thornton, M., & Skarlicki, D. P. (2013). Applicants’ and Employees’
Reactions to Corporate Social Responsibility: The Moderating Effects of First-Party Justice
Perceptions and Moral Identity. Personnel Psychology.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. The American psychologist, 55(1), 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: does
psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of personality, 74(6), 1557–
85. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2006.00420.x
Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: an organizational view of
social and neurobiological aspects of self-regulation in behavior and development.
Development and psychopathology, 9(4), 701–28.
Saks, A. M. (2006). Antecedents and consequences of employee engagement. Journal of
Managerial Psychology, 21(7), 600–619. doi:10.1108/02683940610690169
Salancik, G. R., & Pfeffer, J. (1978). A social information processing approach to job attitudes
and task design. Administrative science quarterly, 23(2), 224–53.
Schmidt, G., & Weiner, B. (1988). An Attribution-Affect-Action Theory of Behavior:
Replications of Judgments of Help-Giving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14,
610–621. doi:10.1177/0146167288143021
Schwartz, S. H. (1974). Awareness of interpersonal consequences, responsibility denial, and
volunteering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30(1), 57–63.
Schwartz, S. H., & Clausen, G. (1970). Responsibility, norms, and helping in an emergency.
Journal of Personality and Social …, 16(2), 299–310.
Shantz, A., Alfes, K., Truss, C., & Soane, E. (2013). The role of employee engagement in the
relationship between job design and task performance, citizenship and deviant behaviours.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 24(13), 2608–2627.
doi:10.1080/09585192.2012.744334
Shantz, A., Saksida, T., & Alfes, K. (2013). Dedicating Time to Volunteering: Values,
Engagement, and Commitment to Beneficiaries. Applied Psychology.
doi:10.1111/apps.12010

Page 94 of 96

Sluss, D. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2007). RELATIONAL IDENTITY AND IDENTIFICATION :
DEFINING OURSELVES THROUGH WORK RELATIONSHIPS. Academy of
Management Review, 32(1), 9–32.
Soderstrom, S. B. (2010). Processes of Agenda Change in Organizations.
Sonenshein, S. (2007). the Role of Construction, Intuition, and Justification in Responding To
Ethical Issues At Work: the Sensemaking-Intuition Model. Academy of Management
Review, 32(4), 1022–1040. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585677
Spector, P. E. (1986). Perceived Control by Employees: A Meta-Analysis of Studies Concerning
Autonomy and Participation at Work. Human Relations, 39(11), 1005–1016.
doi:10.1177/001872678603901104
Spence, A., Poortinga, W., & Pidgeon, N. (2012). The psychological distance of climate change.
Risk analysis, 32(6), 957–72. doi:10.1111/j.1539-6924.2011.01695.x
Steel, P., & Konig, C. J. (2006). Integrating theories of motivation. Academy of Management
Review, 31(4), 889–913.
The Benefits of Employee Volunteer Programs. (2009).
The Corporate Volunteer Program as a Strategic Resource: The Link Grows Stronger. (1999)
(Vol. 1999).
Treviño, L. K. (1986). Ethical Decision Making in Organizations: A Person-Situation
Interactionist Model. Academy of Management Review, 11(3), 601–617.
Treviño, L. K., Weaver, G. R., & Reynolds, S. J. (2006). Behavioral Ethics in Organizations: A
Review. Journal of Management, 32(6), 951–990. doi:10.1177/0149206306294258
Vlachos, P. a., Tsamakos, A., Vrechopoulos, A. P., & Avramidis, P. K. (2008). Corporate social
responsibility: attributions, loyalty, and the mediating role of trust. Journal of the Academy
of Marketing Science, 37(2), 170–180. doi:10.1007/s11747-008-0117-x
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Weiner, B. (1980). A cognitive (attribution)-emotion-action model of motivated behavior: An
analysis of judgments of help-giving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39(2),
186–200.
Weiss, D., Dawis, R., & England, G. (1967). Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction
Questionnaire. Minnesota studies in ….

Page 95 of 96

Weiss, H. M., & Cropanzano, R. (1996). Affective Events Theory: A theoretical discussion of
the structure, causes, and consequences of affective experiences at work. Research in
Organizational Behavior, 18, 1–74.
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual review of sociology, 26(2000), 215–240.
Wilson, J., & Musick, M. (1997). Work and volunteering: The long arm of the job. Social
Forces, 76(1), 251–272.
Wood, D. J. (1991). Corporate Social Performance Revisited. Academy of Management Review,
16(4), 691–718.
Wood, D. J. (2010). Measuring Corporate Social Performance: A Review. International Journal
of Management Reviews, 12(1), 50–84. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2370.2009.00274.x
Wright, T. A., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). Job Satisfaction and Psychological Well-Being as
Nonadditive Predictors of Workplace Turnover. Journal of Management, 33(2), 141–160.
doi:10.1177/0149206306297582
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). Psychological well-being and job satisfaction as
predictors of job performance. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 84–94.
doi:10.1037//1076-8998.5.1.84
Wright, T. A., Cropanzano, R., & Bonett, D. G. (2007). The moderating role of employee
positive well being on the relation between job satisfaction and job performance. Journal of
occupational health psychology, 12(2), 93–104. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.12.2.93
Wrzesniewski, A., Dutton, J. E., & Debebe, G. (2003). Interpersonal sensemaking and the
meaning of work. Research in organizational behavior, 25, 93–136.

Page 96 of 96



---

Source Exif Data:

File Type                       : PDF
File Type Extension             : pdf
MIME Type                       : application/pdf
PDF Version                     : 1.5
Linearized                      : No
Page Count                      : 96
Language                        : en-US
Tagged PDF                      : Yes
Author                          : Akwasi Opoku-Dakwa
Creator                         : Microsoft® Word 2010
Create Date                     : 2013:11:04 18:15:40-05:00
Modify Date                     : 2013:11:04 18:15:40-05:00
Producer                        : Microsoft® Word 2010

EXIF Metadata provided by EXIF.tools