Universität Konstanz
Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftliche Sektion Fachbereich Psychologie
The Interface of Volunteer Work and Paid Work:
Benefits of Volunteering for Working Life
Dissertationsschrift
zur Erlangung des akademischen Grades Doktor der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.)
Vorgelegt im September 2008 von Eva Johanna Mojza
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 2. Dezember 2008
1. Referent: Prof. Dr. Sabine Sonnentag, Universität Konstanz 2. Referent: Prof. Dr. Sean McCrae, Universität Konstanz
Konstanzer Online-Publikations-System (KOPS) URL: http://www.ub.uni-konstanz.de/kops/volltexte/2008/7159/
URN: http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:352-opus-71594
Table of Contents 3
TABLE OF CONTENTS VORVERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER DISSERTATION ... 5
ERKLÄRUNG ZUR ERGÄNZUNG NACH § 6 ABS. 2 DER PROMOTIONSORDNUNG ... 6
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ... 8
ZUSAMMENFASSUNG ... 10
SUMMARY ... 14
GENERAL INTRODUCTION ... 18
VOLUNTEER WORK:DEFINITION AND STATE OF THE ART ... 19
THE INTERFACE OF VOLUNTEER WORK AND PAID WORK ... 20
Main Effects: Positive Relationships between Volunteer Work Engagement and Positive Work Outcomes ... 22
Mediator Effects: Underlying Processes Explaining Positive Relationships between Volunteer Work Engagement and Positive Work Outcomes ... 24
Moderator Effects: Buffering Effect of Volunteer Work Engagement on the Relationship between Work Stressors and Positive Work Outcomes ... 26
METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH ... 29
AT A GLANCE:THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE DISSERTATION ... 30
STUDY 1: WEEKENDS WITH VOLUNTEER WORK ARE DIFFERENT: POSITIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VOLUNTEERING DURING THE WEEKEND AND WORK OUTCOMES DURING THE FOLLOWING WORKING WEEK ... 31
SUMMARY ... 31
INTRODUCTION ... 32
METHOD ... 36
RESULTS ... 40
DISCUSSION ... 48
STUDY 2: DAILY RECOVERY EXPERIENCES: THE ROLE OF VOLUNTEER WORK DURING LEISURE TIME ... 54
SUMMARY ... 54
INTRODUCTION ... 55
METHOD ... 63
RESULTS ... 67
DISCUSSION ... 74
STUDY 3: VOLUNTEER WORK IN THE EVENING AS A VALUABLE LEISURE TIME ACTIVITY: RELATIONSHIPS WITH DAILY NON-WORK EXPERIENCES AND WORK OUTCOMES ... 79
INTRODUCTION ... 80
METHOD ... 87
RESULTS ... 91
DISCUSSION ... 109
STUDY 4: THE MODERATING ROLE OF VOLUNTEER WORK: VOLUNTEERING IN THE EVENING BUFFERS THE NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF JOB STRESSORS DURING THE FOLLOWING WORKING DAY ... 115
SUMMARY ... 115
INTRODUCTION ... 116
METHOD ... 121
RESULTS ... 125
DISCUSSION ... 134
GENERAL DISCUSSION ... 138
OVERALL SUMMARY AND INTEGRATION OF THE RESULTS... 138
METHODOLOGICAL STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES ... 144
IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND PRACTICE ... 146
GENERAL CONCLUSION ... 150
REFERENCES ... 152
Vorveröffentlichungen der Dissertation 5
VORVERÖFFENTLICHUNGEN DER DISSERTATION
Teilergebnisse dieser Dissertation wurden mit Genehmigung des Fachbereiches Psychologie an der Universität Konstanz, vertreten durch Professor Dr. Sabine Sonnentag, in folgenden Beiträgen veröffentlicht:
Mojza, E. J., Peters, C., Sonnentag, S., & Binnewies, C. (2007, September). Arbeit ist nicht gleich Arbeit: Verschiedene Formen von Arbeit und deren Zusammenhang mit Erholungsprozessen am Feierabend. Forschungsreferat auf der 5. Tagung der Fachgruppe Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Psychologie, Trier, Deutschland.
Mojza, E. J. & Sonnentag, S. (2007, May). The moderating effect of volunteering during leisure time on the relationship between work stressors and work outcomes. Oral presentation at the XIIIth European Congress on Work and Organizational Psychology, Stockholm, Sweden.
PROMOTIONSORDNUNG
Diese Dissertation besteht aus vier empirischen Studien, die jeweils in einem eigenen Aufsatz dargestellt sind. Die vorangestellte Einleitung sowie die abschließende Diskussion betten diese Studien in einen gemeinsamen Zusammenhang ein. Alle inhaltlichen und
konzeptionellen Arbeiten, Datenaufbereitung und Datenauswertung sowie Interpretation und schriftliche Darstellung der Ergebnisse wurden eigenständig und ausschließlich von mir unter der Betreuung von Sabine Sonnentag geleistet. Ich habe mich dabei keiner anderen als der von mir ausdrücklich bezeichneten Quellen und Hilfen bedient und wörtlich oder inhaltlich übernommene Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht. Die weiteren bei den einzelnen Studien aufgeführten Koautorinnen und Koautoren, Carmen Binnewies, Claudius Bornemann und Christian Lorenz1, trugen als Diskussionspartner sowie durch ihre Unterstützung bei der Datenerhebung zu den jeweiligen Studien bei. Die Daten der ersten und der zweiten Studie wurden im Rahmen des von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft geförderten
Forschungsprojektes „Erholung von Arbeitsstress: Attribute erfolgreicher Erholungs-
prozesse“ erhoben. An der Datenerhebung dieser beiden Studien wirkten Franziska Bertram, Claudius Bornemann, Sabrina Engel, Stefanie Ernst, Verena Hahn, Till Kastendieck,
Christian Lorenz, Nadja Metzler, Julia Meyer-Schwickerath, Frithjof Müller, Alessa Münch, Stefanie Protzner, Sonja Riefer, Pascal Sailer, Annika Scholl, Julia Schweda, Signe Seiler, Ines Spitzner, Ana Thomat und Raphael von Varendorff mit. Die Daten der dritten Studien wurden in Zusammenarbeit mit Claudius Bornemann erhoben. An der Datenerhebung dieser Studie wirkten außerdem Sabrina Engel, Mareike Haase, Till Kastendieck, Nadja Metzler, and Pascal Sailer mit. Die Daten der vierten Studie wurden im Rahmen des vom Ausschuss für Forschungsfragen der Universität Konstanz geförderten Projektes „Arbeit und
1 Christian Lorenz, geb. Christian Peters
Erklärung zur Ergänzung nach § 6 Abs. 2 der Promotionsordnung 7 Stressbewältigung“ erhoben. An der Datenerhebung dieser Studie wirkten Franziska Bertram und Sonja Riefer mit.
I would like to acknowledge the people who contributed to my dissertation.
First of all, I would like to thank Sabine Sonnentag for supervising my dissertation and providing an outstanding model of how to perform excellent research. Thank you for the opportunity to work in your research team and for your invaluable advice and help during all stages of my dissertation.
I am very grateful to Sean McCrea and Alexander Woll for their involvement as part of my dissertation committee.
I thank my colleagues, Carmen Binnewies, Anne Spychala, Cornelia Niessen, and Jana Kühnel for discussions and their constructive critique, which helped me to develop and improve my ideas. Furthermore, I thank Carmen Binnewies and Stefanie Ernst for teamwork in the research project “Recovery from Work Stress and Psychological Well-being”.
The studies of my dissertation benefited from the administrative help of many people.
Many thanks go to Franziska Bertram, Claudius Bornemann, Sabrina Engel, Stefanie Ernst, Mareike Haase, Verena Hahn, Till Kastendieck, Christian Lorenz, Nadja Metzler, Julia Meyer-Schwickerath, Frithjof Müller, Alessa Münch, Stefanie Protzner, Sonja Riefer, Pascal Sailer, Annika Scholl, Julia Schweda, Signe Seiler, Ines Spitzner, Ana Thomat und Raphael von Varendorff. I enjoyed working with you very much.
I also thank the other psychologists whom I got to know in the course of working on my dissertation, and who discussed my ideas with me, provided feedback and motivated me:
Jessica de Bloom, Dirk Lehr, and Miriam Koschate. Additionally, I thank Evangeline Frey, Verena Friedrich, Charlotte Fritz, and Maya Yankelevich for their helpful comments on earlier versions of different papers.
Special thanks to James Brice and Christian Lorenz who helped me with the English language.
Acknowledgements 9 I thank the German Research Foundation that funded the research project “Recovery from Work Stress and Psychological Well-being” (DFG; SO 295/4-1,4-2), in which I collected data for Study 1 and Study 2 for this dissertation. I am also grateful to the research grant from the University of Konstanz (12/00), where I collected data for Study 4.
I also want to thank my friends, who are most important to me and were especially helpful during this project: Daniel Fleischer, for being a loving and caring partner throughout, Anna Blaski, for being my friend and my fan and for encouraging me at times when I
doubted myself, and Jennifer L. Sparr, for being my friend and colleague, for interesting and valuable discussions, for giving positive and constructive feedback and for spending good and hard times with me.
Finally, I am grateful to my family, my parents and my sister, who never doubted that I could do anything I dreamed of, who made possible my academic career and who strongly supported me at all times.
Zunehmend beschäftigen sich Psychologen2 mit der Fragestellung, welche positiven Verbindungen es zwischen verschiedenen Lebensbereichen gibt. Während der Fokus aktuell auf der Schnittselle Familie und Erwerbsleben liegt (z.B. Theorien und Studien zum positiven Zusammenhang zwischen Engagement im Familienbereich und Engagement im
Erwerbsleben; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz, Carlson, Kacmar, & Wayne, 2007;
Rothbard, 2001), ist die Schnittstelle Ehrenamt und Erwerbsleben bis jetzt kaum erforscht.
Nichtsdestotrotz gibt es empirische Hinweise (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman, Ohlott, Panzer, & King, 2002) dafür, dass auch Ehrenamt und Erwerbsarbeit in einem positiven Zusammenhang stehen können. Ziel dieser Dissertation war es daher, zu untersuchen, ob ehrenamtliches Engagement in der Freizeit bereichernd für Wohlbefinden und Leistung am Arbeitsplatz sein kann. Basierend auf theoretischen Arbeiten zu Zusammenhängen zwischen verschiedenen Lebensbereichen (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001) wurde untersucht, ob es Haupt- und Moderatoreffekte von ehrenamtlichem Engagement in der Freizeit auf Wohlbefinden und Leistung bei der Arbeit gibt. Unter Einbeziehung von Theorie und Forschung zur Erholung (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) und der Theorie der
Selbstbestimmung (Deci & Ryan, 2000) wurde zudem überprüft, mit welchen positiven Freizeiterfahrungen ehrenamtliches Engagement in der Freizeit zusammenhängt und ob diese Freizeiterfahrungen Haupteffekte von ehrenamtlichem Engagement auf Wohlbefinden und Leistung bei der Arbeit erklären können. Positive Erfahrungen in der Freizeit umfassten die Erholungserfahrungen Abschalten von der Arbeit, Meistern von Herausforderungen und Erleben von Gemeinschaft (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) sowie die Befriedigung von psychologischen Grundbedürfnissen (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Als Indikatoren
2 Zugunsten der Lesbarkeit habe ich mich für die männliche Form entschieden.
Selbstverständlich sind dabei immer sowohl Männer als auch Frauen gemeint.
Zusammenfassung 11 von Wohlbefinden bei der Arbeit wurden positiver und negativer Affekt bei der Arbeit sowie Arbeitsengagement erfasst, als Indikatoren von Leistung bei der Arbeit wurden
Aufgabenleistung und aktives Zuhören erfasst.
Die Dissertation umfasst insgesamt vier empirische Studien. Studie 1 wurde als eine vierwöchige Untersuchung durchgeführt, die Studien 2, 3 und 4 wurden als Tagebuchstudien von ein bis zwei Wochen Länge realisiert.
Im Fokus von Studie 1 stand der Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem
Engagement am Wochenende und Arbeitsengagement sowie aktivem Zuhören in der darauf folgenden Arbeitswoche. Dazu wurden 159 Teilnehmer vier Wochen lang befragt. In einem Fragebogen am Montagmorgen wurden die Teilnehmer zum ehrenamtlichen Engagement am Wochenende befragt, in einem Fragebogen am Freitagabend machten sie Angaben zum Arbeitsengagement und aktivem Zuhören in Bezug auf die Arbeitswoche. Ergebnisse von Mehrebenenanalysen zeigten einen positiven Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement am Wochenende und Arbeitsengagement in der darauf folgenden Arbeitswoche wie auch einen positiven Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement am
Wochenende und aktivem Zuhören in der darauf folgenden Arbeitswoche.
In Studie 2 wurde der Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement und den Erholungserfahrungen Abschalten von der Arbeit, Meistern von Herausforderungen und dem Erleben von Gemeinschaft am Abend untersucht. In einer einwöchigen Tagebuchstudie wurden dazu 166 Teilnehmer jeden Tag abends vor dem Zu-Bett-Gehen zum Zeitaufwand für ehrenamtliche Aktivitäten sowie zu den Erholungserfahrungen Abschalten von der Arbeit, dem Meistern von Herausforderungen und dem Erleben von Gemeinschaft befragt.
Ergebnisse von Mehrebenenanalysen zeigten einen positiven Zusammenhang zwischen dem Zeitaufwand für ehrenamtliches Engagement und dem Meistern von Herausforderungen wie
Aktivitäten und dem Erleben von Gemeinschaft.
In Studie 3 wurde der Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement und den Erholungserfahrungen Abschalten von der Arbeit und Meistern von Herausforderungen am Abend wie auch der Zusammenhang zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement und der
Befriedigung der psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse am Abend untersucht. Weiterhin wurde überprüft, ob diese positiven Erfahrungen außerhalb der Arbeit mit positivem und negativem Affekt wie auch mit Aufgabenleistung und aktivem Zuhören am nächsten Arbeitstag
zusammenhängen. Dazu wurde eine zweiwöchige Tagebuchstudie mit 105 Teilnehmern durchgeführt, bei der diese täglich einen Fragebogen vor dem Zu-Bett-Gehen mit Angaben zum Zeitaufwand für ehrenamtliche Aktivitäten, Abschalten von der Arbeit, dem Meistern von Herausforderungen sowie der Befriedigung der psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse ausfüllten. In einem täglichen Fragebogen nach der Arbeit machten sie Angaben zu positivem und negativem Affekt, Aufgabenleistung und aktivem Zuhören bei der Arbeit. Ergebnisse von Mehrebenenanalysen und Mehrebenenstrukturgleichungsmodellen zeigten, dass ehrenamtliches Engagement positiv mit Abschalten von der Arbeit, dem Meistern von Herausforderungen sowie der Befriedigung der psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse zusammenhängt. Weiterhin zeigten die Ergebnisse, dass ehrenamtliches Engagement am Abend indirekt negativ mit negativem Affekt wie auch indirekt positiv mit aktivem Zuhören am nächsten Arbeitstag zusammenhängt. Beide indirekten Effekte werden vermittelt durch die Befriedigung der psychologischen Grundbedürfnisse.
In Studie 4 wurde untersucht, ob ehrenamtliches Engagement den negativen Zusammenhang zwischen Arbeitsstressoren und positivem Affekt bei der Arbeit wie auch den negativen Zusammenhang zwischen Arbeitsstressoren und aktivem Zuhören am nächsten Tag puffert. Als Arbeitsstressoren wurden Zeitdruck und arbeitsorganisatorische Stressoren
Zusammenfassung 13 erhoben. Es wurde eine einwöchige Tagebuchstudie mit 51 Teilnehmern durchgeführt. In einem Fragebogen vor dem Zu-Bett-Gehen machten die Teilnehmer Angaben zum ehrenamtlichen Engagement am Abend. In einem Fragebogen nach der Arbeit am darauf folgenden Arbeitstag machten sie Angaben zu Arbeitsstressoren sowie zum positivem Affekt und aktivem Zuhören bei der Arbeit. Ergebnisse von Mehrebenenanalysen zeigten, dass ehrenamtliches Engagement am Abend den negativen Zusammenhang zwischen
arbeitsorganisatorischen Problemen und positivem Affekt wie auch den negativen Zusammenhang zwischen arbeitsorganisatorischen Problemen und aktivem Zuhören am nächsten Arbeitstag moderiert. Nach Abenden, an denen die Teilnehmer ehrenamtlich aktiv waren, gibt es keinen Zusammenhang zwischen arbeitsorganisatorischen Problemen und positivem Affekt wie auch keinen Zusammenhang zwischen arbeitsorganisatorischen
Problemen und aktivem Zuhören. Nach Abenden ohne ehrenamtliches Engagement dagegen sind beide Zusammenhänge negativ.
Insgesamt zeigten die Ergebnisse positive Zusammenhänge in Form von Haupt- und Moderatoreffekten zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement in der Freizeit und Wohlbefinden und Leistung am Arbeitsplatz. Weiterhin ließen die Ergebnisse vermuten, dass die
Freizeiterfahrung Befriedigung von psychologischen Grundbedürfnissen, die im positiven Zusammenhang mit ehrenamtlichem Engagement steht, einige der positiven Zusammenhänge zwischen ehrenamtlichem Engagement in der Freizeit und Wohlbefinden und Leistung am Arbeitsplatz vermittelt. In diesem Sinne erweiterten die Ergebnisse existierende Forschung zu Schnittstellen zwischen Lebensbereichen und legten nahe, dass der Bereich Ehrenamt in die Literatur zu positiven Zusammenhängen zwischen Lebensbereichen integriert werden sollte.
Increasingly, psychologists are dealing with the research question of how different life domains are positively related to each other. While the focus is currently on the interface of family and work3 (e.g., theories and studies on the positive relationship between family engagement and work engagement; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2006;
Rohtbard, 2001), until now the interface of volunteer work and paid work has rarely been scrutinized. However, there is empirical evidence (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002) for positive relationships between volunteering and paid work. The goal of this dissertation was, hence, to examine whether volunteer work engagement during leisure time benefits well-being and performance at work. Based on theoretical considerations on the relationships between different life domains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001), main and moderator effects of volunteering on well-being and performance at work were focused on. Drawing on theory and research on recovery (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), as well as on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000), it was further examined whether volunteering is related to positive non-work experiences and whether these non-work experiences account for the main effects of volunteering on well-being and performance at work. Positive non-work experiences included the recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work, mastery, and community (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Sonnentag &
Fritz, 2007), as well as the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Indicators of well-being at work included positive and negative affect and work engagement, while indicators of performance at work included task performance and active listening.
3 When I use the term ‘work’ or the term ‘job’, I am referring to paid work (i.e., work done in an occupation). Otherwise, when using the term ‘volunteer work’, I am referring to volunteer work activities during leisure time which are not part of one's occupation. In some cases, to clearly distinguish work in an occupation from volunteer work during leisure time, I use the term 'paid work' rather than work.
Summary 15 The dissertation encompasses four empirical studies. Study 1 was a four-week study, while Studies 2, 3, and 4 were diary studies done over the course of one or two working weeks.
The relationship between volunteer work engagement during the weekend and work engagement and active listening during the following working week was the focus of Study 1. One hundred and fifty-nine participants were surveyed over the course of four working weeks. In a survey taken on Monday morning, they indicated whether they had volunteered during the weekend; in a survey taken on Friday afternoon, they indicated their work engagement and active listening at work with respect to the working week. The results of multilevel analyses showed a positive relationship between volunteer work during the weekend and work engagement during the following working week, as well as a positive relationship between volunteer work during the weekend and active listening during the following working week.
Study 2 investigated the relationships between volunteer work engagement and the recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work, mastery, and community in the evening. In a diary study conducted over the course of a single working week, 166 participants were asked to indicate before going to bed daily the amount of time they had spent that day on volunteer work activities and the level of the three recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work, mastery, and community. The results of multilevel analyses revealed a positive relationship between the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities and mastery experiences, as well as a positive relationship between the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities and community experiences.
Study 3 examined the relationship between volunteer work engagement and the recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work and mastery in the evening, as well as the relationship between volunteer work engagement and the satisfaction of basic
non-work experiences are related to positive and negative affect, task performance and active listening during the following working day. In a diary study over the course of two working weeks, 105 participants filled out a questionnaire each night before going to bed, indicating the amount of time spent on volunteer work, the level of their recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work and mastery, as well as their level of need satisfaction.
In a daily questionnaire filled out after work, participants indicated positive and negative affect at work, task performance, and active listening at work. The results of multilevel analyses and multilevel structural equation modeling confirmed that there are positive relationships between the amount of time spent on volunteering, psychological detachment from work, mastery experiences, and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.
Furthermore, volunteering is negatively related to negative affect during the following working day, as well as positively related to active listening during the following working day. Both indirect effects are mediated by need satisfaction.
Finally, Study 4 looked at whether volunteering buffered the negative relationship between work stressors and positive affect at work, as well as the negative relationship between work stressors and active listening at work during the following day. Work stressors included time pressure and situational constraints. For this purpose, a diary study with 51 participants was conducted over the course of one working week. In a survey before going to bed, participants indicated the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities in the evening. In an after-work survey on the next day, they listed work stressors, positive affect, and active listening referring to the working day. The results of multilevel analyses revealed that volunteering in the evening moderates the negative relationship between situational constraints and positive affect, and the relationship between situational constraints and active listening during the following working day. After evenings on which participants engaged in
Summary 17 volunteer work activities, situational constraints are not associated with positive affect or active listening at work. However, after evenings without volunteering both relationships are negative.
Altogether, the results showed positive relationships, in terms of main and moderator effects, between volunteering during leisure time and well-being and performance at work.
Furthermore, the results suggested that the non-work experience of the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, which is positively associated with volunteering, acts as a mediator of some of the positive relationships between volunteering during leisure time and well-being and performance at work. In this sense, the results supplemented existing research on the interfaces between life domains and suggested the inclusion of the domain of volunteering in the literature on positive relationships between life domains.
Volunteer work, or volunteering (i.e., an activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause; Wilson, 2000), is a common activity in many countries. For people engaged in volunteering, i.e., volunteers, this activity often becomes vital. For the beneficiaries of volunteer work activities, as well as the communities in which they take place, volunteering is crucial and must be seen as an important pillar of our civil society. In the countries of the European Union, one out of three citizens pursued some kind of volunteer work activity in 2006 (TNS Infratest, 2007). In absolute numbers, this means, as follows: 23.4 million German citizens volunteered in 2004, in the United Kingdom 22 million individuals volunteered in 1997, 10 to 12.5 million French citizens volunteered in 2003, and 5.4 million Poles volunteered in 2004 (European Volunteer Centre, 2008). In the United States, 60.8 million citizens volunteered in 2007 (United States Department of Labor, 2008).
Volunteer work is seen as profoundly valuable to society, so that many governments (e.g., the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth in Germany) or European institutions (e.g., the European Volunteer Centre) strongly support and encourage volunteer work activities. Many voluntary organizations, such as rescue and volunteer fire departments, self-help and mutual aid groups, sports clubs, or church and religious
organizations, simply could not exist without voluntary engagement.
Volunteer work is also important for those who volunteer. Adolescents get an opportunity to acquire and improve job-relevant skills (Akademie der Jugendarbeit Baden- Württemberg e.V., 2004), and retired people who engage in volunteer work activities benefit from the time structure and social connectedness associated with volunteering (Harlow &
Cantor, 1996). Thus, volunteer work is a relevant activity for people who are preparing for working life (i.e., adolescents), as well as for people who have dropped out of working life (i.e., retired people). However, there remains a large proportion of volunteers who integrate
General Introduction 19 their volunteer work into their working life (von Rosenbladt, 2000). Do they also benefit from volunteer work with respect to their working life? The purpose of this dissertation is to answer this question by examining the benefits of volunteer work for paid work. More
specifically, it looks for positive associations between the life domains of volunteer work and paid work.
Volunteer Work: Definition and State of the Art
Volunteer work is one of several forms of helping behavior (Clary & Snyder, 1991;
Wilson, 2000; Bierhoff, 2002). It refers to non-spontaneous helping (i.e., planned helping behavior over an extended period of time) and can thereby be distinguished from spontaneous helping behavior (e.g., help for a relatively brief and limited period of time). The kind of volunteer work which was considered in this dissertation is volunteer work during leisure time. Thus, voluntary behavior in the workplace – defined as activities that go beyond the activities that comprise a person’s job, i.e., prosocial organizational behavior or
Organizational Citizenship Behavior (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993) – was explicitly excluded. Volunteer work is unpaid work that is done for non-material benefits (Bierhoff, 2002). Volunteer work can be defined as “any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group or cause. Volunteering is part of a cluster of helping behaviors,
entailing more commitment than spontaneous assistance but narrower in scope than the care provided to family and friends” (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). Volunteer work often takes place in the context of institutions such as churches, sports clubs, or rescue and voluntary fire brigades (Penner, 2002; von Rosenbladt, 2000). Volunteer work encompasses a wide spectrum of different activities (e.g., caring for handicapped people, political activities, and home work help). In most areas, volunteers contribute time and effort in order to increase the well-being of other people (Bierhoff, 2002). Altogether, volunteer work is characterized by five main features: First, the decision for a voluntary activity is made freely. Second, people who
volunteer work activity. Third, voluntary activities are more long-term than short-term.
Fourth, people who volunteer do not expect financial reward. Fifth, volunteer work provides help to others who need it (Snyder, Omoto, & Lindsay, 2004).
With respect to the literature on volunteer work, there is a considerable body of research dealing with rather fundamental research questions, such as: who are (e.g., which demographic groups) the volunteers, why do they volunteer (Bierhoff, 2002; Clary & Snyder, 1991; Clary et al., 1998), and what are the consequences of the volunteer work itself for volunteers’ well-being (e.g., Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). Up to now, there are only a few studies that examined positive relationships between the volunteer work domain and the domain of paid work (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002). When they analyzed
interviews with female managers, Ruderman and her colleagues (Ruderman et al., 2002) found that life domains outside paid work, such as volunteer work, help female managers to look at work situations more objectively. In addition, participants in the studies of Ruderman et al. (2002) and Kirchmeyer (1992b) reported that volunteer work is positively associated with the acquisition and enhancement of interpersonal and managerial skills. Furthermore, Kirchmeyer (1992a) showed that the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities is positively associated with job satisfaction. Additionally, she found resource enrichment by volunteer work (e.g., status enhancement as one resource associated with volunteering) to be positively related to job satisfaction and organizational commitment.
The Interface of Volunteer Work and Paid Work
With respect to the relations between life domains, researchers suggest at least two ways in which engagement in one life domain can be positively related to another life domain (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001): First, experiences in one life domain can produce positive outcomes in another life domain (i.e., main effects) via resources (i.e.,
General Introduction 21 mediator effects; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007). Accordingly,
engagement in one life domain creates resources (e.g., affect resources) that are transferred to and invested in another life domain, where they produce positive outcomes (Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006). Second, engagement in one life domain can buffer individuals against the negative effects of stressors in another life domain (i.e., moderator effects; Greenhaus &
Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001).
While there is a growing body of research on the interface of family and paid work (Ford, Heinen, & Langkamer, 2007; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007), research on the interface of volunteer work and paid work (i.e., main and moderating effects of volunteering on positive work outcomes, or mediator effects that explain positive
relationships between volunteering and positive work outcomes) is at best rare and often even non-existent. Only a few studies examined and showed positive main effects of volunteer work on paid work (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002). These studies are limited to the following work outcomes: job-relevant skills and job-relevant attitudes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment. There is neither a study dealing with the underlying mechanisms (i.e., mediator effects), nor any study focusing on moderator effects when considering relationships between volunteer work and paid work.
Therefore, in this dissertation, I take a closer look at the seldom explored interface of volunteer work and paid work and examine the benefits of volunteer work engagement for paid work. More specifically, I will examine main effects of volunteering on positive work outcomes, moderator effects of volunteering on positive work outcomes, and mediator effects which explain positive relationships between volunteering and positive work outcomes.
Consequently, the contribution of this dissertation is threefold. First, by considering positive relationships between volunteer work and paid work, this dissertation contributes to the literature on relationships between life domains, since it introduces volunteer work as an
volunteering (e.g., one out of three European citizens volunteered in 2006; TNS Infratest, 2007) and the importance of volunteering for individuals and society as a whole, it is important to examine whether or not volunteers benefit from volunteering, with respect to their working life. If it can be shown that volunteer work during leisure time contributes to positive aspects of working life, then volunteering should be facilitated, supported, and encouraged by organizations, for instance through work-life balance programs that support volunteering. Third, given that positive relationships between life domains were shown to be positively related to well-being (Williams, Franche, Ibrahim, Mustard, & Layton, 2006) and performance (Witt & Carlson, 2006), it seems worthwhile to search for possible positive relations between volunteer work and paid work, since they are also likely to contribute to overall individual well-being and performance at work.
Main Effects: Positive Relationships between Volunteer Work Engagement and Positive Work Outcomes
The idea that two life domains can be related to each other by direct positive
relationships is reflected in the theory of enrichment (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), as well as in the theory of facilitation (Grzywacz et al., 2007). The underlying assumption of these theories, that life domains can benefit each other, is based on the theoretical considerations of Marks (1977) and Sieber (1974), who first proposed that life domains benefit rather than detract from each other. In theories considering possible positive relations between life domains, that deal with the benefits of family engagement on work outcomes, several favorable work-specific outcomes are distinguished: positive affect and high performance (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006), indicators of growth (e.g., improvement in interpersonal communication at work; Grzywacz et al., 2007) and work engagement (Rothbard, 2001).
Drawing on these theories connecting family to paid work (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006;
General Introduction 23 Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001), as well as on research showing positive relationships between family and paid work (Ford et al., 2007; Graves, Ohlott, & Ruderman, 2007;
Rothbard, 2001), and on research showing positive relationships between volunteering and paid work (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002), I consider two types of favorable work-specific outcomes that may be enhanced by volunteering: well-being and performance at work. More specifically, I consider positive and negative affect and work engagement as indicators of well-being at work, and task performance and active listening as indicators of performance at work.
Well-being at work refers to people’s feelings about themselves in relation to their job (Warr, 1999). Two indicators for well-being at work are positive and negative affect (Warr, 1999). Another indicator of well-being is work engagement (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004;
Schaufeli, Taris, & van Rhenen, 2007), defined as a “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and absorption” (Schaufeli, Bakker, &
Salanova, 2006, p. 702). Task performance pertains to behavior that is formally required from employees, for example in their job description (Williams & Anderson, 1991). Active
listening refers to listening, responding to others and being attentive (Monge, Bachman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982b). It is part of communication at work and an indicator of contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993).
Examining several favorable work outcomes of volunteer work allows more insight into possible positive relationships between volunteer work and paid work. Up to now, only job-relevant skills (Kirchmeyer, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002) and job-relevant attitudes (i.e., job satisfaction and organizational commitment; Kirchmeyer, 1992a) were examined as favorable work outcomes with respect to positive relationships with volunteering.
Combining theories on positive relationships between life domains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001) yields the first proposition of the dissertation:
outcomes (see Figure 1). This proposition is tested in two studies in this dissertation. In Study 1, my co-authors and I examined relationships between volunteer work engagement and two positive work outcomes: work engagement (an indicator of well-being at work) and active listening (an indicator of performance at work). In Study 3, my co-authors and I examined relationships between volunteer work engagement and three positive work outcomes, i.e., positive and negative affect at work, task performance and active listening, thereby capturing one indicator of well-being at work and two indicators of performance at work.
Mediator Effects: Underlying Processes Explaining Positive Relationships between Volunteer Work Engagement and Positive Work Outcomes
Theories on positive relationships between life domains propose that resources act as mediators connecting one life domain to another (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007). They suggest that resources are transferred from one life domain to another life domain, and, hence, are responsible for the positive relationships between life domains (Carlson, Kacmar, Wayne, & Grzywacz, 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001). Among the resources, I consider the type of affect resources with respect to the positive work outcomes well-being and performance. Affect resources include positive emotional states or attitudes (Carlson et al., 2006) and are important in several theories (Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001). Positive experiences, in turn, are necessary prerequisites for affect resources (Gable, Reis, & Elliot, 2000). Thus, with respect to the interface of volunteer work and paid work, I propose that positive experiences in the non-work domain are associated with volunteer work engagement and that these positive experiences create affect resources which contribute to positive relationships between volunteer work engagement and positive work outcomes.
General Introduction 25 To explore positive non-work experiences which can be related to volunteer work engagement, I draw on theory and research from the recovery literature (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Hobfoll, 1989; Hobfoll & Shirom, 2001; Meijman & Mulder, 1998; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007), as well as on theory and research within the self-determination framework (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). I consider recovery theory to be important for the research question, because volunteering takes place during a time period that is reserved for recovery from work (Zijlstra & Cropley, 2006). Furthermore, because per definition volunteering is an exemplar of intrinsically motivated behavior, and intrinsically motivated behavior is focused on by self-determination theory, I deem self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to be relevant for the research question as well.
The main idea of theoretical considerations on recovery is that people must restore and renew their resources to recover successfully (Hobfoll, 1989; Meijman & Mulder, 1998).
For successful recovery, experiences in the non-work domain, including psychological detachment from work (i.e., mentally switching off from work), mastery experiences (i.e., pursuing challenging activities), and community experiences (i.e., cultivating relationships), are essential (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007). The main idea of self- determination theory is that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs (i.e., need for competence, need for autonomy, and need for relatedness) is fundamental to well-being and growth (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The connecting element of theory and research on recovery and self-determination is that both the postulated recovery experiences and the postulated basic psychological needs are experiences in the non-work domain which contribute to well-being (Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996; Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007) and therefore are
considered to be experiences in the non-work domain that create positive emotional states (i.e., affect resources).
relationships between two life domains (Carlson et al., 2006; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006;
Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001), I assume that recovery experiences and need satisfaction contribute to these resources. Thus, the second proposition of the dissertation is:
Volunteer work engagement during leisure time is positively related to positive non-work experiences, which, in turn, are positively related to positive work outcomes (see Figure 2).
This proposition is tested in two studies. In Study 2, my co-authors and I examined relationships between volunteer work engagement and the recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work, mastery and community (i.e., positive non-work experiences). In Study 3, my co-authors and I examined relationships between volunteer work engagement and the recovery experiences of psychological detachment from work and mastery (i.e., positive non-work experiences) and the relationship between volunteer work engagement and need satisfaction (i.e., positive non-work experiences). Furthermore, we examined the relationships between these positive non-work experiences and positive and negative affect (an indicator of well-being at work) and task performance and active listening (two indicators of performance at work).
Moderator Effects: Buffering Effect of Volunteer Work Engagement on the Relationship between Work Stressors and Positive Work Outcomes
The considerations so far deal with main effects of volunteer work on paid work, assuming positive relationships between volunteer work engagement and positive outcomes at work and further assuming positive non-work experiences as possible underlying
mechanisms (i.e., mediator effects) which account for positive relationships between volunteer work and paid work. These considerations arise from one possible way in which life domains may be connected to each other (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001).
Another way in which life domains can be connected is that engagement in one life domain
General Introduction 27 buffers the negative effects of stressors in another life domain on outcomes (i.e., moderator effect; Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Voydanoff, 2001). Because engagement in one life domain influences the appraisal of stressors in other life domains (Ruderman et al., 2002), and because engagement in one life domain is related to resources (Carlson et al., 2006;
Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Grzywacz et al., 2007; Rothbard, 2001) which facilitate coping with stressors (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), negative relationships between stressors and outcomes in other life domains are reduced. Research on the interface of family and work suggests such a buffering effect of family on paid work (Barnett, 1994; Barnett, Marshall, &
Pleck, 1992a; Barnett, Marshall, & Singer, 1992b). Drawing on this research (Barnett, 1994;
Barnett et al., 1992a; Barnett et al., 1992b), as well as on stress theory (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984), the third proposition of this dissertation is: Volunteer work engagement during leisure time buffers the negative effects of work stressors on positive work outcomes (see Figure 3).
To test this proposition, my co-author and I conducted a fourth study (Study 4), in which we examined volunteer work engagement as a buffer for the relationship between work stressors (i.e., time pressure and situational constraints) and the two positive work outcomes of
positive affect and active listening at work.
Figure 1. Positive relationships between volunteer work engagement and positive work outcomes
Figure 2. Positive relationships between volunteer work engagement, positive non-work experiences, and positive work outcomes
Figure 3. Volunteer work engagement as a buffer for the relationships between work stressors and positive work outcomes VOLUNTEER WORK
ENGAGEMENT
POSITIVE WORK OUTCOMES Well-being
Performance
VOLUNTEER WORK ENGAGEMENT
POSITIVE NON-WORK EXPERIENCES Recovery Experiences
Need Satisfaction
POSITIVE WORK OUTCOMES Well-being
Performance
WORK STRESSORS
VOLUNTEER WORK ENGAGEMENT
POSITIVE WORK OUTCOMES Well-being
Performance
General Introduction 29 Methodological Approach
The four studies included one longitudinal study over the course of four weeks and three diary studies; i.e., two diary studies lasting one week and one diary study over a two- week period. These study designs have three important advantages compared to traditional designs, e.g., retrospective assessment of experiences over several months (Bolger, Davis, &
Rafaeli, 2003; Tennen & Affleck, 2002). First, these study designs help to determine the antecedents, correlates, and consequences of daily experiences (Bolger et al., 2003) or weekly experiences respectively. Second, they permit the examination of experiences in their natural context (e.g., the assessment of positive work outcomes of the working day captured in a survey immediately after work). Third, by minimizing the time lag between the actual experiences and reordering them, recall errors are reduced (Bolger et al., 2003; Tennen &
Affleck, 2002). In addition, this kind of study design (i.e., repeated measurements of individuals’ experiences in the same context) enables researchers to focus on within-person differences, thus, on relationships between experiences and contexts within a single
individual (Tennen & Affleck, 2002) or, in other words, on day-to-day fluctuations (Bolger et al., 2003) or week-to-week fluctuations respectively. The advantage of focusing on within- person processes is that such a methodological approach makes it possible to control for third variables by using participants as their own controls (Bolger et al., 2003; Tennen & Affleck, 2002). Consequently, when using within-person study designs, the predictions do not refer to differences between persons (i.e., inter-individual differences), but to differences within persons (i.e., intra-individual differences). Thus, alternative interpretations of the results of such within-person design studies, such as the existence of third variables, in particular personality differences, can be ruled out.
In detail, with this dissertation, I add to the limited amount of existing research on the interface of volunteer work and paid work in three regards. First, by examining two indicators of well-being at work, i.e., positive and negative affect and work engagement, and two
indicators of performance, i.e., task performance and active listening, the research field of positive work outcomes attributable to volunteering is further developed. So far, only job- related skills and job-related attitudes were considered as positive work outcomes in
association with volunteering (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002). Second, I add to existing research on the interface of volunteer work and paid work by focusing on two different connection paths between volunteer work and paid work, i.e., main and moderator effects of volunteering on positive work outcomes. Furthermore, examining mediators which account for these main effects of volunteering on paid work, I chose an approach which aims to get insights into the processes that are responsible for positive relationships between the two life domains of volunteer work and paid work. Previously, only main effects of
volunteering were considered (Kirchmeyer, 1992a, 1992b; Ruderman et al., 2002). Third, with respect to the methodological approach of the four studies, I employ a modern and advantageous research design that overcomes many of the weaknesses of cross-sectional designs (Bolger et al., 2003; Tennen & Affleck, 2002).
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 31
STUDY 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different: Positive Relationships between Volunteering during the Weekend and Work Outcomes during the Following
Working Week
Eva J. Mojza Sabine Sonnentag Carmen Binnewies
Summary
This study focused on relationships between volunteer work during leisure time and positive work outcomes. We expected volunteer work during the weekend to be positively related to work engagement and active listening during the following working week. We gathered data from 159 employees from five different organizations, who completed a weekly survey for four consecutive weeks, measuring volunteering during the weekend and work engagement and active listening during the following working week. The results of multilevel analyses (N
= 159 participants with 432 weeks) showed that people reported higher weekly work engagement and higher weekly active listening after weekends when they volunteered, compared to weekends when they did not engage in a volunteer work activity.
The weekend offers an opportunity to take a longer break from work (Fritz &
Sonnentag, 2005) to restore exhausted resources, and to disengage from work for one or two days. Ideally, on Monday morning people feel rested and relaxed at work if they have successfully recovered during the weekend. Not surprisingly, how people spend their leisure time during the weekend influences their performance during the following working week (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005). A considerable share of the population of the European Union or the United States spends its free time during the weekend doing volunteer work (TNS Infratest, 2007, United States Department of Labor, 2008), or in other words, spends time to benefit other persons, groups or causes (Wilson, 2000, p. 215). In Germany, for instance, 32% of all volunteer work activities in 1999 took place on the weekend (von Rosenbladt, 2000). Based on the fact that weekend experiences (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005) can be related to performance during the following working week, it was the purpose of our study to examine whether this special kind of weekend activity, namely volunteer work, is related to work outcomes during the following working week. In cross-sectional studies, it was already shown that volunteer work commitment is positively associated with positive work outcomes such as job satisfaction and organizational commitment (Kirchmeyer, 1992a). In our study, we follow and expand this research area on the interface of volunteer work and paid work in two regards: First, we looked for further positive outcomes of volunteer work by examining work engagement and active listening as dependent variables in our study. Both are important work outcomes. Work engagement is one aspect of well-being at work (Schaufeli & Bakker, 2004; Schaufeli et al., 2007), while active listening is one aspect of contextual performance (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993). Empirically, work engagement was shown to be positively related to task and contextual performance (Salanova, Agut, & Peiró, 2005; Sonnentag, 2003). Second, instead of a cross-sectional study, and in line with other studies on the effects
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 33
of weekend experiences (Fritz & Sonnentag, 2005), we conducted a four-week study, in which we measured volunteer work during the weekend and work engagement and active listening during the following working week. Consequently, this study will shed light on our research question of whether volunteer work, which is pursued by many people around the world (TNS Infratest, 2007, United States Department of Labor, 2008), is related to positive work outcomes, thus, if there is enrichment between the two life domains of volunteer work and paid work. The results of our study will have implications for future research on
relationships between life domains (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). To date, research on relationships between life domains mainly focuses on the interface of family and work (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006). Additionally, this study’s results will have implications for practice with respect to shaping recommendations for using weekends. If we show that volunteer work during the weekend is positively related to both investigated work outcomes, i.e., work engagement and active listening, recommendations can be made with respect to how to spend weekends.
Volunteer Work during the Weekend and Weekly Work Engagement
We propose that volunteer work during the weekend is positively related to work engagement during the following working week. Work engagement is defined as a “positive, fulfilling work-related state of mind that is characterized by vigor, dedication, and
absorption” (Schaufeli et al., 2006, p. 702). Vigor is a state characterised by high levels of energy and mental resilience during work, the willingness to invest effort in one’s work, and persistence even when facing difficulties. Dedication refers to being strongly involved in one’s work and experiencing a sense of significance, enthusiasm, inspiration, pride, and challenge. Absorption is characterized by being fully concentrated on and happily engrossed in one’s work, whereby time passes quickly and one finds it hard to detach oneself from work (Schaufeli et al., 2006). We suggest that there is a positive relationship between volunteer
reasons. First, we argue that volunteer work during the weekend is positively related to work engagement during the following working week because volunteer work offers a break, hence, a period of recovery from work. People report that volunteer work helps them to disengage from work as well as to stay active (Bierhoff & Schülken, 2001). Thus, engaging in some kind of volunteer work activity should be conducive to recovery, because while doing volunteer work people are in a different context with different activities and different co-workers, compared to their regular job, and should therefore be distracted from work- related issues, which, in turn, is essential for successful recovery (Sonnentag & Fritz, 2007).
After engaging in some kind of volunteer work activity during the weekend and thereby enjoying a break from work, people should be more willing to engage themselves at work during the following working week. Empirically, in a diary study, it was shown that people who successfully recover during leisure time in the evening show greater work engagement during the following working day (Sonnentag, 2003). Second, we propose that volunteer work during the weekend is positively related to work engagement during the following working week because volunteer work offers opportunities to create resources. Resources at work and outside of work are, in turn, predictors of work engagement (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007; Kahn, 1990; Xanthopoulou, Bakker, Demerouti, & Schaufeli, 2007). Volunteer work is associated with resources such as social resources (Musick & Wilson, 2003), defined as the amount of social interactions which are associated with social support, useful information and helpful social contacts (Musick & Wilson, 2003). Volunteer work is further associated with psychological resources such as positive attitudes towards oneself (i.e., self-esteem; Musick
& Wilson, 2003; Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). If people feel socially supported and self-confident as a consequence of volunteer work during the weekend, they should be better able to meet
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 35
goals and manage job demands, and thus, should be highly engaged at work during the following working week.
Hypothesis 1. Volunteering during the weekend is positively related to work engagement during the following working week.
Volunteer Work during the Weekend and Weekly Active Listening at Work
We propose that volunteer work during the weekend is positively related to active listening during the following working week. Active listening at work refers to listening to others, responding to others, and attentiveness (Monge et al., 1982b) and is a core component of communication at work. Communication, in turn, is defined as a course of action
consisting of the exchange of messages among organizational members (O'Hair, Friedrich, Wiemann, & Wiemann, 1997). Active listening, as a core part of communication at work, is essential for successful task performance, because communication with co-workers is
important in many jobs (e.g., jobs involving teamwork). Additionally, active listening should be an aspect of contextual performance, because contextual performance implies coordination with co-workers (Borman & Motowidlo, 1993; Klein, DeRouin, & Salas, 2006), thus, also requires active listening.
We expect to find a positive relationship between volunteering during the weekend and active listening during the following working week. We propose that volunteer work is associated with affect resources that enhance active listening at work. A positive relationship between volunteer work and affect resources such as happiness and life satisfaction was shown in the long run (Thoits & Hewitt, 2001). Probably, positive emotional states are short- term consequences of volunteer work (e.g., considering some hours of volunteer work during the weekend). Consequently, volunteers report having fun while volunteering (Bierhoff &
Schülken, 2001; Schroer & Hertel, 2008). Positive emotional states or attitudes have three consequences (Greenhaus & Powell, 2006; Rothbard, 2001): First, they make it easier to take
they indicate that there is no need for self-regulation, and as a consequence the individual has more energy to engage in another role. Thus, where it is easy to take another’s perspective, a person can focus his or her attention on others and does not need to self-regulate; active listening to other’s work issues should be facilitated and enhanced.
Hypothesis 2. Volunteering during the weekend is positively related to weekly active listening during the following working week.
Assessment of Volunteer Work during the Weekend
In our study, we considered two possibilities for assessing volunteer work during the weekend. First, we assessed whether or not the participants pursued some kind of volunteer work activity during the weekend. Second, we assessed the amount of time spent on
volunteer work activities during the weekend. Thus, we tested both possible measures (i.e., a dummy and a time predictor) of volunteer work when testing our hypotheses.
Control Variables
For both outcomes, weekly work engagement and weekly active listening, we controlled for demographic factors (i.e., age, gender, and leadership position), as well as for the general level of the outcome variable (e.g., general work engagement as a control variable for weekly work engagement). Additionally, we controlled for weekly job stressors (i.e., weekly time pressure and weekly situational constraints) as possible predictors of weekly work engagement and weekly active listening.
Method Procedure
After presenting the study in face-to-face meetings to the heads of the personnel departments of five different organizations, we sent an information letter including a registration form to the employees, who could individually sign up for participation. As
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 37
incentives, we promised organization-specific feedback, announced a lottery prize and offered participants a chance to attend training on recovery to be held after the data
collection. The study consisted of a single general survey and a weekly survey to be filled out over the course of four consecutive weeks. Participants had to complete a questionnaire at the beginning of the working week (e.g., Monday morning), called the “Monday survey”, as well as at the end of the working week (e.g., Friday afternoon), called the “Friday survey”.
Questionnaires were web-based, and therefore links to the questionnaires were sent to the participants via e-mail. In the general survey, we assessed demographic data (age, gender, and leadership position) and the general level of work engagement and active listening. In the Monday survey, we assessed whether the participants pursued some kind of volunteer work activity during the weekend. In the Friday survey, we assessed weekly job stressors, weekly work engagement and weekly active listening. All measures were in German, the language spoken by the participants.
Participants
One hundred and ninety-three individuals agreed to participate. They belonged to five German organizations from the fields of: (1) electrical engineering, (2) media, (3)
development and distribution of sports equipment and sports apparel, (4) aluminum manufacturing and supply, and (5) energy supply and public local transportation services.
Since 34 persons did not provide enough data or filled out the questionnaires too late (e.g., filled out in the Friday survey on the following Monday), our final sample consisted of 159 persons providing data on 432 weeks. Thus, we had on average 2.72 weeks from every participant for our analyses. Of all participants, 52.2 percent were female. The mean age was 40.78 years (SD = 8.83), average job tenure was 16.77 years (SD = 9.32), and organizational tenure was 12.52 years (SD = 8.71). Average working time per week was 39.9 hours (SD = 10.3). Participants held, among others, jobs as managers (29.6%), economists (15.7%),
administrative staff (13.2%).
Of the 432 weeks, participants engaged in volunteer work activities on 43 weekends (10%). Regarding the types of volunteer work activities, 44.2% of the activities included work such as the organization and realization of meetings or various events (e.g., preparing or holding a board meeting for a choir), 34.9% were administrative tasks (e.g., homepage
support for a church), 9.3% were activities such as leading a group (e.g., coaching a sport team), 7% involved providing care and assistance (e.g., care of elderly people), and 4.7%
involved the representation of interests (e.g., work for a trade union). The amount of time people spent on volunteer work activities during the weekend was on average 4.63 hours (SD
= 3.22), ranging from one hour to 17 hours per weekend.
General Survey Data
General work engagement was assessed with the short 9-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006). A sample item was “I am immersed in my work”. The items were measured on a 7-point Likert scale (0 = never to 6 = always).
Cronbach’s alpha was .96.
General active listening was measured with four items adapted from the
Communication Competence Questionnaire (Monge, Bachman, Dillard, & Eisenberg, 1982a;
Monge et al., 1982b). A sample item was “I pay attention to what my co-workers say to me”.
The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all to 5 = very true).
Cronbach’s Alpha was .71.
Demographic data were also assessed in the general survey. We included the single item measures of age, gender (1 = female, 2 = male), and leadership position (1 = no, 2 = yes).
Weekly Survey Data
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 39
Volunteer work during the weekend was measured with a one-item question “Did you volunteer on this weekend?” (1 = no, 2 = yes) in the Monday survey. Additionally, also in the Monday survey, we assessed the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities during the weekend with the question “How much time did you spend on volunteer work activities during this weekend?”
Weekly work engagement was also measured with the short 9-item version of the Utrecht Work Engagement Scale (Schaufeli et al., 2006) in the Friday survey, whereas the items were adapted to measure week-specific work engagement (e.g., “This week, I was immersed in my work”). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all to 5 = very true). Cronbach’s alpha, computed separately for the four weeks, ranged between .92 and .95 (mean α = .94).
Weekly active listening was measured with the same four items as general active listening (Monge et al., 1982a; Monge et al., 1982b) in the Friday survey, with the exception that the items were adapted to measure week-specific active listening (e.g., “I paid attention to what my co-workers said to me”). The items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not true at all to 5 = very true). Cronbach’s Alphas ranged between .71 and .85 (mean α = .77).
We computed confirmatory factor analyses with person-mean centered data (Bolger et al., 2003), to test whether or not our two outcomes, weekly work engagement and weekly active listening, represent two separate constructs. Analyses showed a significantly better fit for the two-factor model (χ² = 255.40, df = 1, p < .001, RMSEA = .083, CFI = .93, GFI = .92, NFI = .91), with all items loading on their corresponding factors, than for the alternative one- factor model, with all items loading on one factor, (Δχ² = 178.01, df = 1, p < .001).
Weekly job stressors. We measured two kinds of job stressors: (1) time pressure and (2) situational constraints. We used three items adapted from Semmer (1984) and Zapf (1993)
assignments”), and five items to measure situational constraints (e.g., “This week, I had to work with materials and information that were incomplete and out-dated”). Cronbach’s alphas for the time pressure measure ranged from .82 to .89 (mean α = .86.), and for situational constraints from .70 to .84 (mean α = .76).
Table 1 displays means, standard deviations, and correlations between study variables.
Data Analyses
Our data consisted of data on two levels: Level 1 consisted of weekly survey data (e.g., weekly work engagement), and Level 2 consisted of general survey data (e.g., general work engagement), with Level 1 data nested within Level 2 data. Therefore, we used a hierarchical linear modeling approach to account for the interdependencies of observations (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). Computations were done with MLwiN software (Rasbash et al., 2000). A common procedure to prepare data for multilevel modeling and to facilitate the interpretation of the results is to center the data (Paccagnella, 2006). The centering process subtracts every data point from a predefined reference value. Further calculations are then based on this difference and not on the absolute values in the obtained data. There are two ways in which this can be accomplished. First, the data can be centered around the Level 1 mean (in this case, the respective person mean). Secondly, one may choose to center the data around the Level 2 mean (in this case, the population mean, i.e., grand mean). As
recommended (Hofmann & Gavin, 1998), we centered all Level 1 predictors around the person mean and all Level 2 predictors around the grand mean. Dummy variables were not centered.
Results Preliminary Analyses
Study 1: Weekends with Volunteer Work are Different 41
To check whether hierarchical linear modeling was appropriate for our data, we examined whether weekly scores for work engagement and active listening differed within persons. For this purpose, we partitioned the total variance into within-individual and between-individual variance. For work engagement, within-individual variance was 25.1%
(Level 1 intercept variance, i.e., 0.155 divided by total variance, i.e., 0.155 + 0.463, cf. Table 2), while for active listening, within-individual variance was 45.7%. Consequently, a
substantial portion of the variance can be attributed to variance within persons, suggesting that hierarchical linear modeling is suitable and necessary.
Test of Hypotheses
To test our hypotheses, we ran a set of nested models for the two outcome variables, weekly work engagement and weekly active listening. To test both indicators of volunteer work during the weekend (i.e., volunteer work during the weekend measured as a dummy and volunteer work during the weekend measured as the amount of time spent on volunteer work activities during the weekend), we ran separate analyses for both predictors. In the Null Model, we included only the intercept. In Model 1, we included the control variables at the person level (age, gender, leadership position, and the general level of the outcome variable, e.g., general work engagement as a control variable for weekly work engagement). In Model 2, we entered the control variables at the week-level: weekly time pressure and weekly situational constraints. In Model 3, we included the predictor volunteer work during the week (as a dummy or as a time predictor). We calculated the differences between the respective likelihood statistics and tested them with χ²-difference tests to examine the improvement of each model over the previous one. First, the results for volunteer work measured as a dummy predictor (Tables 2 and 3) are presented, and then the results for the time predictor (Tables 4 and 5).
