Part of Lit Review

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Event and Voluntary sectors

2.3 Motivation

Much of human resource management is concerned with motivation. The word motivation is generally used to reflect the effort that an individual puts into an activity. There is an extensive amount of studies on motivation, particularly in the workplace: Huczynski and Buchanan 2007; Mullins, 2006; Fulop and Linstead 1999; Hollyforde and Whiddett, 2002.
The various needs and expectations at work can be categorized in a number of ways - for example intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators include pay, job security, and title; working conditions; fringe benefits, and relationships. These factors are related to meeting lower-level needs. Intrinsic motivators include achievement, recognition, challenge, and advancement. These factors related to meeting higher-level needs, and are better at motivating than extrinsic factors (Lussier and Achua, 2009).
Many theories attempt to explain the nature of motivation. However, all these theories are contradictive and not conclusive. The usual approach to the study of motivation is through an understanding of internal cognitive processes – what people feel and how they think. These different cognitive theories of motivation are usually divided into two approaches: content theories and process theories. Content theories are concerned with identifying people’s needs and their relative strengths, and the goals they pursue in order to satisfy there needs. Process theories are concerned with how behaviour is initiated, directed and sustained (Mullins, 2006).
Major content theories of motivation include: Maslow’s hierarchy of needs model, Alderfer’s modified need hierarchy model, Herzberg’s two-factor theory and McClelland’s achievement motivation theory.
Maslow’s classification of needs include five categories – Physiological, Safety, Social, Esteem and Self-actualization (Adair, 2007). It also includes the need to know and understand aesthetic needs and the need for transcendence (Mullins, 2006). Alderfer developed a three-factor theory of needs called ‘ERG’: Existence, Relatedness and Growth. ERG theory could be compared with Maslow’s hierarchy of needs: existence is similar to Maslow’s physiological and safety needs, relatedness is similar to Maslow’s social needs and growth is similar to Maslow’ esteem and self-actualization needs.
Herzberg believed that motivation depends heavily on whether a job is intrinsically challenging and provides opportunities for recognition and reinforcement (Boddy, 2008). Herzberg’s two-factor theory of motivation and job satisfaction suggests that one set of factors, which are ‘hygiene’ or ‘maintenance’ (extrinsic) factors, cause dissatisfaction. The other set of factors are those which serve to motivate the individual to superior effort. These factors are the ‘motivators’ or growth factors (Mullins, 2006).
David McClelland developed a theory on four types of motivating needs: need for power, need for affiliation, need for achievement and for avoidance (Mullins, 2006). McClelland used the Thematic Apperception Test to assess how significant these categories were to people (Boddy, 2008).
Major approaches of the process theories include expectancy-based models of Vroom, and Porter and Lawler, equity theory of Adams, goal theory of Locke, and attribution theory of Heider and Kelley. The basis of expectancy theory is that people are influenced by the expected results of their actions. A strong adherent of expectancy theory is Victor Vroom. His theory is based on four premises: people have preferences for various outcomes or incentives that are available to them; people hold expectations about the likelihood that an action or effort on their part will lead to the intended outcome or objective; people understand that certain behaviors will be followed by desirable outcomes or incentives reward; the action a person chooses to take is determined by he expectancies and preferences that the person has at the time (Kakabadse et al., 2005).
Porter and Lawler developed a more complete version of motivation depending upon expectancy theory. Equity theory of Adams suggests the idea that fairness in comparison with others influences motivation. Goal theory is based on the work of Locke. Locke’s theory (1991) suggests that staff and volunteers are motivated when they have clear and challenging goals to achieve, are involved in setting the goals themselves, and are provided with feedback on progress en route to agreed-upon goals. By contrast, few challenges, little involvement, and little feedback may lead to passivity, dependence, and a sense of “psychological failure”. Attribution theory of Heider suggests that behaviour is determined by a combination of perceived internal forces and external forces.
These theories have different approaches and they do not all reach the same conclusions. The question is how well all these theories could be applied to individual variations like gender, culture and age categories, as well as organizational differences. Another question is about their relevance today, as major theories are dated back many years.
They could be applied to the management of volunteer resources as well. However, volunteers require a rather different treatment as there is no salary motive. Barker (1993, quoted in Helmut K. Anheier) identifies three basic motivational factors why people volunteer: altruistic, instrumental, and obligatory. People volunteer both to help an organization and to gain experience. Matching volunteer interests and talents to organizational needs is an important management task.
Managing and training volunteers is a way of attracting and retaining them. At the same time, and in contrast to paid staff, volunteer motivation is primarily non-monetary and cannot be managed along incentives lines but more on the grounds of commitment to the cause and long-term career benefits. This means that strategies for managing employees and volunteers are different. That is why it is important to avoid tensions between personnel management based on commitment and those based on monetary incentives (Helmut K. Anheier, p 259).
Therefore there are differences in focus in the employee and volunteer work motivation literatures. Questions about employee motivation have centered on understanding direction and persistence, primarily interest in attendance and turnover. Unlike employees, volunteers’ motives for joining cannot easily be reduced to a simple and reassuring assumption (Pearce, 1993, p. 61).


2.4 The Motives for Volunteering

It is very difficult to define what is meant by a volunteer as there is no standard practice in volunteering (Gaskin, K., 1999). Volunteers operate in thousands of different organizations taking on extremely varied roles. Also volunteers cannot be considered to be one large, homogenous group (Wymer, W. W., 1998) as they are of all ages and diverse backgrounds with a range of experiences and skills (Bussell and Forbes, 2001, p. 245).
There is also a question whether volunteers, as time donors, should be treated differently from those who donate other items, such as money or gifts. Many people state that they would like to volunteer, but are unable to do so because of work commitments (Nichols and King, 1998). In order to increase the pool of volunteers some firms are allowing employees to have time off work (either paid or unpaid) to undertake voluntary work in the community (Bussell and Forbes, 2001, p. 246).
To be considered as a volunteer, altruism must be the central motive where the reward is intrinsic to the act of volunteering. The volunteer’s motive is a selfless one. Helping others has been found to be an important factor among volunteers of all ages: student volunteers (Thippayanuruksakul, 1989) and those over the age of 60 (Okun, 1994, quoted in Bussell and Forbes, 2001, p. 249). Murk and Stephen stated that volunteer does not think in terms of sacrifice but instead sees rewards that go beyond the financial. However volunteers sacrifice much, in terms of time spent and energies given to a project. Because of this, successful volunteer experience hinges on the mutual satisfaction of meeting volunteer and organizational needs (Murk and Stephen, 1991, p.73).
The reasons why people choose to volunteer, is essential in order to design successful recruitment campaign. Motivation is the defining difference between managing paid staff and volunteers. Volunteer motivation is the most researched aspect of volunteerism and most studies conclude that motivation is complex and personal (Kirsten Holmes, Karen Smith). Volunteering means any activity in which time is given freely to benefit another person, group, or organization (Wilson, 2000, p. 215, quoted in Baum et al., p.139).
The literature on volunteer’s motivation tends to be ‘unsettled’. The MTV models proposed so far vary from a unidimensional model (Cnaan & Goldberg-Glen, 1991) to a six-factor model (e.g., Clary et al., 1998). However, two-dimensional and three-dimensional are more often used in volunteering literature. The two-dimensional models included egoistic and altruistic motivations (Horton-Smith, 1981; Latting, 1990), and the three-dimensional models included altruistic, material, and social motivations (Morrow-Howell & Mui, 1989; Prestby, Wandersman, Florin, Rich, and Chavis, 1990). Despite the fact that the three-dimensional models are based on the same dimensions, the descriptions of these dimensions vary (Monga, 2006, p. 50).
In the 1970’s the research on volunteerism and motivation increased. For example, in 1978, Gidron adapted Herzberg’s (1966) Motivational-Hygiene Theory and concluded that the rewards for volunteering were personal, social and indirectly economic. He also found out that motivations and rewards could differ with age.
An increasing number of studies in the 1980’s focused on the two or three factor model. This provided a better understanding of complex motives of those who volunteer. In 1981, Horton-Smith developed a two-factor model to understand volunteer motivation. This model distinguished between altruistic and egoistic motives. In 1987, Fitch in a study developed a 20-item scale that included a three factor model. It comprised three motivational factors: altruistic, egoistic and social obligation.
However, this research had limitations. Many of these studies were not based on empirical evidence and they included small sample sizes and were limited to one group of volunteers in one particular organization.
In 1991, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) confirmed the limitations of many previous studies and found that much of the previous research wasn’t systematic and had rather descriptive nature. They reviewed 27 studies on volunteer motivation, and collected additional quantitative data from a sample of 258 volunteers and 104 non-volunteers. They identified 28 motives to volunteer and developed the Motivation to Volunteer (MTV) scale. Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen (1991) concluded that volunteers have both altruistic and egoistic motivations to volunteer and that volunteer do not act due to one motive or a single category of motives. It gave an alternative perspective on motivation.
More recent studies, however, have provided support for multidimensional models of measuring motives (e.g., Clary et al., 1998; Farrell et al, 1998; Johnston, Twynam, & Farrell, 1999–2000).
Clary et al. (1998) have adopted the strategy of functional analysis, an approach that underlie and generate psychological phenomena — that is, the personal and social functions being served by an individual's thoughts, feelings, and actions (Snyder, 1993). Theorists Smith, Bruner, and White (1956) and Katz (1960) proposed that the same attitudes could serve different functions for different people and that attempts to change attitudes would succeed to the extent that they addressed the functions served by those attitudes (Clary et al.).
They conducted exploratory and confirmatory analyses on different samples to identify the motivational functions served by volunteerism. As a result they identified six primary functions, and developed the Volunteer Functions Inventory (VFI). These functions were Values, Understanding, Social, Career, Protective, and Enhancement. The Values function relates opportunities that volunteerism provides for individuals to express values related to altruistic and humanitarian concerns for others. Understanding function reflects the opportunity for volunteerism to permit new learning experiences and the chance to exercise knowledge, skills, and abilities that might otherwise go unpracticed. Social function involves motivations concerning relationships with others. Volunteering may offer opportunities to be with one's friends or to engage in an activity viewed favorably by important others. Career function is concerned with career-related benefits that may be obtained from participation in volunteer work (Clary et al.). The Protective function relates to reducing guilt over being more fortunate than others and addressing one’s own personal problems, and finally, the Enhancement function is about the ego’s growth and development (Bang et al.).
Studies done by other researchers about volunteer motivation have either incorporated or adapted at least one of these three models.


2.5 The Motivations of Event Volunteers

The majority of events are dependent on volunteer labor, for example, mega-events such as the Olympics where thousands of volunteers participate (Elstad, 1997a; Hiller, 1990). Furthermore, a survey in the UK estimated that 76% of the festivals used volunteers (Rolfe, 1992; Ryan & Bates, 1995). ‘Without the commitment from the volunteers, many events could not have been arranged’ (Elstad, 2003, p.99).
Key question for volunteer management is ‘What motivates event volunteers and how can their commitment and productivity be maximized and sustained’ (Getz, 2007, p. 289). Understanding motivation, the reasons why people choose to volunteer, is essential in order to design successful recruitment campaigns, effectively allocate roles, devise an appropriate reward strategy to ensure volunteer satisfaction and also retain the services of a volunteer over time (Managing Volunteers in Tourism: Attractions, Destinations and Events, Kirsten Holmes, Karen Smith).
Limited knowledge of current trends in volunteerism or ignorance of the real needs and motives of volunteers could be catastrophic for the expansion of volunteer human resources and the execution of a special event (D. Strigas and Newton Jackson, 2003). Therefore it is important to gain a better understanding of the motives of short-term volunteers in order to design the marketing tools for future recruitment.
Event volunteers have complex motivations, the same way as volunteers in other settings. However, the episodic nature of event volunteering makes their motivations different from other forms of volunteering. Motives to volunteer differ depending on the nature of the volunteer activity, as there are differences between the volunteer motives in the areas of human services and special events (Clary et. al., 1998; Fairley, Kellett, & Green, 2007: Farrell, Johnston, & Twynam, 1998, quoted in Bang et al., 2009). The literature on volunteer motivations suggests that there is a complex system of reasons and motives which differ depending on the characteristics of events (Bang and Ross, 2009).
It is equally important to understand event volunteer satisfaction, which is influenced by expectations prior to the event as well as actual experiences during the event which includes the administration and management attributes that influence how effective the event itself is organized (Ralston et al., 2004). People volunteer for different reasons, but they will only continue to volunteer if they enjoy what they are getting from the experience (Ralston et al., 2005). Elstad (1996, cited in Deery, Jago, & Shaw, 1997, p. 20, quoted in Monga, 2006, p.51), highlighted that the satisfying factors for the majority of volunteers at the XI Olympic Winter Games were “personal networking, [the] celebratory atmosphere and having fun.” Monga (2006) noted that a satisfying volunteering experience may have strong implications on the decision to continue volunteering. Motivation to volunteer is a key to understanding volunteer satisfaction.
Volunteers may be motivated by a variety of reasons, intrinsic and extrinsic (Duchesne, 1989; Cnaan & Goldberg, 1991; Perkinson, 1992; Parker, 1992, Schondel, Shield, & Orel, 1992). Caldwell and Andereck (1994) described three categories of motivations or incentives for volunteering: purposive, solidary, and material. Purposive incentives reflect doing something useful and contributing to society. Solidary incentives are based on social interaction, group identification, and networking. Material incetives include tangible rewards. They found that the strongest motives were purposive incentives, followed by solidary, and then material (Farrell et al., 1998).
‘Whatever the motivations may be for investing volunteer time, it is important that they be identified and where feasible, incorporated into the event’s management objectives’ (Williams et al., 1995, p. 85).
There are an extensive number of studies on volunteer’s motivation. However the majority of studies do not reflect the diversity of volunteering activities and most of it explores volunteering in human services. Limited number of studies explored event volunteering, and the majority of these studies are focused on sport event volunteering, which can not be applied to other events requiring the development of a more nuanced model. The diversity of motivations reflects the diversity of event type and scale.
There are a range of approaches to measuring volunteer motivation and a number pf motivation scales have been developed. These approaches highlighted the multifaceted and complex nature of volunteer’s motivation.
Past research on volunteer motivation has identified three main models: two or three factor model, unidimensional model, and multidimensional model. These studies were shown to be valid and reliable, and were found appropriate for assessing volunteer motives in human services. However, volunteer’s motives at events are different from those in general human services and therefore these studies are unlikely to explain complex motivations in the context of events.
A growing body of research exists on volunteer motivation, satisfaction, and commitment. Those studies include works done by: Green and Chalip (1998, 2004), Elstad (1997, 2003), Saleh and Wood (1998), Coyne and Coyne (2001), Strigas and Newton Jackson (2003).The majority of research has been made on motivation of sport events volunteers (Farrell et al., 1998, Johnston et al, 2000, Bang and Chelladurai, 2003, Ralston et al., 2004, Giannoulakis et al., 2008), mainly on Olympics (Reeser et al., 2005, Tsigilis, 2006, Bang et al., 2009), but those findings are not necessarily applicable to other types of event.
In one of the key studies for understanding event volunteer motivation, Farrell et al. (1998) adapted Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen’s (1991) MTV and developed a new scale. Nine items from the Cnaan and Goldberg-Glen scale which were specific to volunteering in human service agencies were deleted and nine items specific to special events were added. In order to reflect the special event context the remaining 19 items were adapted. The scale was called the Special Event Volunteer Motivation Scale (SEVMS). The scale included 28 items which represented four motivational factors: Purposive, Solidary, External Traditions, and Commitments.
The Purposive factor indicates a desire to do something useful and contribute to the community and the event. The second factor, termed solidary, relates to social interaction, group identification, and networking. The external traditions factor reflects motivations related to family traditions and the use of free time. The fourth factor, called commitments, indicates incentives that link external expectations and personal skills with commitment to volunteer. Farrell et al. (1998) found out that special event volunteer’s motives may differ from the motivations for other volunteer activities because of the nature of special events.
Farrell et al.’s multidimensional model of SEVMS was supported by several studies (e.g., Grammatikopoulos, Koustelios, & Tsigilis, 2006; Johnston et al., 1999–2000; Twynam et al., 2002–2003). For example, Twynam et al. (2002–2003), in their study of volunteers at the 1998 Star Choice World Junior Curling Tournament, confirmed the factorial structure of the SEVMS (quoted in Bang et al., 2009).
In a study of a Whistler’s Men’s World Cup of skiing, Williams et al. (1995) indicated that the most important motivations for resident volunteers were to support the national team, improve community spirit, and strengthen the community image. However, Williams et al.’s (1995) study did not have any attempt to analyze the validity of the SEVMS.
Bang and Chelladurai (2003) developed the Volunteer Motivations Scale for International Sporting Events (VMS-ISE) in the context of the 2002 FIFA World Cup. VMS-ISE included 26 items and represented six motivational factors: Expression of Values, Patriotism, Interpersonal Contacts, Personal Growth, Career Orientation, and Extrinsic Rewards. The VMS-ISE was shown to be valid and reliable; however, Bang and Chelladurai (2003) suggested that the scale should be further developed with the inclusion of one more factor: love of sport.
Bang et al. (2009) revised Volunteer Motivations Scale for International Sporting Events (VMS-ISE) for International Sporting Events at Athens 2004 Olympic Games. Also the purpose of this study was to identify subgroup differences in motives for volunteering. The six factors identified by Bang and Chelladurai’s (2003) study were additionally found valid and reliable, with the addition of the Love of Sport factor. This study provided a better understanding of diverse subgroup differences in volunteer’s motivation. However, this study used a convenient sample of volunteer which could lead to a generalization of results. Moreover, the study included volunteers only from Greece, which exclude a complete understanding of volunteer’s behaviour.
Monga (2006) developed a five-dimensional framework, based on unique characteristics of special events and available literature on special event volunteering. Two additional explanatory dimensions—affiliatory and egoistic motivations—were added to the prevailing three-dimensional model constituting altruistic/normative/purposive, material/utilitarian, and solidary/affective/social motivations. However, after conducting a factor analysis, Monga (2006) revealed six factors: affiliatory, feeling of fulfillment, solidary motivations, opportunity for career development and personal rewards. This study indicated that the strongest reason for people to volunteer in an event was affiliatory reasons. Williams et al (1995) described affiliatory dimension of motivation as ‘trigger factor’. In a study of Rose festival, Ryan and Bates (1995) found that the most important reasons for participation included the pleasure derived from gardening, sharing the pleasure of gardening, and enjoyment derived from meeting people and the opportunity to meet other gardening enthusiasts (quoted in Monga, 2006).
All these studies provided a better understanding on the nature of volunteer motives at events. They could be useful for event managers to understand the psychological characteristics of their volunteers. The findings on volunteer’s motives could also be important when event managers have to make decision about recruiting, training and development. However, these studies have several limitations. First of all, the main difficulty in attempt to understand motivation to volunteer is that many volunteers are not consciously aware of why they are volunteering (Pearce, 1993). Strigas and Jackson (2003, p. 114) indicated that ‘motivation in general is a concept that is constructed subconsciously, and is by nature very difficult to assess’. In addition, there are no clear differences between dimensions, which mean that there is an overlap between them. The fact that some samples being convenient and from a single event limits the generalizations. Moreover, it is difficult to differentiate the nature of motivations, as it can include a combination of altruistic and egoistic factors. Most of the studies focus their research on one geographical area or country, which suggests that it is necessary to have broader application and more research needs to be done in a range of different international locations. The demographic profile of participants also provided limitations. And finally, the motivation for volunteering can change over time, which requires further research and studies.
Despite many studies on volunteer’s motivation for events, there haven’t been any studies investigating potential effects of financial downturn on motives for volunteering......