Volunteer engagement and intention to quit from a self-determination theory perspective

Transcription

1 bs_bs_banner Journal of Applied Social Psychology 2013, 43, pp Volunteer engagement and intention to quit from a self-determination theory perspective Simona Haivas 1, Joeri Hofmans 2, Roland Pepermans 2 1 Alexandru I. Cuza University, Iaşi, România 2 Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Simona Haivas, Department of Psychology, Alexandru I. Cuza University, Str. Toma Cozma 3, , Iaşi, România. simona_haivas@yahoo.com doi: /jasp Abstract Drawing on self-determination theory, the current study investigates the mediation process of satisfaction with the 3 basic needs (i.e., autonomy, competence, relatedness) between autonomous motivation and volunteers turnover intention and work engagement. A study of 349 Romanian volunteers reveals an interesting dichotomy. For work engagement, the positive effect of autonomy and competence needs satisfaction appears to have been partially mediated by autonomous motivation. Turnover intention, however, was directly influenced by the degree of autonomy and competence needs satisfaction. Moreover, satisfaction of the relatedness need had no effect on the 2 outcome variables when controlling for satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs. Implications and possible explanations are suggested. Volunteers make up a rather dominant part of human resources in the nonprofit sector. Hence, they are of key importance to a country s economic and social development. The increasing need for volunteers together with a relapse in the number of potential volunteers forces organizations to pay more attention to attracting and retaining volunteers (Bussell & Forbes, 2002). In this respect, volunteer turnover intention, which is strongly related to actual turnover (Millette & Gagné, 2008; Richer, Blanchard, & Vallerand, 2002; Steel & Ovalle, 1984), and work engagement, which relates to performance (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005), are of utmost importance for organizations in the nonprofit sector. At the same time, optimizing organizational procedures to minimize turnover intention and to maximize engagement implies a thorough understanding of the motivational mechanisms underlying volunteering, which is still lacking today. It is the aim of the present study to contribute to such an understanding by investigating the role of the motivational mechanisms underlying volunteer turnover intention and work engagement. In general, volunteering is part of a cluster of helping activities. However, unlike bystander interventions, volunteering is typically proactive and implies more time, as well as a specific decision-making process (Omoto & Snyder, 1995). Compared to behaviors conventionally described as caring, volunteering does not imply any a priori obligation of the care relationship, and is considered being more formalized and public (Omoto & Snyder, 1990). In the present paper, we refer to volunteering as a freely chosen and deliberate helping activity that extends over time, one engages in without expecting financial rewards nor any other compensation, often organized through formal organizations, and performed on behalf of causes or individuals who desire assistance (Snyder & Omoto, 2008). A number of studies have been undertaken to unravel why people volunteer. In particular, such studies have found that people volunteer because of different reasons, including the satisfaction of psychological and social goals (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991), because a family member is benefiting from the volunteer organization (Smith, 1994), because of a social-adjustive motive (Okun & Eisenberg, 1992), because their parents volunteer (Rosenthal, Feiring, & Lewis, 1998), because they want to be recognized (Schondel & Boehm, 2000), and so forth. In an attempt to provide more structure to this issue, Clary et al. (1998) suggested a descriptive functional approach, identifying six psychological functions that may be served by volunteering: (a) developing and enhancing one s career; (b) enhancing and enriching personal development; (c) conforming to the norms of, or establishing norms for, significant others; (d) escaping from negative feelings; (e) learning new skills and practicing underutilized abilities; and (f) expressing values related to altruistic beliefs.although this taxonomy covers a wide range of volunteer motives, it only refers to extrinsically motivated volunteering and fails to

2 1870 Volunteer engagement and intention to quit consider intrinsic motives; that is, performing volunteering for the satisfaction and pleasure of the activity itself. Hence, a theory-driven account that considers both extrinsic and intrinsic motivational mechanisms for volunteers remains rare (e.g., Bidee et al., 2013; Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, 2012). The current study aims to address this limitation by framing the process of volunteers motivation within selfdetermination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2002). Self-determination theory At the core of SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) lies the assumption that all individuals have innate tendencies to develop toward an elaborated and more unified sense of self. In essence, people strive for activities where they feel autonomously motivated. This refers to having a personal choice and self-control of one s actions (Deci & Ryan, 1985). SDT argues that people try to satisfy three basic psychological needs; that is, the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The need for autonomy is defined as a person s desire to experience ownership of his or her behavior and to act with a sense of volition (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The need for competence concerns the need of experiencing that one is able to successfully achieve desired outcomes, meet performance standards, and manage different challenges (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). The need for relatedness refers to connecting and caring for others, and to feel cared for by them (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), which is related to a psychological sense of being with others in secure communion or unity (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). According to SDT, these three needs are complementary for optimal functioning, and their satisfaction is fueled by the social context (Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to SDT, the concept of motivation is directly related to basic need satisfaction. In particular, humans actively pursue fulfillment of their basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and the degree of satisfaction of these needs supports different forms of motivated or regulated behavior in a variety of contexts and situations (Hagger, Chatzisarantis, & Harris, 2006). Concerning motivation, SDT makes a central distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002). Autonomous motivation consists of different forms of how people feel regulated or have identified with an activity s value and ideally have integrated the activity into their sense of self. The first form, intrinsic motivation, represents an optimal state of engaging in an activity out of interest, with full pleasure, and obtaining inherent satisfaction from it (e.g., when helping in itself gives joy). As such, intrinsic motivation is the prototype of self-determined or autonomous behavior. Alternatively, one can feel extrinsically motivated, which is hypothesized to consist of different regulatory degrees. Integrated regulation is considered the most autonomous form of extrinsically motivated behavior. It appears when the volunteering behavior is in line with personally endorsed values, goals, and needs that are already part of the self; for example, in individuals who volunteer because it matches with their life goals. Identified regulation is a less self-determined form of extrinsic motivation, for it involves a conscious valuing of a behavioral goal or regulation and an acceptance of the behavior as personally important; for example, a person who volunteers because of an important cause to which one can adhere. The prevalence of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regulation is often considered an indicator of autonomous motivation. Controlled motivation, in turn, consists of both external regulation, which is the least autonomous form of extrinsic motivation and includes being driven by external rewards or to avoid punishment (e.g., a youngster who volunteers to meet school requirements), and introjected regulation, which refers to an external regulation that has only been slightly internalized, but not truly accepted as one s own (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005). Introjectionbased behaviors are performed to avoid guilt and shame or to obtain ego enhancements and feelings of worth (e.g., engaging in volunteering in order to escape the feeling of guilt caused by being more fortunate than others). Both autonomous and controlled motivations energize and direct behavior, and they stand in contrast to amotivation,whichisalack of intention and drive (Deci & Ryan, 1985). When referring to volunteering, the existence of controlled motivation and amotivation may seem to be a paradox, as one of the defining points of volunteering is that people freely engage in this type of activity. However, also in this specific context, motivation can be controlled, to some extent (Haivas et al., 2012); either externally, as is the case in many educational institutes that require community service (Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999), or internally, when the decision to volunteer is triggered by the desire to escape (potential) from negative feelings of being more fortunate than others or to gain social prestige and respect (Wilson, 2000). In sum, the concept of human need satisfaction provides a means for understanding how various contexts and situations may affect autonomous or controlled motivation. More specifically, SDT posits that the more the basic psychological needs are satisfied, the more autonomous the motivation becomes (Deci & Ryan, 2002). However, whereas feelings of competence and autonomy contribute to the facilitation of full internalization, satisfying the relatedness need is not enough to ensure full internalization of external regulations. Instead, it is considered to support one s striving for satisfaction of the need for competence and autonomy through the creation of conditions that enhance information and support (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005).As a result, satisfaction of the relatedness need is hypothesized to be more

3 Haivas et al important to early internalization and less to final internalization, while satisfaction of the need for competence and autonomy plays a central role for all regulatory forms of internalization. Role of need satisfaction and motivation in organizational settings In previous research on SDT, basic need satisfaction was found to mediate the relationship between job resources and demands on the one hand, and burnout and engagement on the other hand (Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Moreover, need satisfaction also mediates the relationship between extrinsic work values orientation and satisfaction, dedication, and vitality in a negative way (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Finally, satisfaction of the three needs has a positive relationship with several job outcomes, such as psychological health (Deci et al., 2001), job performance (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004), and psychological adjustment (Baard, 2002). Regarding motivation, several SDT studies have focused on job characteristics that facilitate autonomous motivation (e.g., Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leoner, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Haivas et al., 2012), and on the impact of autonomous motivation on organizational behavior, such as performance, work engagement, and turnover (e.g., Baard et al., 2004; Bono & Judge, 2003; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989; Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000; Ilardi, Leone, Kasser, & Ryan, 1993; Millette & Gagné, 2008; Pelletier, Tuson, Greene-Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998). In general, one can state that the more autonomously motivated a person is, the more positive and the less negative effects will show up. Although the links between need satisfaction, motivation, and job outcomes have been studied extensively, there are a number of important limitations to those studies. First, in most previous research, either the impact of need satisfaction or the impact of autonomous motivation has been studied, without including the link between the concepts (e.g., Baard, 2002; Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003; Gagné & Koestner, 2002). This is at odds with SDT, which explicitly relates need satisfaction to autonomous and controlled motivation. Second, many studies have not differentiated between the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Rather, in these studies, need satisfaction has been conceptualized as one overall construct (e.g., Deci et al., 2001; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). Yet, SDT focuses on the three different needs and even differentiates their role, as indicated earlier. Third, the vast research on SDT in an organizational context has been conducted with non-volunteers, where financial incentives are part of the employees reward packages and their formal work contract. Finally, the few studies on volunteering or motivation in the prosocial domain that have been reported in the literature were performed on Western populations (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009; Finkelstein, 2009; Gagné, 2003; Millette & Gagné, 2008), which potentially gives rise to a certain cultural bias. Moreover, in the majority of the studies using SDT, the focus is either on needs satisfaction or on autonomous motivation, without exploring the link between those two concepts. The only exception of which we are aware is the study by Weinstein and Ryan (2010), which examined the role of need satisfaction as a mediator in the relationship between being autonomously motivated for helping behavior and well-being. In the current study, we intend to respond to these limitations first by studying the dynamics by which need satisfaction and motivation relate to volunteer turnover intention and work engagement. Because in SDT, needs satisfaction is facilitating the internalization and integration of behavioral regulations and intrinsic motivation, we hypothesize that motivation will mediate the relationship between need satisfaction and volunteer turnover intention, and between need satisfaction and work engagement. In response to the second limitation, we will study the three basic psychological needs separately (e.g., Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003; Van den Broeck et al., 2008) to allow us to test their differential effects. In response to the third limitation, we will test the effects of need satisfaction and motivation in a sample of East European volunteers in Romania. Hypotheses The aim of the current study is to extend research on volunteer motivation by examining the mediation process by which need satisfaction relates to volunteer turnover intention and work engagement. Regarding this process, we propose several hypotheses. Hypothesis 1. SDT predicts that people become more involved and engaged in activities when their basic needs are satisfied. Consequently, because previous research has found a positive relationship between need satisfaction and work engagement both in a volunteering and a non-volunteering context we expect to find a similar relationship (Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). In contrast to work engagement, leaving an organization is considered a negative outcome of nonmotivated people (Griffeth, Hom, & Gaertner, 2000; Millette & Gagné, 2008). In a volunteering context, turnover intention has been found to be negatively correlated to an autonomous supportive work climate (Gagné, 2003), which is considered a powerful predictor of basic need satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Therefore, we propose the following: Hypothesis 2. There will be a negative relationship between need satisfaction and turnover intention.

4 1872 Volunteer engagement and intention to quit In general, SDT research has shown that autonomous motivation has a positive impact on organizational outcomes (e.g., Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 1989; Gagné et al., 2000; Ilardi et al., 1993; Millette & Gagné, 2008; Pelletier et al., 1998). At the same time, SDT argues that becoming more autonomous requires nutriments, such as satisfaction of the basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). These conditions are not unique to organizational settings with contracted employees, but also hold for a variety of other contexts (e.g., Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009; Millette & Gagné, 2008). Consequently, we propose the following: Hypothesis 3. Autonomous motivation will mediate the relationship between need satisfaction and organizational outcomes. With regard to the mediation, we also propose two subhypotheses: Hypothesis 3a. Satisfaction of the three basic needs will relate positively to autonomous motivation (e.g., Deci et al., 1994). Because need dissatisfaction hinders the internalization of regulation (Deci & Ryan, 2000), we expect that volunteers satisfaction of the three needs will relate negatively to controlled motivation. Important to note here is that SDT predicts that satisfaction of the need for autonomy and competence has the most powerful impact on autonomous motivation, whereas the need for relatedness would play a more distal role (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Finally, and in line with previous studies (e.g., Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 1989; Ilardi et al., 1993; Millette & Gagné, 2008), we propose the following: Hypothesis 3b. There will be a positive relationship between autonomous motivation and volunteer work engagement, and a negative relationship with intention to quit. Method Participants Participants were 349 Romanian volunteers (214 female, 135 male) from 10 different nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The respondents ages varied between 18 and 58 years (M = 22.9 years, SD = 4.8). The amount of time spent volunteering averaged 3 hours per week. With respect to professional status, 28.7% had paid jobs, and 71.3% were students. Regarding level of education, 0.3% of participants had completed primary school, 46.9% had completed secondary education, 44.1% had acquired a professional school or bachelor s degree, and 8.7% had obtained a master s or Ph.D. degree. The sample is representative of the volunteering population in Romania in several respects. The majority of volunteers in Romania are female (2/3 female, 1/3 male); they are mostly young (i.e., within an age range of 19 to 25 years); and they are highly educated, with more than half currently enrolled in the educational system (Rigman, 2009; Study on Volunteering, 2009; Wilson, 2000). Procedure To obtain a representative volunteer sample, we recruited from 10 different NGOs from the social domain (61.3% of respondents; e.g., Red Cross) and the educational domain (38.7% of respondents; e.g., AIESEC). Questionnaires were distributed at the end of regular organizational meetings where volunteers are briefed about new and ongoing volunteering projects. This was followed by a short clarification of the study, where special emphasis was placed on confidentiality, anonymity of responses, and nonmandatory participation. As a result of this procedure, the response rate was almost 100% (a small number of questionnaires could not be used because of incomplete responses). Measures In the present study, we measured motivation at work using the Motivation at Work Scale R (Gagné et al., 2012), basic need satisfaction using the Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale (Deci & Ryan, 2000), work engagement using the Volunteer Work Engagement Scale (Gagné, 2003), and turnover intention. In addition, we included demographic questions concerning age, gender, level of education, and professional status in the questionnaire. All questions were translated from English into Romanian by a professional translator. An English back-translation was conducted by an additional translator, and this backtranslation was compared with the original version. Remaining additional ambiguities were resolved by a team of four psychologists who had mastered both English and Romanian. Motivation at Work Scale R (MAWS-R) Motivation for volunteering work was measured using items from the revised MAWS-R (Gagné et al., 2012), and was also inspired by the self-regulatory scales of Ryan and Connell (1989) and Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, and Lens (2009). In this scale (see Appendix), participants are asked to rate the reasons for doing volunteer work by using intrinsic motivation (4 items; e.g., Because I enjoy this work very much ), in addition to the four SDT forms of regulation; that is, external regulation (4 items; e.g., Because others put pressure on me ), introjected regulation (4 items; e.g., Because it makes me feel proud of myself ), identified regulation (4 items; e.g., Because what I do in this job has a lot of personal

5 Haivas et al meaning to me ), and integrated regulation (4 items, e.g., Because I am made for this type of work ). Respondents were asked to indicate why they volunteer. The items were rated on a 7-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (notatall because of this reason) to7(exactly because of this reason). In line with SDT and with previous studies (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004), we used the distinction between controlled motivation (composed of the items that measure external and introjected regulation; α=.68) and autonomous motivation (composed of the items that measure identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation; α=.89). Basic need satisfaction at Work Scale We slightly adapted the need satisfaction scale that was developed by Deci and Ryan (2000) to accommodate the volunteer context. This was accomplished by substituting words like work or job with work as volunteer or volunteering activities, respectively. Similar to the original scale, the adapted scale measures autonomy need satisfaction (7 items; e.g., I am free to express my ideas and opinions when I work as a volunteer ; α=.71), competence need satisfaction (6 items; e.g., I don t feel very competent at my volunteering activities [reverse-scored]; α=.62), and relatedness need satisfaction (8 items; e.g., I really like the people I am volunteering with ; α=.74). Responses were rated on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7(totally agree). One item was deleted from the autonomy subscale because of a low item-total correlation (.02; i.e., When I am volunteering, I have to do what I am told ). Volunteer work engagement We measured work engagement with the adapted version of the Volunteer Work Engagement Scale proposed by Gagné (2003), which measures behavioral and emotional engagement in volunteer work on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7(totally agree). Sample items are I really like to devote myself to my volunteer work and When I am volunteering, I often feel bored (reverse-scored). Cronbach s alpha of the 12-item scale was.78. Intention to quit Volunteers rated two questions on a 7-point scale ranging from 1(totally disagree) to 7(totally agree): I frequently think about leaving this organization, and It is likely that I will leave this organization in the next year. The questions are based on earlier measures of turnover intention (e.g., Currall, Towler, Judge, & Kohn, 2005). Combining the questions resulted in a Cronbach s alpha of.74. Results Table 1 presents the means and standard deviations for each of the variables, as well as the interrelations between them. On average, and not unexpectedly, volunteers perceived their motivation for volunteering activities to be relatively high in autonomy and relatively low in control. This difference is significant, as confirmed by the results of pairedsample t tests, t(348) = 39.68, p <.001. Also, the volunteers satisfaction of the basic needs was moderately high. Finally, on average, the volunteers had a high level of work engagement and were not much inclined to leave the organization. Regarding the interrelationships between the variables, work engagement appeared to be positively correlated with satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs and autonomous motivation, while intention to quit was negatively correlated both with satisfaction of the three needs, and with autonomous motivation. In general, these findings are in line with our expectations. In a first analysis, we tested three separate path models. In the first model, we linked satisfaction with the three basic psychological needs to work engagement and intention to quit. In the second model, we tested the relationships between autonomous and controlled motivation and both work outcomes. In the third model, we examined the relationships between satisfaction with the three basic psychological needs and autonomous and controlled motivation. The results of these analyses are reported in Table 2. In general, Table 2 reveals that satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs provided unique contributions to work engagement and intention to quit, whereas this was not Table 1 Means and Correlations of Study Variables Variable M SD Autonomy need Competence need *** 3. Relatedness need ***.621*** 4. Autonomous motivation ***.359***.315*** 5. Controlled motivation *** 6. Work engagement ***.612***.462***.391*** Intention to quit ***.378***.348***.202*** *** ***p <.001.

6 1874 Volunteer engagement and intention to quit Table 2 Results of Path Models Model 1 Work engagement Intention to quit Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Autonomy need satisfaction < Competence need satisfaction < Relatedness need satisfaction Model 2 Work engagement Intention to quit Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Autonomous motivation < Controlled motivation < Model 3 Autonomous motivation Controlled motivation Estimate SE p Estimate SE p Autonomy need satisfaction Competence need satisfaction Relatedness need satisfaction Note. Model 1: work engagement and intention to quit are predicted by autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction. Model 2: work engagement and intention to quit are predicted by autonomous and controlled motivation. Model 3: autonomous and controlled motivation are predicted by autonomy, competence, and relatedness need satisfaction. the case for satisfaction of the relatedness need. Moreover, both autonomous and controlled motivations related to work engagement, although in different ways. In particular, autonomous motivation was positively related to work engagement, whereas the relationship with controlled motivation was negative. For intention to quit, a different pattern of relationships was observed in that it related only to autonomous motivation. Finally, satisfaction of the autonomy and competence need appears to have been positively related to autonomous motivation, but not to controlled motivation. Satisfaction of the relatedness need, in contrast, did not relate to either form of motivation. Subsequently, we tested our hypothesis that motivation mediates between need satisfaction on the one hand, and turnover intention and work engagement on the other hand. This was done in the framework of path analysis using the product-of-coefficients approach, as suggested by Preacher and Hayes (2008). Because significance tests of the indirect effects by means of the product-of-coefficients approach strongly rely on multivariate normality, the significance of all effects in the model was tested using nonparametric bootstrapping (see Preacher & Hayes, 2008). In this particular study, 10,000 bootstrap samples were drawn to generate bias-corrected and accelerated confidence intervals, thereby exceeding the minimal of 5,000 bootstrap samples suggested by Preacher and Hayes. The parameter estimates of this mediation model, together with an indication of their significance based on the bootstrap procedure, are depicted in Figure 1. 1 First, autonomous motivation mediated the relationship between autonomy and competence need satisfaction on the one hand, and psychological work engagement on the other hand. Note that this mediation effect is only partial, as satisfaction of the autonomy need and the competence need had a direct link with work engagement as well. Second, controlled motivation did not mediate the relationship between work engagement and need satisfaction. Whereas there was a negative relationship between controlled motivation and work engagement, satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs did not link to controlled motivation. In contrast to work engagement, intention to quit only related to autonomy 1 We also fitted an alternative model in which autonomous and controlled motivations predict satisfaction with the three basic psychological needs, and the needs predict work engagement and intention to quit (note that in this model, needs satisfaction mediates the relationship between motivation and the work outcomes). Subsequently, we used the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and the Bayesian information criterion (BIC) to compare this alternative model to the model in which motivation mediates between needs satisfaction and the outcomes. From this test, it appears that the model advanced by SDT (i.e., need satisfaction predicts motivation, and motivation predicts the outcomes) fits the data slightly better than does the alternative model (AIC = and ; BICs = and ).

7 Haivas et al Figure 1 Mediation model of the relation between volunteer needs satisfaction and work engagement and intention to quit. *p <.05. **p <.01. and competence need satisfaction; this relationship was not mediated by autonomous motivation. Important to note is that satisfaction of the relatedness need had no effect on work engagement, nor on intention to quit. In order to understand further the role of the three needs in view of the autonomy continuum, we separated the five regulation forms and performed an additional analysis on this model. The results show that feelings of autonomy and competence positively related to the three forms of autonomous motivation: identified regulation (.302 and.150; p <.05), integrated regulation (.259 and.259; p <.05), and intrinsic motivation (.226 and.180; p <.05). Moreover, there was no relationship between relatedness need satisfaction and any of the three regulatory subtypes of autonomous motivation. Finally, none of the three needs related significantly to extrinsic regulation, while only relatedness need satisfaction related positively to introjected regulation (.124; p <.05). Discussion The present study adds to the literature on volunteers motivation by examining the process underlying the relationships between need satisfaction, motivation, and two types of organizational behavior. Our first goal was to test a basic SDT proposition stating that satisfaction of the three basic needs positively relates to volunteers work engagement, and negatively to turnover intention. Because earlier research has often examined the impact of need satisfaction without differentiating between the three needs (Deci et al., 2001; Gagné, 2003; Van den Broeck et al., 2008), we studied the three needs separately and analyzed their unique contributions to work engagement and intention to quit. Our results show that the more volunteers are satisfied with the freedom of choice and perceive themselves as being the source of their own volunteering behavior (i.e., high autonomy), the more they indicate being engaged in their volunteering work and the less they intend to quit the volunteering organization. This is remarkable, in a way, since volunteers already choose their volunteering activity out of free will. They may, however, still vary in how they can satisfy their autonomy need once they are performing the volunteering activities; that is, in the actual tasks and duties for which they become responsible, and this may influence their engagement. Also, our results indicate that volunteers who are satisfying their competence need in the volunteering environment (i.e., high competence) show a higher degree of engagement and a lower intention to quit. This result can account for the conclusion of Snyder and Omoto (2008) that volunteers who get something in return from their work are likely to stay longer with one organization. In a way, utilizing one s competencies or doing something at which one is good may be seen as receiving something in return for one s involvements and may motivate one to stay with the volunteering organization. Moreover, these findings are in line with SDT findings in

8 1876 Volunteer engagement and intention to quit non-volunteering contexts (e.g., Baard, 2002; Deci et al., 2001; Van den Broeck et al., 2008), and generally they agree with the SDT assumption that need satisfaction promotes optimal outcomes (Deci & Ryan, 2002). In contrast, after controlling for satisfaction of the other two needs, satisfaction of the need for belonging and connecting with others (i.e., high relatedness) was unrelated to volunteers work engagement and intention to quit, and it also had no unique relationship to autonomous motivation. However, these relationships do exist (as predicted by SDT) when the needs are analyzed in a univariate manner (see Table 1). This implies that there is an important overlap between satisfaction of the three needs, which is in line with previous research (e.g., Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009, found intercorrelations ranging between.50 and.80). These high intercorrelations may be a reason to justify the practice of combining satisfaction of the three needs into one overall concept of need satisfaction (e.g., Deci et al., 2001; Van den Broeck et al., 2008). At the same time, however, our results also contradict Boezeman and Ellemers findings since they found that satisfaction of the need for autonomy and relatedness was more relevant for volunteer turnover than was satisfaction of the competence need. One possible although somewhat hypothetical explanation can be found in the characteristics of our sample. In particular, it is possible that the relatedness need of the volunteers in our sample was already satisfied outside the volunteering activity context, which is why no relationship was observed with volunteering turnover or with volunteering work engagement. Indeed, the Romanian volunteering population consists of young people as opposed to the constellation of the volunteering population in other countries where volunteers are more equally distributed across age groups (Snyder & Omoto, 2008) who are able to satisfy their need for belonging and connecting with others during other dayto-day youth activities. This is in line with the reasoning of Vallerand and Ratelle (2002), who argued that compensation across situational contexts may occur. Therefore, it may be the case that volunteering activities are more prone to satisfy the needs that cannot be satisfied elsewhere. More specifically, in a country like Romania which was under a totalitarian political system for many decades the educational and other state institutions are, to some degree, still promoting authoritycontrolling practices that discourage individual initiative, personal choice, and positive feedback and are based more on punishment than on rewards (Voicu & Voicu, 2003). This type of context undermines satisfaction of psychological needs and may force individuals to search for need satisfaction in other contexts. Volunteering is, indeed, a post-communist reality in Romania, which developed in the last two decades through the globalizing Western culture and by international agencies and NGOs. Therefore, it might be that the volunteering context is compensated for by other contexts to support the feelings of autonomy and competence. Additionally, the collectivism features of the Romanian culture allow volunteers to satisfy their need for relatedness within their strong connections with their families or other groups, so the volunteering context is no longer required to compensate for this aspect. However, this compensation effect is, as said, somewhat speculative. More SDT studies with Romanian samples or within the volunteering domain would be required if one wants to draw final conclusions in this direction. Alternatively, and in line with SDT, one may also argue that a lack of need satisfaction in one domain (i.e., volunteering) is energy-draining and could lead to a lack of engagement in any activity (note that this relationship may be moderated by personality variables, such as autonomous orientation or prosocial personality). This could have been the case with the participants in our sample. Unfortunately, these potential mechanisms could not be tested in the present study, which leaves the door open for further clarification in future research. The second goal of the study was to examine the mediating effect of autonomous motivation on the relation between need satisfaction on the one hand, and work engagement and intention to quit on the other hand. In line with the SDT, the positive effect of need satisfaction on autonomous motivation held in our volunteer sample as well. Important to note here is that, again, this applies only to satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs. Satisfaction of the relatedness need did not relate to autonomous motivation. In this respect, our results support the universality claim of SDT by showing that the relationship between need satisfaction and autonomous motivation exists in a population that is fairly distinct from a Western population. In particular, the Romanian culture is predominantly a feminist culture, characterized by high levels of collectivism, power distance, anxiety, and uncertainty avoidance (Luca, 2005). The finding that satisfaction of the relatedness need did not relates to autonomous motivation, together with the results derived from the supplementary analysis on the five forms of regulation, aligns with the general theorizing of SDT that relatedness need satisfaction plays a less determining role in the process of full internalization, as relatedness alone is not enough to ensure autonomous behavior. Our results, indicating a positive relation between introjected regulation and relatedness, are somehow similar with the ones in the Markland and Tobin s (2010) study, as they also found a positive impact of personal relatedness (one of the two factors of relatedness need that was measured) on introjected regulation. However, in both studies, relatedness referred to interpersonal relationships with specific individuals, and not to a sense of connectedness with a particular social environment.

9 Haivas et al Moreover, the hypothesized negative relationship between autonomy and competence need satisfaction and controlled motivation was not supported by the results, nor in the second model tested. This may be a result of the fact that volunteering is, by definition, a freely chosen activity that implies no material compensation nor rewards, which is at odds with controlled motivation, as it is driven by external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Regarding the mediation, the results show that the effects of autonomy and competence need satisfaction are partially mediated through autonomous motivation. Contrary to previous research (see Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005) and to our expectations, this mediation effect was not supported for intention to quit. Thus, being autonomously motivated in performing volunteering activities positively related to behavioral and emotional engagement with the activities, but did not relate to the decision to leave the volunteering organization. This particular result may be specific for the volunteering sector, but definitely deserves attention in future research. An additional issue is that while we have studied motivation as a consequence of need satisfaction, SDT predicts a reciprocal relationship between satisfaction of the needs and the different forms of motivation (see Sheldon & Krieger, 2007). This implies that the mediation effect may be even more complex, and this may be unraveled in further (preferably longitudinal) research. Finally, our study is subject to a number of limitations. First, because specific measures for SDT research on volunteers are almost nonexistent, we were forced to make small adaptations to the existing instruments. These adaptations may have had an impact on the psychometric properties of these instruments. However, in our opinion, this strategy was the best option; at least in order to preserve the face validity of our scales. Second, because the data collection took place at the end of meetings about volunteering projects, all variables were included in the same questionnaire. This obviously increases the risk for common method bias. On the other hand, we found unique and different contributions for the different variables included in the study. Moreover, these relationships were generally in line with the scientific literature. These observations strengthen our belief that the results are reliable and were not heavily influenced by common method variance. Third, as stated earlier, the volunteering population in Romania is fairly distinct. This argues for a replication of the findings in other countries with a comparable social background. A related question for future research is whether volunteers in countries with a different background will show similar results. Furthermore, it is possible that differences within the volunteering population must be taken into account (Vantilborgh et al., 2011). Finally, it would be interesting to combine the functional approach of Clary et al. (1998) with the SDT approach. In principle, each functional motive is characterized by a certain degree of pressure versus volition and, as such, can be situated on the SDT continuum. Such a study would increase our understanding of the functional motives, as well as the mechanisms underlying the motivation to volunteer. 2 Despite the aforementioned limitations, the present study was able to draw attention to some important, unique characteristics of volunteers motivation,with some practical relevance for the volunteering organizations. First, it is important to acknowledge that volunteers engagement is linked to the way they are motivated for performing the volunteering activities, and that this is different from what keeps them with the organization. So, in order to encourage volunteers engagement, we recommend making the volunteer activities more intrinsically interesting or ensuring that they are in line with volunteers values and personal goals. Second, to keep volunteers with the organization, it is recommended to create opportunities to satisfy their basic psychological needs, such as involving them in decision making, giving them freedom to choose the projects on which they are working, encouraging personal initiative, and providing optimal challenging tasks and positive feedback. 2 The authors thank an anonymous reviewer for this suggestion. References Baard, P. P. (2002). Intrinsic needs satisfaction in organization: A motivational basis for success in for-profit and notfor-profit settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of selfdetermination research (pp ). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). The relation of intrinsic need satisfaction to performance and wellbeing in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, Bidee, J., Vantilborgh, T., Pepermans, R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., & Jegers, M., et al. (2013). Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers work effort: A self-determination theory approach to volunteerism. Voluntas, 24, Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Intrinsic need satisfaction and the job attitudes of volunteers versus employees working in a charitable volunteer organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Selfconcordance at work: Understanding the

10 1878 Volunteer engagement and intention to quit motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management Journal, 46, Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what, where, who, and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., et al. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human services. Journal of Applied Behavioural Science, 27, Currall, S. C., Towler, A. J., Judge, T. A., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leoner, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum. 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, Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, Finkelstein, M. A. (2009). Intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientations and volunteer process. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the engagement of prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27, Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Selfdetermination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A., Aspeli, A. K., et al. (2012). Validation evidence in ten languages for the Revised Motivation at Work Scale. Manuscript submitted for publication. Gagné, M., & Koestner, R. (2002, April). Self-determination theory as a framework for understanding organizational commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. Gagné, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating the acceptance of organizational change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, Griffeth, R. W., Hom, P. W., & Gaertner, S. (2000). A meta-analysis of antecedents and correlates of employee turnover: Update, moderator tests, and research implications for the next millennium. Journal of Management, 26, Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., & Harris, J. (2006). From psychological need satisfaction to intentional behavior: Testing a motivational sequence in two behavioral contexts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, Haivas, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2012). Self-determination theory as a framework for exploring the impact of the organizational context on volunteer motivation: A study of Romanian volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 41, Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, Luca, A. (2005). Studiu despre valorile si comportamentul romanesc din prespectiva dimensiunilor cultural dupa metoda lui Gert Hofstede [The study of Romanian values and behavior from the perspective of Gert Hofstede s method of cultural dimensions]. Retrieved November 28, 2012, from _hofstede5.pdf Markland, D., & Tobin, V. J. (2010). Need support and behavioral regulations for exercise among exercise referral scheme clients: The mediating role of psychological need satisfaction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11(2), Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction, and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32, Okun, M. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1992). Motives and intent to continue organizational volunteering among residents of a retirement community area. Journal of Community Psychology, 20, Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (1990). Basic research in action: Volunteerism and society s response to AIDS. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 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, Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, Pelletier, L. G., Tuson, K. M., Greene-Demers, I., Noels, K., & Beaton, A. M. (1998). Why are you doing things for the environment? The Motivation Toward the Environmental Scale (MTES). Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies