Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector

Quarterly
http://nvs.sagepub.com/

Self-Determination Theory as a Framework for Exploring the Impact of the

Organizational Context on Volunteer Motivation : A Study of Romanian
Volunteers
Simona Haivas, Joeri Hofmans and Roland Pepermans
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 2012 41: 1195 originally published online 13
February 2012
DOI: 10.1177/0899764011433041

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/41/6/1195

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action

Additional services and information for Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://nvs.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://nvs.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://nvs.sagepub.com/content/41/6/1195.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Nov 18, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Feb 13, 2012

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012
What is This?
433041
as et al.Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly
NVSq41610.1177/0899764011433041Haiv

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly

Self-Determination 41(6) 11951214

The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
Theory as a Framework for sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0899764011433041
Exploring the Impact of the http://nvsq.sagepub.com

Organizational Context on
Volunteer Motivation:
A Study of Romanian
Volunteers

Simona Haivas1, Joeri Hofmans2,

and Roland Pepermans2

Abstract
In the present study, we use the self-determination theory (SDT) as a framework
to explore the mediating role of needs satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, and
relatedness) on the relationship between the volunteers motivation and two aspects
of the organizational context (i.e., social network and autonomous vs. controlled
work climate). Data from 349 Romanian volunteers provided general support for
SDT and emphasized the effect of an autonomy-supportive climate initiated by the
coordinator in volunteers autonomous motivation. The results showed that needs
satisfaction acts as a partial mediator of the relationship between work climate and
volunteers autonomous motivation. The social network size was positively related
to needs satisfaction but has no direct impact on autonomous motivation. Practical
implications and future research are discussed.

Keywords
volunteering, self-determination, needs satisfaction, motivation, social network

1
Alexandru I. Cuza University, Iasi, Romnia
2
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Work & Organizational Psychology, Pleinlaan, Brussels, Belgium

Corresponding Author:
Simona Haivas, Alexandru I. Cuza University, Department of Psychology, Str. Toma Cozma 3, 700554,
Iasi, Romnia.
Email: shaivas@vub.ac.be

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1196 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Introduction
Because motivators that are used for paid work usually do not apply to volunteering,
a number of studies have been undertaken to unravel why people decide to volunteer.
These studies revealed that (a) people volunteer because of an altruismegoism mix-
ture of motives such as a desire to help others or to satisfy important personal, social,
and psychological goals (e.g., Clary, Snyder, & Stukas, 1996; Cnaan & Goldberg-
Glen, 1991; Smith, 1994) and that (b) personal dispositions, such as empathy or pro-
social personality, also play a key role (Davis et al., 1999; Penner, 2002). Probably
the most comprehensive and popular approach concerning the drive to volunteer is the
one proposed by Clary and Snyder (e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Clary & Snyder, 1991;
Liao-Troth, 2005; Stukas, Snyder, & Clary, 1999). They identified six motives that
would be pursued by performing volunteering activities: expressing important values,
obtaining a better understanding, enhancing self-esteem, fitting into ones social
group, developing career skills and opportunities, and its protective effect.
In general, previous studies have predominantly conceptualized the drive to volun-
teer as a set of motives that serves different personal and social functions. In that
sense, they assume that volunteers are motivated for fulfilling activities that respond
to their personal motives. As a consequence, the organizational context plays a key
role in volunteer motivation as it may or may not add to the fulfillment of these per-
sonal motives. However, the impact of organizational experiences on the volunteers
motivation has, to our knowledge, largely been ignored. The present study will respond
to this limitation by shedding light on the relationship between the motivation for the
volunteering activities and two aspects of the organizational environment (i.e., social
network, and autonomous vs. controlled work climate). To this end, we will rely on the
self-determination theory (SDT), as this is one of the most important and encompass-
ing motivation theories at present (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

SDT
SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002) is a meta-theory of human motivation which includes
five minitheories and several motivation-related concepts. For this article, we will
only refer to the following three components of the theory: social context (which we
will refer throughout the article as organizational context), needs satisfaction, and
motivation. In general, according to SDT, the social context has an impact on the
satisfaction of the needs, and this in turn influences autonomous (or self-determined)
motivation.
In particular, SDT states that all individuals have innate tendencies to grow and
develop toward their full potential. To do so, SDT argues that the three basic psycho-
logical needs should be satisfied, that is, the need for autonomy, competence, and
relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). People have their autonomy need satisfied when
they experience ownership of their behavior and act with a sense of volition (Deci &
Ryan, 2000), their competence need can be satisfied when they are able to successfully
achieve desired outcomes, meet performance standards and manage different challenges

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1197

(Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), and their relatedness need
gets satisfied when they feel connected with others and feel cared for by them
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007).
To experience needs satisfaction, the theory further states that support and nutri-
ments from the social context are necessary (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this respect, SDT
differentiates between two types of contexts. An autonomy supportive context refers to
an environment in which persons with authority (such as managers, coordinators, or
teachers) take the perspectives of others into account, offer relevant information and
opportunities to choose, encourage initiative, provide optimal challenges and positive
feedback, and facilitate a secure environment for social interactions. In contrast, a con-
trolling supportive context refers to an environment in which people experience pres-
sure to think, feel, or behave in specified ways (Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Deci &
Ryan, 1985; Williams & Deci, 1996). In an organizational setting, autonomy support
does not refer to job characteristics but to the interpersonal climate created between a
supervisor or coordinator and the work team members (Gagn & Deci, 2005).
SDT assumes that social contexts facilitate two major types of motivation through
satisfaction of the three basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In this respect, a central
distinction is made between autonomous and controlled motivation. Autonomous
motivation refers to behavior that is performed because of personal choice and because
the subject finds pleasure in it. Moreover, autonomous motivation can further be sub-
divided into three components that differ in terms of how internalized the behavioral
motives are. From highly to less internalized, one distinguishes: intrinsic motivation
(e.g., when helping in itself gives joy), integrated regulation (e.g., when being a vol-
unteer is central to ones identity), and identified regulation (e.g., when volunteering
is considered to support an important personal cause).
In contrast to autonomous motivation stands controlled motivation, which refers to
doing something to receive a reward or to avoid punishment or feelings of guilt.
Controlled motivation can be subdivided into two components that differ in terms of
how internalized the behavioral motives are. Introjected regulation refers to a low
form of internalization when behaviors are performed to avoid guilt and shame or to
obtain ego enhancements and feelings of worth (e.g., engaging in volunteering to
escape the feeling of guilt caused by being more fortunate than others), whereas exter-
nal regulation refers to no internalized behaviors as they are mainly driven by external
rewards or to avoid punishment (e.g., a youngster who volunteers to meet school
requirements).
Previous research has shown that autonomy supportive contexts encourage autono-
mous motivation and discourage controlled motivation (e.g., Black & Deci, 2000;
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leoner, 1994; Williams & Deci, 1996). In particular, SDT
predicts that autonomy supportive contexts positively affect the degree to which an
individual satisfies his need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. This in turn
will result in more autonomous forms of motivation because it facilitates the internal-
ization of the behavior (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Regarding the link between the three
needs and the internalization of the behavior, SDT does not consider the three needs
as equally important. More specifically, satisfaction of the relatedness need alone can

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1198 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

only lead to behaviors that are partially internalized such as behaviors not truly
accepted as according to ones own will (introjected regulation), or behaviors that the
person identifies with because they are important to reach other personal goals (identi-
fied regulation). As such, relatedness in itself is not enough to ensure a full internaliza-
tion. For the person to really experience behaviors as an integral part of who one is
(integrated regulation), it is mandatory that the person freely engages in what is to be
done (i.e., satisfaction of the autonomy need) and feels competent in the interaction
with the environment (i.e., satisfaction of the competence need; Deci & Ryan, 2002).
Indeed, as Deci and Ryan (2002) argue, experiences of autonomy and competence are
essential for intrinsic motivation (the most autonomous form of motivation). Although
intrinsic motivation can in certain circumstances be stimulated by the satisfaction of
the relatedness need (Ryan & LaGuardia, 2000), relatedness is less central to intrinsic
motivation. A striking example of the foregoing is that people can engage in intrinsi-
cally motivating behaviors that do not require any social interaction (e.g., playing
computer games). In sum, one can expect that satisfaction of the relatedness need is
important for partial internalization, whereas satisfaction of the competence and
autonomy need is required for intrinsic motivation and full internalization (as in
integration).

The Effect of the Organizational

Context on Needs Satisfaction and Motivation
In this study, we use SDT as a framework to explore how the motivation for volun-
teering activities is influenced by the organizational context. More specifically, we
will focus on the impact of social network size and work context (autonomous vs.
controlled).
A social network perspective focuses on the importance of interpersonal relation-
ships for organizational behavior. It has been shown that a strong intra-organizational
social network characterized by good relations and a sense of obligation toward other
staff (Moynihan & Pandey, 2007, p. 205) makes employees stay in an organization
(Mossholder, Settoon, & Henagan, 2005; Moynihan & Pandey, 2007). Moreover, in
nonprofit organizations, social networks may provide valuable information to help
explain peoples attitudes and behavior. Previous studies have acknowledged that an
extensive social network associated with the volunteers activities or with the organi-
zation positively influences the decision to become a volunteer (Bussell & Forbes,
2002; Martinez & McMullin, 2004; Paik & Navarre-Jackson, 2011; Wilson, 2000).
Furthermore, it has been shown that involvement in volunteering leads to an increase
in the social network related to volunteering (Omoto & Snyder, 2002). Despite the fact
that research on the role of social networks in nonvolunteering contexts is growing
(Moynihan & Pandey, 2007), studies on the link between social network and volun-
teers behaviors and attitudes remain lacking (exceptions are studies by Grube &
Piliavin, 2000 and Stryker & Serpe, 1994). This is somehow surprising given the lack
of financial rewards in volunteering work. Indeed, from a social exchange point of

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1199

view (Wilson, 2000; Vantilborgh et al., 2012) social connections during volunteering
might compensate for the lack of financial rewards by providing an alternative return
on investment for the volunteer. Furthermore, many volunteering situations concern
caregiving, which may create emotional burdens (Parker, 2002), and hence require
replenishment in the form of relational and emotional support from coworkers and
other employees (Mossholder et al., 2005, p. 608). The present study will make an
initial attempt to study the role of social networks by investigating the impact of their
size on volunteers motivation via satisfaction of the basic psychological needs. We
will specifically focus on the relatedness need, given that the influence of the social
network on this need may follow several routes. On one hand, increased social ties
may generate solidarity among the volunteers, which increases the feeling of belong-
ing. On the other hand, involvement in volunteering activities could be triggered by
the desire to adhere to certain groups norms, which leads to obtaining social approval
from that group and an increased sense of belonging (Fisher & Ackerman, 1998).
Regarding the actual work context, a consistent body of research found that auton-
omy supportive contexts have a positive impact across a range of different domains
(e.g., education, health care, sport, work). For example, autonomy supportive contexts
as initiated by the supervisor have been found to promote autonomous motivation and
subsequently work engagement, trust in the organization, work satisfaction, intention
to stay, and organizational change (Black & Deci, 2000; Deci, Connell, & Ryan, 1989;
Deci et al., 1994; Gagn & Deci, 2005; Gagn, Koestner, & Zuckerman, 2000;
Rhoades, Eisenberger, & Armeli, 2001; Williams & Deci, 1996). Moreover, in some
studies (Baard et al., 2004; Deci et al., 2001) the link between an autonomy supportive
work context and outcomes such as job performance, psychological adjustment, work
engagement, self-esteem, and the like appears to be mediated by needs satisfaction,
calculated as a composite score of all three needs.

Limitations of Previous Research

Previous studies on the link between organizational context variables and autonomous
motivation are subject to three major limitations. First, although SDT predicts that
autonomy supportive contexts provide the necessary nutriments to satisfy the
needsand as such facilitate autonomous motivationthese relationships have never
been studied simultaneously. Second, in most studies, no distinction is made between
the satisfaction of the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Yet SDT
focuses on the three different need satisfactions and, as we suggested earlier, even
differentiates between their roles. Third, most studies have been performed in a non-
volunteering context with Western (U.S., Canadian, or Western European) popula-
tions. In the current study, we will tackle these three limitations by (a) studying the
sequential effects of autonomy supportive contexts and size of the social network
on needs satisfaction, and subsequently on autonomous and controlled motivation;
(b) distinguishing between the three psychological needs; and (c) relying on an Eastern
European volunteers sample.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1200 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Hypotheses
The central purpose of the present research is to explore the impact of social network
and work climate on needs satisfaction and subsequently on volunteers motivation.
Based on previous research that we discussed above, several hypotheses can be
formulated:

1. Hypothesis 1a: An autonomy supportive climate relates positively to volun-

teers autonomous motivation.
2. Hypothesis 1b: An autonomy supportive climate relates negatively to volun-
teers controlled motivation.
3. Hypothesis 2: The effect of the climate on the motivation for volunteering
activities is mediated by satisfaction of the three basic needs.
4. Hypothesis 3: The size of the volunteers social network relates positively to
satisfaction of the relatedness need, which in turn has a positive impact on
autonomous motivation.
5. Hypothesis 4: Satisfaction of the volunteers autonomy and competence
need has a stronger impact on autonomous motivation, compared with satis-
faction of the relatedness need.

Method
Participants

Participants were 349 Romanian volunteers from 10 different nongovernmental orga-

nizations. The respondents age varied between 18 and 58 years, with a mean age of
22.9 years (SD = 4.8), and 61.3% were female and 38.7% were male. With respect to
professional status, 28.7% had additional paid jobs and 71.3% were students.
Concerning the level of education, 0.3% of the participants completed primary school,
47% completed secondary education, 44% acquired a professional school or bache-
lors degree, and 8.7% obtained a masters or PhD degree. This sample was represen-
tative of Romanian volunteers in several aspects: the majority of volunteers in
Romania are female (two-thirds female, one-third male); they are mostly young, that
is, within an age range of 19 to 25 years, and they are highly educated, with more than
half currently enrolled in an educational program (Country Report Romania, 2009;
Rigman, 2009).

Procedure
To obtain a representative volunteers sample, we recruited from 10 different nongov-
ernmental organizations operating in the social and the educational domain. Generally
speaking, the volunteers from the social domain (61.3% of the respondents) partici-
pate in activities such as information campaigns for preventing human traffic, drug

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1201

consumption, and sexual diseases or are involved in first-aid courses or provide coun-
seling, social reintegration training and free-time activities for HIV+ children, and so
forth. Volunteers from the educational domain (38.7% of the respondents) participate
typically in activities such as organizing educational competitions or workshops, and
job fairs for students.
The questionnaires were distributed personally at the end of regular meetings in
the respective organizations when volunteers are briefed about new and ongoing
volunteering projects. This was accompanied by a short verbal clarification of the
study, where special emphasis was put on confidentiality, anonymity of responses,
and nonmandatory participation. Our procedure resulted in a response rate close to
100% (a small number of questionnaires could not be used due to incompleteness).

Measures
The questionnaire included four measurement scales (Motivation at Work Scale
Revised [MAWS-R], Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale, Work Climate
Questionnaire [WCQ], and Social Network). In addition, demographic questions
concerning age, gender, level of education, and professional status were included in
the questionnaire. The four measurement scales were translated from English into
Romanian by a professional translator. An English back-translation was done by an
additional translator, and this back-translation was compared with the original version
of the scales. Remaining and additional ambiguities were solved by a team of four
psychologists competent in both English and Romanian. An overview of these four
scales can be found in Appendix A.
MAWS-R. Motivation for volunteering work was measured using the MAWS-R
(Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, Soenens, & Lens, 2010). In this scale,
participants are asked to rate the reasons for engaging in volunteer work according to
the different forms of autonomous and controlled motivation, on a scale from 1 (not at
all because of this reason) to 7 (exactly because of this reason): external regulation
(four items, e.g., Because others put pressure on me), introjected regulation (four
items, e.g., Because it makes me feel proud of myself), identified regulation (four
items, e.g., Because what I do in this job has a lot of personal meaning to me), inte-
grated regulation (four items, e.g., Because I am made for this type of work), and
intrinsic motivation (four items, e.g., Because I enjoy this work very much). Consis-
tent with SDT and previous studies (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, Dewitte,
DeWitte, & Deci, 2004), we used the distinction between controlled motivation, com-
posed of the items that measure external and introjected regulation ( = .68), and
autonomous motivation, composed of items that measure identified and integrated
regulation and intrinsic motivation ( = 0.89) for our subsequent analyses.
Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale. We adapted the need satisfaction scale devel-
oped by Deci and Ryan (2000) to the volunteer context, by substituting the words
work and job respectively with work as volunteer or volunteering activities.
In total, 20 items were finally used to assess autonomy satisfaction (six items, e.g.,

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1202 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of All Variables

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Autonomy need 5.39 0.98

2. Competence need 5.39 0.93 .649**
3. Relatedness need 5.44 0.92 .728** .621**
4. Autonomous motivation 5.01 1.00 .387** .359** .315**
5. Controlled motivation 2.81 0.79 .015 .001 .006 .352**
6. Work climate 5.50 1.03 .523** .390** .563** .373** .104
7. Social network 8.48 2.34 .241** .202** .362** .176** .079 .157**
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

I am free to express my ideas and opinions when I work as a volunteer, = .72),

relatedness satisfaction (eight items, e.g. I really like the people I am volunteering
with, = .74), and competence satisfaction (six items, e.g., I dont feel very compe-
tent at my volunteering activities, reversed coded, = .62). All items had to be
answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree). One
item from the original autonomy satisfaction subscale was deleted because of its nega-
tive influence on Cronbachs (itemtotal correlation = .02; When I am volunteering,
I have to do what I am told).
WCQ. Perceived autonomy support by ones supervisor was measured with the
WCQ. The WCQ is a 15-item scale that assesses the degree to which the respondent
experiences his or her supervisor as autonomy supportive (Baard, 2002). We adapted
the questionnaire to the volunteer context by substituting the words manager or
superior with volunteers coordinator (e.g., My coordinator encouraged me to
ask questions or I feel able to share my feelings with my coordinator). All items
had to be answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally
agree). Cronbachs of the 15-item scale was .92.
Social Network. The size of the social network was measured using the 5-item scale
as proposed by Grube and Piliavin (2000) in one of the rare studies on this topic. An
example item is, Of the people you know through your volunteering work, how many
are close friends? Because of high skewness of these scores, responses were recoded
by replacing the scores that exceed 9 with a score of 9 and subsequently, transforming
the scores by adding 1 and taking the natural logarithm. This procedure comes down
to a normalization of the scores and is completely in line with the recommendations of
the authors (Grube & Piliavin, 2000). The higher the score, the larger ones social
network. Cronbachs of the 5-item scale was .73.

Results
Table 1 shows the means and standard deviations for each of the variables (except for
social network, which goes from 0 to 9, all scales are in the 1 to 7 range) as well as

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1203

Figure 1. Results of the hypothesized mediation model in which needs satisfaction mediates
the relationship between work climate and social network and volunteer motivation
Note: Only the significant paths are shown. The full results are shown in Appendix B.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

the interrelations between them. It can be observed that volunteers are on average
relatively high in autonomous motivation and low in controlled motivation. Also, the
volunteers reported a relatively high level of satisfaction of the three basic needs and
of perceived autonomy support from their coordinator. The work climate indicator
correlates with the satisfaction of all three needs and also with the size of the volun-
teers social network.
Our hypotheses were tested in the framework of path analysis using the product-of-
coefficients approach proposed by Preacher and Hayes (2008). As significance tests of
the indirect effects by means of the product-of-coefficients approach do 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 con-
fidence intervals thereby exceeding the suggested 5,000 samples (Preacher and Hayes,
2008). The significant parameter estimates of this mediation model, together with an
indication of their significance based on the bootstrap procedure, are shown in Figure 1.
For an overview of all parameter estimates (both the significant and nonsignificant
ones), the reader is referred to Appendix B.
First, we observe that work climate, as indicated by the perceived autonomy sup-
port from the coordinator, has a positive direct relationship with the volunteers auton-
omous motivation, which is in line with Hypothesis 1. However, Hypothesis 1 is only

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1204 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

partially supported because of the positive effect of work climate on controlled moti-
vation as well.
Second, autonomy supportive work climate relates positively to satisfaction of the
three basic needs. In turn, satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs posi-
tively influences autonomous motivation. Thus, regarding work climate, Hypothesis 2
is partially supported by the data. In particular, autonomy supportive work climate not
only has a direct impact on controlled and autonomous motivation but also has an
indirect impact on autonomous motivation through the satisfaction of the autonomy
and competence needs and an indirect impact on controlled motivation through the
satisfaction of the autonomy need (as indicated in Appendix C). Moreover, the nonsig-
nificant indirect effect of the autonomy supportive work climate on autonomous moti-
vation through the satisfaction of the relatedness need (see Appendix C) provides
support for Hypothesis 4.
Third, the size of ones social network relates to the satisfaction of all three basic
needs, with the largest effect being the relationship with relatedness need satisfaction.
However, Hypothesis 3 was not supported by the results as there appears to be no
effect on autonomous motivation. In particular, the indirect effects of social network
on autonomous motivation through all three needs are nonsignificant (see Appendix D),
whereas only the direct effect from social network on controlled motivation is signifi-
cant (0.37, p < .05).

Discussion
The aim of this study is to enlarge the perspective on volunteers motivation by taking
the organizational context into account. In particular, we study the role of autonomy
supportive work climate and social network on autonomous and controlled motivation
within the framework of the SDT.
Regarding the volunteering work climate, we tested the hypothesis that having an
autonomy supportive volunteering climate has an impact on the autonomous motiva-
tion to perform volunteering activities. To understand the mechanisms underlying this
effect, we tested for the mediation effect of satisfaction of the three basic psychologi-
cal needs. In contrast to earlier research, which often studied the effects of a global
need satisfaction without differentiating between the three needs (Deci et al., 2001;
Gagn, 2003; Van den Broeck et al., 2008), we measured the three needs separately
and analyzed their unique contributions. A first observation in this respect is that the
needs satisfactions are highly correlated. As such, the shared part of the three needs
appears to be the major determinant in determining motivation for volunteering activi-
ties. Note that in previous research, this was often used as an argument to justify the
practice of combining satisfaction of the three needs into one global measure (e.g.,
Deci et al., 2001; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008). However,
at the same time, our results reveal that the three needs have small, yet significant,
unique contributions as well. Therefore, we believe that our results underscore the

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1205

importance of distinguishing between the three needs because, by not doing this, infor-
mation about their unique contributions is lost.
When we then analyze the unique contributions of the three needs, we observe that
the degree of autonomy supportiveness within the volunteering organization relates to
the satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs, which in turn relates to the
degree of autonomous motivation of the volunteer. Furthermore, satisfaction of the
autonomy need is found to be negatively related to the controlled motivation for per-
forming volunteering activities. Both findings are in line with previous studies (e.g.,
Grolnick & Ryan, 1989; Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005; Williams & Deci, 1996) and
provide general support for SDT in the sense that the degree to which people are able
to incorporate the external demands and regulations into their self is a function of the
degree to which the basic needs are satisfied through the work climate (Deci & Ryan,
2000). However, a similar effect was not found for relatedness need satisfaction. This
was affected by an autonomy supportive climate but had no relationship with autono-
mous motivation. One explanation could relate to the specifics of the volunteering
context, where no financial compensation exists, where the job structure implies fewer
constraints, and where performance evaluation is infrequent or does not exist
(Boezeman & Ellemers, 2009; Pearce, 1993). In fact, our data suggest that volunteer-
ing is first perceived as a place to experience freedom of choice and to feel competent
in ones (volunteering) work environment, whereas connecting to others is secondary.
Moreover, this result is in line with the SDT assumption that satisfaction of the relat-
edness need is less central to the internalization of regulations (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Regarding the relationship between an autonomy supportive volunteering climate
and controlled motivation, the results reveal a positive effect. This unexpected effect
could yet be explained by the fact that introjected regulation (i.e., the most internalized
form of controlled motivation) is positively correlated to the three components of
autonomous motivation, whereas external regulation is not. These findings are similar
to the study of Millette and Gagn (2008). As such, our results therefore suggest that
introjected regulation may be closer to autonomous than to controlled motivation
(Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Sencal, 2007).
Second, we focused on the impact of the social network associated with volunteer-
ing, a concept which we operationalized as the number of friends and important others
within the volunteering organization (Grube & Piliavin, 2000; Stryker & Serpe, 1994).
Our expectation that the size of the social network determines volunteers autonomous
motivation through relatedness need satisfaction was not supported. This is due to the
shared variance between the three needs and therefore supports the more distal role of
relatedness need satisfaction in the elicitation of autonomous motivation. That is,
relatedness need satisfaction has an effect on autonomous motivation that is shared
with the other two needs, but it has no additional unique effect.
To conclude, we may say that our main contributionalso of practical relevance
is that our study shows that experiencing an autonomy supportive volunteering cli-
mate, as initiated by a coordinator, has a more positive impact on the autonomous

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1206 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

motivation for performing volunteering activities than having a large network of

important others associated with the volunteering activities. This highlights the impor-
tance of looking for appropriate coordinating skills and possibly investing in the
development of these skills with people who manage volunteers. What seems to be
needed are coordinators with the ability to create a volunteering climate that provides
a good rationale and offers choice, acknowledge the volunteers feelings toward the
activities, offers positive feedback, and encourages personal initiative. Meanwhile, the
role of friends or important others related to volunteering should not be underesti-
mated, as it can lead to satisfaction of the basic needs and indirectly increase the vol-
unteers well-being. An implication at another level is that, because our sample comes
from a less studied non-Western population, these results support the case of basic
psychological needs in terms of SDT-concepts (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Inevitably, our study is also subject to a number of limitations. First, because
specific measures for SDT research on volunteers are almost nonexistent, we had to
make small adaptations to the available instruments. These few adaptations may
possibly have affected the psychometric properties of these instruments. However,
in our opinion, this strategy was the best option as it tries to preserve the concept
validity of the measures. Second, social network related to volunteering has been
operationalized in terms of the size of the network. Taking other aspects of social
networks into account in future studies, such as social trust, could complement the
findings in the present research. Third, the volunteering population in Romania is
fairly distinct as it mainly consists of young and educated people from urban areas
and has been formed in the past two decades in a social climate less conductive to
social participation, self-responsibility, and autonomy (Voicu & Voicu, 2003). This
peculiarity may have influenced certain outcomes and may limit the generalizability
of the findings. In particular, as compared with mature adults or older people, young
people might be more interested in satisfying their autonomy need as their need for
belonging and connecting with others might already be satisfied during other day-to-
day youth activities. In addition, the collectivistic features of the Romanian culture
might also allow volunteers to satisfy their relationship need by means of particu-
larly strong connections with their families and other social groups. Therefore, a
replication of the findings in other non-Western countries with a comparable social
background would be interesting. Fourth, our research findings might suffer from
shared method variance typically related to cross-sectional designs. For future
research, it would be interesting to have the autonomy support rated by the coordina-
tors themselves through self-evaluation. However, linking the coordinators to the
actual volunteers, working in a variety of environments, is not an easy thing to
accomplish. Nevertheless, despite these limitations, the present study adds to the
literature as it draws attention to the importance of the organizational context for
volunteers motivation and provides support for SDT assumptions in a less studied
population.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1207

Appendix A
Scales Used in the Study

Motivation at Work ScaleRevised (MAWS-R)

I put effort in my volunteering activities . . .
External regulation. Because others put pressure on me (e.g., supervisor, colleagues,
family, clients . . .).
Because others force me to it (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients . . .).
Because others will appreciate me more (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family,
clients . . .).
To avoid being criticized by others (e.g., supervisor, colleagues, family, clients . . .).
Introjected regulation. Because it makes me feel proud of myself.
Because it makes me feel good about myself.
Because otherwise I will feel bad about myself.
Because otherwise I will feel guilty.
Identified regulation. Because what I do in this job has a lot of personal meaning
to me.
Because putting efforts in this job has personal significance to me.
Because it is useful to put effort in my job.
Because I personally consider it important to put efforts in this job.
Integrated regulation. Because I am made for this type of work.
Because this work is a vocation to me.
Because I actualize myself fully through this work.
Because this work fits perfectly well with my life goals.
Intrinsic motivation. Because I enjoy this work very much.
Because the work I do is interesting.
Because this job aligns with my interests.
Because the work I do is a lot of fun.

Basic Need Satisfaction at Work Scale

When I am volunteering . . .
I feel like I can make a lot of inputs to deciding how my volunteer job gets done.
I really like the people I am volunteering with.
I do not feel very competent when I work as a volunteer.
People I am volunteering with tell me I am good at what I do.
I feel pressured when I work as a volunteer.
I get along with people I am volunteering with.
I pretty much keep to myself when I work as a volunteer.

(continued)

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1208 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Appendix A (continued)
I am free to express my ideas and opinions when I work as a volunteer.
I consider the people I volunteer with to be my friends.
I have been able to learn interesting new skills on my volunteering activities.
When I work as a volunteer, I have to do what I am told.
Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from my volunteering activities.
My feelings are taken into consideration when I do volunteering activities.
On my work as a volunteer I do not get much of a chance to show how capable I am.
People I am volunteering with care about me.
There are not many people I am volunteering with that I am close to.
I feel like I can pretty much be myself when I work as a volunteer.
The people I am volunteering with do not seem to like me much.
When I am working as a volunteer, I often do not feel very capable.
There is not much opportunity for me to decide for myself how to go about my
work as a volunteer.
People I am volunteering with are pretty friendly toward me.

Work Climate Questionnaire (WCQ)

I feel that my coordinator provides me choices and options.
I feel understood by my coordinator.
I am able to be open with my manager at work.
My coordinator conveyed confidence in my ability to do well at my job.
I feel that my coordinator accepts me.
My coordinator made sure I really understood the goals of my job and what I need
to do.
My coordinator encouraged me to ask questions.
I feel a lot of trust in my coordinator.
My coordinator answers my questions fully and carefully.
My coordinator listens to how I would like to do things.
My coordinator handles peoples emotions very well.
I feel that my coordinator cares about me as a person.
I dont feel very good about the way my coordinator talks to me.
My coordinator tries to understand how I see things before suggesting a new way
to do things.
I feel able to share my feelings with my coordinator.

Social Network
Of all the people you know through your volunteering work, how many are important
to you, that is, you would really miss if you did not see them?

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1209

Think of those people that are important to you. About how many would you lose
contact with if you stopped your volunteering work?
How many people do you know on a first-name basis through your volunteering
work?
Of the people you know through your volunteering work, how many are close
friends?
Of the people you know through your volunteering work, how many participate in
other activities with you (e.g., work together, engage in recreation together, visit each
others homes, etc.)?

Appendix B
Results of the Path Analysis
1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Autonomy need
2. Competence need .324**
3. Relatedness need .318** .298**
4. Autonomous motivation .146** .172* .046
5. Controlled motivation .143** .040 .065 .241**
6. Work climate .391** .351** .414** .275** .187**
7. Social network .059** .055* .106** .024 .037
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Appendix C
Specific Indirect Effects for Work Climate
Work climate Autonomy need Indirect effect = .057, 95% CI [.003, .113]
Autonomous motivation
Work climate Competence need Indirect effect = .06, 95% CI [.018, .105]
Autonomous motivation
Work climate Relatedness need Indirect effect = .019, 95% CI [.077, .04]
Autonomous motivation
Work climate Autonomy need Indirect effect = .056, 95% CI [.111, .008]
Controlled motivation
Work climate Competence need Indirect effect = .014, 95% CI [.025, .052]
Controlled motivation
Work climate Relatedness need Indirect effect = .027, 95% CI [.072, .017]
Controlled motivation
Social network Autonomy need Indirect effect = .009, 95% CI [.000, .020]
Autonomous motivation

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1210 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Appendix D
Specific Indirect Effects for Social Network
Social network Competence need Indirect effect = .009, 95% CI [.002, .020]
Autonomous motivation
Social network Relatedness need Indirect effect = .005, 95% CI [.020, .010]
Autonomous motivation
Social network Autonomy need Indirect effect = .008, 95% CI [.019, .001]
Controlled motivation
Social network Competence need Indirect effect = .002, 95% CI [.004, .009]
Controlled motivation
Social network Relatedness need Indirect effect = .007, 95% CI [.019, .005]
Controlled motivation

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The first author received a PhD grant by the Vrije Universiteit Brussel. There was no other
financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Baard, P. P. (2002). Intrinsic needs satisfaction in organization: A motivational basis for success
in for-profit and not-for-profit settings. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of
self-determination research (pp. 255-275). 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,
2045-2068. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2004.tb02690.x
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors support and students autonomous
motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science
Education, 84, 740-756. doi:10.1002/1098-37X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Intrinsic need satisfaction and the job attitudes of vol-
unteers versus employees working in a charitable volunteer organization. Journal of Occu-
pational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 897-914. doi:10.1348/096317908X383742
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,
244-257. doi:10.1002/nvsm.183
Clary, E. G., & Snyder, M. (1991). A functional analysis of altruism and prosocial behavior:
The case of volunteerism. In M. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior (pp. 119-148). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1211

Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R. D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A. A., Haugen, J., & Miene, P. (1998).
Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional approach. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516-1530. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1516
Clary, E., Snyder, M., & Stukas, A. (1996). Volunteers motivations: Findings from a national sur-
vey. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 25, 485-505. doi:10.1177/0899764096254006
Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human ser-
vices. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27, 269-284. doi:10.1177/0021886391273003
Country Report Romania. (2009). The study on volunteering in the European Union. Retrieved
from http://ec.europa.eu/citizenship/index_en.htm
Davis, M. H., Mitchell, K. V., Hall, J. A., Lothert, J., Snapp, T., & Meyer, M. (1999). Empathy,
expectations, and situational preferences: Personality influences on the decision to partici-
pate in volunteer helping behaviors. Journal of Personality, 67, 469-503. doi:10.1111/1467-
6494.00062
Deci, E. L., Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Self-determination in a work organization.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 580-590. doi:10.1002/job.322
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leoner, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internaliza-
tion: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behav-
ior. New York, NY: 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, 227-268. doi:10.1207/
S15327965PLI1104_03
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY:
University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagn, 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, 930-942.
doi:10.1177/0146167201278002
Gagn, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the engagement of
prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223. doi:10.1023/A:1025007614869
Gagn, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362. doi:10.1002/job.322
Gagn, M., Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating the acceptance of organiza-
tional change: The importance of self-determination. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,
30, 1843-1852. doi: 10.1111/j.1559 1816.2000.tb02471.x
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with childrens self-regulation and
competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143-154. doi:10.1037/0022-
0663.81.2.143
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and volunteer
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108-1119. doi:10.1177/
01461672002611007

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1212 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Fisher, R. J., & Ackerman, D. (1998). The effects of recognition and group need on vol-
unteerism: A social norm perspective. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 262-275.
doi:10.1086/209538
Liao-Troth, M. A. (2005). Are they here for the long haul? The effects of functional motives and
personality factors on the psychological contracts of volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 34, 510-530. doi:10.1177/0899764005279513
Lynch, M. F., Jr., Plant, R., & Ryan, R. M. (2005). Psychological needs and threat to safety:
Implications for staff and patients in a psychiatric hospital for youth. Professional Psychol-
ogy, 36, 415-425. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.36.4.415
Martinez, T. A., & McMullin, S. L. (2004). Factors affecting decisions to volunteer in non-
governmental organizations. Environment and Behavior, 36(1), 112-126. doi:10.1177/
0013916503256642
Millette, V., & Gagne, M. (2008). Designing volunteers tasks to maximize motivation, satisfac-
tion and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer engagement. Motiva-
tion and Emotion, 32, 11 -22. doi: 10.1007/s11031-007-9079-4
Mossholder, K. W., Settoon, R. P., & Henagan, S. C. (2005). A relational perspective on turn-
over: Examining structural, attitudinal, and behavioral predictors. Academy of Management
Journal, 48, 607-618. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17843941
Moynihan, D. P., & Pandey, S. K. (2007). The ties that bind: Social networks, person
organization value fit, and turnover intention. Journal of Public Administration
Research and Theory, 18, 205-227. doi:10.1093/jopart/mum013
Omoto, A. M., & Snyder, M. (2002). Considerations of community: The context and process of vol-
unteerism. American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 846-867. doi:10.1177/0002764202045005007
Paik, A., & Navarre-Jackson, L. (2011). Social networks, recruitment, and volunteering: Are
social capital effects conditional on recruitment? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,
40, 476-496. doi:10.1177/0899764009354647
Parker, V. A. (2002). Connecting relational work and workgroup context in caregiv-
ing organizations. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 38, 276-297. doi:10.1177/
0021886302038003002
Pearce, J. L. (1993). Volunteers: The organizational behavior of unpaid workers. London, UK:
Routledge.
Penner, L. (2002). Dispositional and organizational influences on sustained volunteerism: An inter-
actionist perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 447-467. doi:10.1111/1540-4560.00270
Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing
and comparing direct effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 4,
879-891. doi:10.3758/BRM.40.3.87
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Sencal, C. (2007). Autonomous, con-
trolled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 99, 734-746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.734
Rigman, C. (2009). Volunteers in Romania: A profile (Draft paper provided by the author).
Cluj-Napoca, Romania: Center for the Study of Democracy, Faculty of Political Science,
University of Babes-Bolyai.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

Haivas et al. 1213

Rhoades, L., Eisenberger, R., & Armeli, S. (2001). Affective commitment to the organization:
The contribution of perceived organizational support. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86,
825-836. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.86.5.825
SRyan, R. M., & La Guardia, J. G. (2000). What is being optimized? Self-determination theory
and basic psychological needs. In S. H. Qualls & N. Abeles (Eds.), Psychology and the
aging revolution: How we adapt to longer life (pp. 145-172). Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association. doi: 10.1037/10363-008
Smith, D. (1994). Determinants of voluntary association participation and volunteering. Non-
profit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23, 243-263. doi:10.1177/089976409402300305
Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality: Equiva-
lent, overlapping, or complementary concepts. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57(1), 16-35.
doi:10.2307/2786972
Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of mandatory volunteerism on
intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10(1), 59-64. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00107
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining the rela-
tionships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role of basic psycho-
logical need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277-294. doi:10.1080/02678370802393672
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2010). Captur-
ing autonomy, competence, and relatedness at work: Construction and initial validation of
the Work-Related Basic Need Satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organiza-
tional Psychology, 83, 981-1002. doi:10.1348/096317909X481382
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Dewitte, S., DeWitte, H., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The why and
why not of job-search behaviour: Their relation to searching, unemployment experi-
ence, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 345-363. doi:10.1348/
096317909X481382
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemic, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A.
(2007). Examining the relations among extrinsic versus intrinsic work value orientations,
basic need satisfaction, and job experience: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277. doi:10.1348/096317906X111024
Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., Pepermans, R., Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., & Jegers, M. (2012).
Volunteers psychological contracts: Extending traditional views. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 41(6), 1072-1091.
Voicu, B., & Voicu, M. (2003). Volunteering in Romania. In A Rara Avis. P. Dekker & L.
Halman (Eds.) The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 143-159). New
York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. doi: 10.1007/978-1-4615-0145-9_9.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical
students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70, 767-779. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
Wilson, J. (2000). Volunteering. Annual Review of Sociology, 26, 215-240. doi:10.1146/
annurev.soc.26.1.215

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012

1214 Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 41(6)

Bios

Simona Haivas obtained her PhD from the Department of Psychology, Alexandru I. Cuza
University, Romania and from the Department of Work and Organizational Psychology, Vrije
Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. Her research focus is on motivation and self-determination theory
applied to organizational settings.

Joeri Hofmans is an assistant professor at the Department of Work and Organizational

Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. His research focuses on the role of individual
differences and emotions in organizational behavior.

Roland Pepermans is a full professor of organizational behavior at the Department of Work

and Organizational Psychology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium. His research interests and
recent international publications deal with topics related to human resource issues, such as work
motivation, career management, psychological contract, psychological rewards, and nonprofit
management.

Downloaded from nvs.sagepub.com by MARC JEGERS on December 11, 2012