Research Article

Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Vol. 9, No. 3

Unpacking the Volunteer Experience: The

Influence of Volunteer Management on
Retention and Promotion of the
Organization
Jaclyn S. Piatak – University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Joanne G. Carman – University of North Carolina at Charlotte

Volunteers play a vital role in nonprofit organizations. While considerable research

examines volunteer recruitment and volunteer management, less is known about how
to manage volunteers in such a way that inspires volunteers to continue to volunteer
and to promote the organization. Using original survey data, we examine how
volunteer experiences influence retention and volunteer promotion of the organization
using the Net Promoter Score (NPS). The findings suggest that investing in training is
paramount, along with making volunteers from diverse backgrounds feel welcome and
included. Organizational support, very likely, plays a role too, in that interactions with
paid staff and experience with the organization are positive predictors as well. These
findings along with qualitative feedback from volunteers offer new insights on how to
help nonprofit organizations bridge recruitment and retention efforts.

Keywords: Volunteer Management, Volunteer Retention, Volunteer Promotion

Volunteers help nonprofits and government organizations fulfill their missions. The
Independent Sector (2023) values an hour of a volunteer’s time at $31.80. Volunteers can be
thought of as a natural resource (Brudney & Meijs, 2009; Koolen-Maas et al., 2023), where
there is a finite number of volunteers and volunteer hours so volunteer energy should be
renewed. Since volunteers are a vital resource and volunteering is a voluntary action,
organizations should focus on how to manage and engage volunteers, so they have a positive
experience. Satisfied volunteers bring value not only through their volunteer efforts but also
through their promotion of and support for the organization (Prince & Piatak, 2022).
Therefore, research and the field of volunteer administration should move from a focus on
volunteer motivation and recruitment to account for the experiences of volunteers.

Volunteers decide to volunteer for a multitude of reasons. People may volunteer to make
friends or to learn a new skill or to serve a cause they find personally important. In addition to
the more motivation-based functions volunteers might have, people’s pathways to
volunteering may greatly vary. People most often become engaged through invitations to
volunteer, but some may be excluded from these opportunities like the unemployed and those
without home internet access (Piatak, 2016; Piatak et al., 2019). We know people volunteer for
different reasons and may become involved in different ways, but we know less about
volunteer experiences. How can nonprofits engage and retain volunteers who continue to

Piatak, J. S., & Carman, J. G. (2023). Unpacking the volunteer experience: The influence of
volunteer management on retention and promotion of the organization. Journal of
Public and Nonprofit Affairs, 9(3), 278–296. https://doi.org/10.20899/jpna.9.3.1-
19
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

bring value to the organization? More specifically, we ask: How does training, inclusion,
activities, interactions, and the overall experience with the organization correspond to
volunteer satisfaction, measured as promotion and retention?

Organizations must move beyond recruitment to focus on volunteer satisfaction and retention.
Since the supply of volunteers is limited (Brudney & Meijs, 2009; Koolen-Maas et al., 2023),
scholars have turned their attention to volunteer satisfaction, intent to remain, and actual
retention. Research on volunteer satisfaction has evolved from matching the functional
motivation of volunteers (e.g., Clary et al., 1992) to research on volunteer management and
satisfaction (e.g., Brudney & Sink, 2017; Henderson & Sowa, 2019). Some volunteer best
practices that influence satisfaction include matching volunteers to their interests and skills,
providing training, and formally recognizing volunteer efforts (Einolf & Yung, 2018; Hager &
Brudney, 2004; Smith & Grove, 2017; Walk et al., 2019). However, some volunteer
management practices have mixed results, such as communication that can improve
satisfaction (Smith & Grove, 2017) or be seen as overbearing (Hager & Brudney, 2004). We
build upon this work to examine how a volunteer’s experience influences satisfaction, that is
whether a volunteer promotes an organization and intends to remain a volunteer in the future.
Volunteers are a vital resource for organizations both in their roles as volunteers and as
promoters, supporters, and advocates for organizations.

We examine how the volunteer experience influences volunteer intent to remain and promote
the organization. Drawing upon original survey data from volunteers of nonprofit
organizations engaged with a national foundation, we find training and an inclusive
organizational climate are critical volunteer management practices for volunteers to intend to
remain with the organization and promote the organization based on the Net Promoter Score
(NPS), a commonly used performance measure (e.g., Reichheld, 2003, 2011) that has been
used to identify volunteers who are enthusiastic supporters (Prince & Piatak, 2022). In
addition, we offer context to our findings by incorporating a qualitative analysis of open-ended
responses from volunteers on how to improve their volunteer experience. Although our sample
is not generalizable to all volunteers and volunteering is context specific, our findings have
implications for research and practice. For theory, we contribute the role of volunteers’
experience highlighting the influence of training and the need to examine diversity climate
and inclusion. For practice, we offer volunteer managers actionable advice in ensuring
volunteers feel welcomed and trained to not only continue volunteering but also be promoters
for the organization more broadly.

Volunteer Management: Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Volunteer management has evolved from a focus on a universal approach (e.g., Connors, 2011)
similar to the human resource management (HRM) process offering best practices regardless
of organizational context. Many of the volunteer management models offer a process similar
to Figure 1 below. While scholars have called for a movement from the universal approach to
a contingency approach (e.g., Brudney & Sink, 2017) tailoring practices based on
organizational needs, the focus continues to be on the organization, but what about the
volunteer experience?

Rather than universal HRM processes and organizational variations, we are interested in the
volunteer experience and how that shapes intentions to volunteer again and volunteers being
organizational promoters. In examining 28 motives drawing upon the literature on volunteer
motivation, Cnaan and Goldberg-Glenn (1991) find the motives overlap and suggest volunteer
motivation is unidimensional, where volunteer managers should focus on fostering a
“rewarding experience” overall (p. 281). Managers must not only address volunteer motives
for engagement, but also must address volunteer management (Farrell et al., 1998) as reasons
people begin volunteering may differ from the reasons they continue to volunteer

279
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Figure 1. Volunteer Management Process

Recruitment,
Onboarding Evaluation &
Screening, & Engagement
Selection & Training Retention

(Haski-Leventhal & Bargal, 2008). Just as Studer and Von Schnurbein (2013) describe how
volunteer management practices, organizational values and identity, and organizational
context are all critical for volunteer coordination, we examine the role of the volunteer
experience. Narrowing in on the volunteer experience, we examine how training, inclusion,
activities, interactions, and the overall experience with the organization influence volunteers
returning and promoting the organization. Our framework is below in Figure 2.

Our framework focuses on training, inclusion, and three key aspects of volunteer
management—logistics, interactions with paid staff and other volunteers, and the
organizational experience. In examining the adoption of management practices, Hager and
Brudney (2021) find matching volunteers to appropriate tasks to be the most adopted practice
along with communication, but only half support volunteers through regular supervision and
few train staff to work with volunteers. Given the variation in adoption of best practices in
volunteer management, we examine how the volunteer experience of onboarding and
placement through interactions and engagement influence volunteer retention and being
organizational promoters.

Volunteer Management: Logistics, Interactions, & Organizational Experience

Key aspects of volunteer management involve logistics, the administrative coordination of the
volunteers. The volunteer experiences with the logistics or organizational rules, policies, and
procedures, can be a burdensome, as much of the theory on red tape suggests (e.g., Bozeman
& Feeney, 2014), or helpful, as green tape suggests (e.g., DeHart-Davis, 2017). Examples of
logistics for volunteer administration include project options, ease of registering, and the
activities, interactions with paid staff and other volunteers, and the organizational experience.
Based on qualitative interviews, Englert et al. (2020) find eight factors enhance a volunteer’s
fit with an organization: “mission congruence, fulfilled need for organizational support,
collegial commonalities and complementarity, appropriate supervision, competence-service
matching, fulfilled need for autonomy and freedom compatibility with other spheres of life,
and fulfilled need for recognition and appreciation” (p. 342). This illustrates the need for
volunteer managers to ensure volunteers have a positive experience from logistics of
onboarding and placement to interactions with others to experiences with the organization.

For logistics, organizations should ensure projects match volunteer interests and skills, clarify
roles, and give volunteers autonomy in providing their service. Autonomy is a key aspect for
volunteer satisfaction and retention. Much like paid employees (e.g., Onken-Menke et al.,
2018), volunteers would like the flexibility and freedom to be able to take ownership for their
service. Even among spontaneous volunteers, self-organization and coordination is needed for
volunteer satisfaction, well-being, and commitment (Simsa et al., 2019). Drawing upon self-
determination theory, Oostlander et al. (2014) find autonomy-supportive leadership, which
addresses psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, has both a direct
and indirect effect on volunteer satisfaction. Similarly, in an all-volunteer organization,
transformational leadership increases the proactive behaviors of volunteers (do Nascimento
et al., 2018). Through interviews with parks and recreation volunteers, Barnes and Sharpe
(2009) highlight the need for flexibility, autonomy, and collaboration in volunteer
management.

280
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Figure 2. The Volunteer Experience Framework

Project
options, ease of
registration, &
volunteer
activities Interactions
Feelings of with paid staff
Inclusion & other
volunteers

Appropriate Volunteer Experience

Retention &
training & Organizational with the
support Promoters organization

For interactions, organizations should ensure volunteers have positive interactions with paid
staff and other volunteers. Galindo-Kuhn and Guzley (2002) find participation efficacy and
group integration correspond with both volunteer satisfaction and intent to continue
volunteering. Among special event volunteers, communication with fellow volunteers and
recognition predicted volunteer satisfaction (Farrell et al., 1998). Highlighting the importance
of emotional support, relational organizational climate increases satisfaction and reduces
turnover (Nencini et al., 2016).

Both task- and emotion-oriented organizational support increase volunteer organizational

commitment (Boezeman & Ellemers, 2008) and volunteer engagement (Alfes et al., 2016), and
reduce intent to leave the organization (Alfes et al., 2016). In addition, Lee (2021) finds both
task and organizational fit improve volunteer retention. In examining ‘super volunteers’ or
those that devote significant time to an organization, Einolf and Yung (2018) highlight the
task-oriented support like flexibility in their responsibilities and clear, customized roles as well
as emotion-oriented support like staff support influence time devoted to the organization.
Much like Robichau and Sandberg (2022) find internal personal and external organizational
factors influence the meaningfulness of work for employees, both task- and emotion-oriented
support is needed for volunteers.

Yet few nonprofits follow best practices in volunteer management, especially those
corresponding to volunteer satisfaction and retention. For example, many nonprofits pay
insufficient attention to volunteer-staff relations. As Hager and Brudney (2021) found, only
19% of nonprofits surveyed trained paid staff on working with volunteers in 2003 and this fell
to 15% in 2019 and was the least common volunteer management practice across surveys.

Drawing upon the literature on volunteer management, we expect volunteers who are more
satisfied with logistics, interactions, and their experience with the organization supports and
will be more likely to volunteer again and be promoters for the organization and intend to
remain. As such, we hypothesize:

H1a: Volunteers who are satisfied with the logistics, their interactions with staff and
volunteers, and their experience with the organization will be more likely to volunteer
again.

H1b: Volunteers who are satisfied with the logistics, their interactions with staff and
volunteers, and their experience with the organization will be more likely to be
organizational promoters.

281
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Inclusion

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts for employees are on the rise, but we know less
about efforts to foster diversity, equity, and inclusion among volunteers. Organizational
diversity climates matter for employees and volunteers alike. Social identity theory and
intergroup relations provide the foundation for the diversity climate of an organization (Mor
Barak, 2016; Mor Barak et al., 1998). Diversity climate refers to “shared perceptions of the
policies and practices that communicate the extent to which fostering diversity and
eliminating discrimination is a priority in the organization” (Pugh et al., 2008, p. 1422). While
diversity climate and DEI efforts are understudied in volunteer management, research has
highlighted the role of leadership, organizational culture, and values. More than a decade ago,
Howlett (2010) called for the need to develop volunteer management as a profession to ensure
the diversity of volunteer involvement, but how does inclusion influence volunteer intent to
remain and being an organizational promoter?

Related to diversity climate and inclusion, research highlights the need for a supportive
organizational culture. Commitment to volunteers, role clarity, team spirit of paid staff, and
respect enhance the recruitment and retention of volunteers (Studer, 2016). In examining
leader-member exchange dimensions, professional respect corresponds to job satisfaction,
especially among younger volunteers in sports organizations (Bang, 2015). In examining the
creation of National Day of Service projects, Maas et al. (2021) find nonprofits can enhance
volunteer satisfaction by ensuring projects create a sense of added value, productivity, and
make volunteers feel comfortable. Chui and Chan (2019) highlight the role of organizational
identity and the need to build rapport with volunteers. In a hospital setting, volunteers feeling
empowered with opportunities for social interaction, reflections, and rewards were more
satisfied (Wu et al., 2019). Research illustrates how volunteers need respect, support from
leadership and staff, and to feel comfortable in their organizations and volunteer roles.

Relatedly, volunteers thrive when given a voice and a volunteer identity. Having a voice and
role identity increase volunteer retention (Garner & Garner, 2011; Grube & Piliavin, 2000). In
examining AmeriCorps data, McBride and Lee (2012) find members are more likely to
complete their service terms if sites involve members in planning, foster mentoring
relationships, and facilitate reflections. Among volunteer fire fighters, support among their
social circles as well as autonomy and feelings of efficacy in their volunteer work enhance
volunteer satisfaction (Henderson & Sowa, 2019).

Additionally, some scholars explore issues of social justice and fairness in volunteering more
directly. Calling for an examination of aspects of volunteering beyond the Volunteer Functions
Inventory (VFI), Jiranek et al. (2013) finds social justice functions predict intentions to
volunteer above and beyond the VFI measures. Relatedly, like employees, volunteers care
about distributive justice that significantly predicts volunteer turnover (Hurst et al., 2017). In
all-female youth sports, the agency of volunteer coaches to overcome structural barriers
increased retention (Zanin et al., 2021). Despite examining different aspects of volunteer
management, each of these studies show the value of social justice, fairness, and equity for
volunteers.

Drawing upon research on the importance of fostering a sense of belonging in terms of respect,
rapport, and support as well as research on social justice and fairness, we hypothesize
volunteers will be more likely to continue volunteering and be organizational promoters when
they feel welcome and included in the organization. As such, we hypothesize:

H2a: Volunteers who feel welcome and included will be more likely to volunteer again.

H2b: Volunteers who feel welcome and included will be more likely to be
organizational promoters.

282
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Training

Examining a variety of volunteer management practices on volunteer retention, Hager and

Brudney (2008) find training plays a critical role. Learning and development opportunities
can help with volunteer retention (Newton et al., 2014) and orientation and training
corresponded to recommending volunteering (Wu et al., 2019). In a study of volunteer fire
fighters, Henderson and Sowa (2018) find training, performance management, and
organizational commitment influence short- and long-term intent to remain. Fallon and Rice
(2015) find perceived investment in development, support and recognition, and training to
predict volunteer satisfaction that in turn predicts intention to stay. Walk et al. (2019) find
men who received training were more likely to continue volunteering. Past research finds a
link between training and retention.

Examining the integration of volunteers into an organization, Hidalgo and Moreno (2009)
find social networks, organizational support, positive tasks, and training are significant
predictors of intent to remain a volunteer. Similarly, Englert et al. (2020) find organizational
support enhances one’s fit with an organization, in particular, access to service-related
resources, training that is helpful and needed to provide the service, and development
opportunities. Integration into the organization, such as training, relationships with other
organizational members, and role clarity, reduce volunteer burnout (Moreno‐Jiménez &
Villodres, 2010).

Based on studies highlighting training as a predictor of retention as well as the vital role of
training in integrating volunteers into the organization, we expect training will increase
volunteer retention and being organizational promoters. As such, we hypothesize:

H3a: Volunteers who receive appropriate training will be more likely to volunteer
again.

H3b: Volunteers who receive appropriate training will be more likely to be

organizational promoters.

Data and Methods

We created an online survey to capture information about volunteer experiences with

nonprofit organizations. The recipients of the survey were people who volunteered for
organizations that used volunteers as a critical part of their service delivery model. The survey
was distributed by organizations affiliated with a national foundation, and the data were
collected from January 14, 2020, to April 2, 2020. For this study, we used data from 323 survey
respondents for whom there was complete data—meaning we used listwise deletion of missing
data for the study variables—and excluded 11 outlier responses (323/459=65.25%).

Dependent Variables

We focus on two volunteer outcomes to capture volunteer satisfaction with their experiences:
organizational promoters and volunteer retention or intention to volunteer again. To measure
the first dependent variable of organizational promotion, we use the Net Promoter Score
(NPS) question that asked how likely it was that the volunteer would recommend the volunteer
opportunities at the organization to a friend, family member, or colleague. The NPS, a
commonly used performance measure, is the percent of promoters minus the percent of
detractors (Reichheld, 2003, 2011). The original response set for this question was a 10-point
scale, with “1” corresponding to “not likely at all” and “10” corresponding to “extremely likely.”
Those 1–6 are detractors, 7 or 8 are passively satisfied, and 9 or 10 are promoters. The NPS is
an often-used feedback measure by businesses and nonprofits alike (e.g., Burnham & Wong,

283
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

2018). Many have likely been asked this question about whether they would recommend a
given product, service, or experience. Prince and Piatak (2022) apply the NPS to volunteer
management to find the most enthusiastic supporters are champions of the collective and a
broader resource for nonprofits. Since we are most interested in examining what makes a
volunteer a supporter of the organization or promoter, we transform this variable into an
indicator variable that takes on a 1 if the response was a 9 or a 10 to signify the volunteer is a
promoter and a 0 otherwise.

The second dependent variable is intent to remain, which is measured by a survey question
that asked how likely it was that the volunteer would volunteer for the organization again in
the next year. The original response set for this question was also a 10-point scale, with “1”
corresponding to “not likely at all” and “10” corresponding to “extremely likely.” While some
volunteer studies have used administrative data to examine actual retention (Hager &
Brudney, 2008; Walk et al., 2019), many use intent to remain as a proxy for retention (e.g.,
Alfes et al., 2016; Fallon & Rice, 2015; Galindo-Kuhn & Guzley, 2002; Henderson & Sowa,
2018). Since we are most interested in the volunteer experience, intent to remain is an
appropriate measure of volunteer satisfaction with an organization.

Independent Variables

The three hypotheses (relating to positive volunteer experiences, inclusion, and training) for
the study are operationalized by eight variables. Positive volunteering experiences is
operationalized by six questions on the survey where the respondents were asked to reflect on
how satisfied they were with their volunteer experiences at the organization. The options
reflect three key areas: logistics, such as ease of registering, project options, and volunteer
activities, interactions with paid staff and with other volunteers, and the volunteer’s
experience with the organization. The responses for these questions are coded as: “1” for very
dissatisfied, “2” for dissatisfied, “3” for neutral, “4” for satisfied, and “5” for very satisfied. The
six questions asked about satisfaction with respect to: a) The volunteer project options
(mean=4.544, SD=0.780); b) The ease of registering for a project (mean=4.526, SD=0.804);
c) The volunteer activities (mean=4.572, SD=0.778); d) The interactions with paid staff
(mean=4.371, SD=0.964); e) The interactions with other volunteers (mean=4.421,
SD=0.824); and f) Your experience with the organization (mean=4.622, SD=0.726).

Inclusion is operationalized by using a scale variable comprised of four survey questions: a)

[Organization Name] makes it easy for people from diverse backgrounds to fit in and be
accepted; b) Volunteers are developed and advanced without regard to the gender or the racial,
religious, or cultural background of the individual; c) [Organization Name] pays attention to
the needs and concerns of everyone; and d) I [do not] feel a sense of belonging to my
organization [reverse coded]. These questions were drawn from measures of diversity climate
(Pugh et al., 2008), organizational commitment for sense of belonging (Meyer et al., 1993),
and managerial support (Hatmaker & Hassan, 2021). The responses (coded as “1” for strongly
disagree, “2” for disagree, “3” for neutral, “4” for agree, and “5” for strongly agree) were
combined to create the inclusion scale. The values for the scale ranged from 6 to 20
(mean=17.671; SD=2.527). Reliability for the scale was good (α=0.751) (Mohsen & Dennick,
2011).

Training is operationalized by using one question that asked respondents whether they had
appropriate training and support to engage in volunteer activities at the organization. The
response to this question is coded “1” for yes and “0” for no (mean=0.941, SD=0.235).

Control Variables

We control for both organizational level and volunteer level factors. First, data from the IRS
Form 990 (Candid, 2021) were compiled to control for organizational characteristics. Larger

284
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

organizations, in terms of expense size and number of employees, have more volunteers (Lee,
2019) and may have better infrastructure for volunteer management, such as full-time
volunteer coordinators (Handy & Srinivasan, 2005). For example, Hager and Brudney (2021)
find larger organizations are more likely to regularly supervise and track volunteers, whereas
smaller organizations are more likely to communicate the value of volunteers. Similarly, older
organizations may have better infrastructure due to their experience and policy development
over time, but organizational age was not significant in predicting volunteer use among human
service organizations (Lee, 2019). We include four organizational characteristics: the number
of organizational employees, ranging from 0 to 241 (mean=88.613, SD=61.287); the number
of volunteers, ranging from 44 to 7,596 (mean=1,215.012, SD=2,055.769); age of the
organization (in 2020), ranging from 10 to 114 years old (mean=43.136, SD=20.526), and total
annual revenues, ranging from $310,982 to $7,630,737 (mean=3,992,867, SD=2,157,269).
Total annual revenues were transformed using the natural log (base 10), and the new range
was 5.493 to 6.883 (mean=6.477, SD=0.399).

Second, since many sociodemographic characteristics influence volunteering, the survey

respondents were asked to report demographic information to control for individual volunteer
characteristics, including: age, education, race, and gender. Age was calculated from the self-
reported birth year, ranging from 20 to 90 years (mean=54.591, SD=17.646). Education is
coded as three dummy variables: some college or less, coded as “1” or “0” (mean=0.219,
SD=0.414); four-year college degree, coded as “1” or “0” (mean=0.386, SD=0.487), and
professional degree or doctorate, coded as “1” or “0” (mean=0.393, SD=0.489). For race, the
six-choice response set was recoded into a dichotomous variable (due to very little variation),
where the value of “1” corresponded to respondents who described their race as Black,
Indigenous, or People of Color (BIPOC) and the value of “0” corresponded to respondents who
described their race as “Caucasian/White” (mean=0.055, SD=0.229). Gender is coded as a
dichotomous variable, where the value of “1” corresponded to respondents who described their
gender as female and “0” corresponded to respondents who described their gender as male
(mean=0.798, SD=0.401). We also controlled for how frequently an individual volunteered for
the organization. This ordinal variable was coded as, “1” quarterly or less, “2” for monthly, and
“3” for weekly (mean=2.339, SD=0.779) (See Table 1).

In addition, open-ended follow up questions asked the respondents to describe what the
organization could do to better support volunteers and how training could be improved. The
responses to these questions help to provide context to the quantitative data.

Bivariate Correlations

Bivariate correlations were conducted to examine the relationships between the independent
and the control variables and check for multicollinearity. The lowest statistically significant
correlation was –0.110 between the number of employees (an organizational control) and
having a professional degree or doctorate (demographics/education control). The largest
statistically significant correlation was between the log of total annual revenues and the
number of employees (0.800). Values from tests for the variance inflation factor (VIF) ranged
from a low of 1.06 (for BIPOC) and a high of 3.94 (for Number of Organization Employees)
(mean=1.97) (See Appendix A).

Regression Findings

Logistic regression with robust standard errors was used to predict the variation in the
promotion of the volunteer activities to friends, family members, or colleagues. The first
hypothesis about satisfaction with logistics, interactions with staff and volunteers, and
experience with the organization was not supported. The second hypothesis was supported,

285
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (n=323)

Mean SD Min Max Skewness Kurtosis
Dependent Variables
Organizational Promoters 0.811 0.392 0.000 1.000 –1.590 3.528
Volunteering Again 9.578 1.363 0.000 10.000 –4.163 21.424
Independent Variables
Inclusion Scale 17.671 2.527 6.000 20.000 –1.306 5.024
Training 0.941 0.235 0.000 1.000 –3.750 15.063
Logistics
Project Options 4.544 0.780 1.000 5.000 –2.034 7.691
Ease of Registration 4.526 0.804 1.000 5.000 –1.810 6.505
Volunteer Activities 4.572 0.778 1.000 5.000 –2.381 9.586
Interactions
Interactions with Paid Staff 4.371 0.964 1.000 5.000 –1.652 5.252
Interactions with Volunteers 4.421 0.824 1.000 5.000 –1.580 5.726
Experience with the Organization 4.622 0.726 1.000 5.000 –2.451 10.243
Control Variables–Organizational Level
Number of Employees 88.613 61.287 0.000 241.000 0.338 2.700
Number of Volunteers 1,215.012 2,055.769 44.000 7,596.000 2.593 8.069
Age of the Organization 43.136 20.525 10.000 114.000 0.525 4.135
Total Annual Revenues (Log) 6.477 0.399 5.493 6.883 –1.246 3.208
Control Variables–Individual Level
Age of the Respondent 54.591 17.646 20.000 90.000 –0.417 1.986
Education–Some College or Less 0.219 0.414 0.000 1.000 1.353 2.831
Education–4 Year College Degree 0.386 0.487 0.000 1.000 0.464 1.215
Education–Professional Degree or Doctorate 0.393 0.489 0.000 1.000 0.437 1.911
Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) 0.055 0.229 0.000 1.000 3.873 16.003
Gender (Female) 0.798 0.401 0.000 1.000 –1.490 3.221
Frequency of Volunteering 2.339 0.779 1.000 3.000 –0.827 2.136

with volunteers who reported having a sense of belonging and feeling welcome in their organizations having higher odds of promoting the
nonprofit (1.361). The third hypothesis was also supported, with the odds of the volunteer being a promoter increasing by more than eight times
(8.457) if the volunteer received appropriate training with the organization. The odds were also greater for female volunteers (2.534) and older
organizations (1.033). The pseudo-R square (McFadden) was 0.358 (See Table 2).

286
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Table 2. Logistic Regression Findings for Volunteer Promotion (n=323)

Odds
Ratio Std. Err z
Inclusion Scale 1.361*** 0.113 3.700
Training 8.457** 6.143 2.939
Logistics
Project Options 0.798 0.274 –0.659
Ease of Registration 1.141 0.354 0.427
Volunteer Activities 1.818 0.558 1.949
Interactions
Interactions with Paid Staff 1.525 0.349 1.847
Interactions with Volunteers 0.543 0.178 –1.866
Experience with the Organization 2.009 0.743 1.887

Control Variables–Organizational Level

Number of Employees 0.991 0.005 –1.688
Number of Volunteers 1.000 0.000 1.457
Age of the Organization 1.033* 0.015 2.274
Total Annual Revenues (Log) 1.444 1.252 0.424
Control Variables–Individual Level
Age of the Respondent 1.018 0.012 1.525
Education–4 Year College Degree 1.476 0.756 0.761
Education–Professional Degree or Doctorate 0.770 0.393 –0.512
Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) 0.670 0.452 –0.594
Gender (Female) 2.534* 1.071 2.199
Frequency of Volunteering 1.215 0.338 0.701
Constant 0.000 0.000 –2.595
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

Linear regression with robust standard errors was used to predict the variation in the
likelihood of volunteering again. The model accounted for 33.54% of the variance (R2=0.335,
F(17, 305)=2.66, p<0.000). For this model, inclusion (β=0.243) and training (β=0.206) were
positive significant predictors, providing support for second and third hypotheses. However,
no support was found for the first hypothesis on the role of logistics (See Table 3). Across
models, these findings were found to be fairly robust, with similar results from OLS and
negative binomial regressions. Additional analysis also revealed that mission area and focus
(e.g., arts, environment and animals, human services) were not significant predictors.

Additional Findings

To help unpack the influence of the volunteer experience on volunteer retention and
volunteers being organizational promoters, we examine the responses to two open-ended
responses in the survey. The first asked volunteers how training could be improved and the
second asked what the organization could do better to support volunteers.

Training

The comments on improving training coalesced around three themes. The first theme related
to the lack of formal training, whereby respondents indicated the training was informal, self-
directed, or consisted of on-the-job learning, and asking questions. The second most common

287
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Table 3. Linear Regression Findings for Volunteering Again (n=323)

Std.
B Err β t
Inclusion Scale 0.131 0.041 0.243** 3.180
Training 1.191 0.577 0.206* 2.060
Logistics
Project Options 0.047 0.181 0.027 0.260
Ease of Registration –0.046 0.149 –0.027 –0.310
Volunteer Activities 0.072 0.123 0.041 0.590
Interactions
Interactions with Paid Staff 0.239 0.143 0.169 1.670
Interactions with Volunteers –0.073 0.123 –0.044 –0.590
Experience with the Organization 0.289 0.262 0.154 1.110

Control Variables–Organizational Level

Number of Employees –0.001 0.002 –0.061 –0.720
Number of Volunteers 0.000 0.000 0.042 1.440
Age of the Organization 0.005 0.006 0.069 0.820
Total Annual Revenues (Log) 0.296 0.359 0.087 0.820
Control Variables–Individual Level
Age of the Respondent 0.008 0.005 0.108 1.800
Education–4 Year College Degree –0.015 0.187 –0.005 –0.080
Education–Professional Degree or Doctorate –0.147 0.208 –0.053 –0.710
Black, Indigenous, People of Color (BIPOC) –0.220 0.325 –0.037 –0.680
Gender (Female) 0.319 0.216 0.094 1.470
Frequency of Volunteering –0.016 0.106 –0.009 –0.150
Constant 1.124 2.317 --- 0.480
* p<0.05, ** p<0.01, *** p<0.001

theme was related to the sheer lack of training and how this made them feel, with respondents
who described that they had little training felt “ignored”, “not valued”, “apprehensive”, and
“just thrown in.” One respondent stated that there was “a disconnect between the person doing
the training and the people I was to work with.” Third, some respondents noted that while
there was no training when they first started volunteering, training was now available, and
finally, a few offered suggestions for how to improve the training (e.g., offer more training or
refresher trainings).

Organizational Support

All of the respondents had the opportunity to respond to an additional open-ended question
that asked about how the organization could improve the support of volunteers. Almost half
(157/323 or 48.6%) of the respondents provided comments. Most (70/157) took the time to
give positive feedback, writing comments like “all good,” “Nothing comes to mind,” or “They
already do everything, can’t improve on excellence.” Others provided more constructive
feedback that echo the findings from the regression analyses.

For example, some (21/157 or 13.4%) suggested the organizations and the staff needed to be
more welcoming and inclusive to the volunteers, describing the need for staff to get to know

288
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Table 4. Themes from the Qualitative Data

What can the organization do to better support volunteers? (n) (%)
No Comments 166 51.4%
Comments 157 48.6%
Total 323 100.0%
Comments
Positive feedback 70 44.6%
Be more inclusive 21 13.4%
Create different opportunities to volunteer 15 9.6%
Better communication 11 7.0%
Better leadership and supervision 10 6.4%
More support from staff 9 5.7%
Improve training 9 5.7%
Show appreciation 4 2.5%
I don’t know 8 5.1%
Total 157 100.0%

the volunteers (e.g., learn their name) and greet them. Respondents described the need for
staff to be friendlier, make the volunteers feel valued, and interact more with them.

Some (15/157 or 9.6%) suggested that the organization create different opportunities for
volunteers. For some, the suggestions were related to logistics, such as expanding the number
of hours or days of the week they could volunteer, as well as being more mindful of accessibility
issues. Others wanted more meaningful volunteer opportunities or opportunities to volunteer
as a family.

Some (11/157 or 7.0%) described the need for better communication, especially as it relates to
issues the organizations are facing, as well as changes in policies or procedures. Others (10/157
or 6.4%) described the need for better leadership and supervision, with clear tasks and greater
clarity about to whom they should report. Some (9/157 or 5.7%) described how they would like
better support from staff, who are visible, pay attention, and available to answer their
questions. Some 9 (9/157 or 5.7%) described how training could be improved. One respondent,
for example, suggested the organization develop “a rule book/manual available for volunteers
to be able to check on certain procedures.” Others described how they wanted more training,
better training, or training at different times.

A few (4/157 or 2.5%) respondents suggested ways of showing appreciation, such as having
events for volunteers, and giving them t-shirts or jackets. Some (8/157 or 5.1%) indicated that
they didn’t know what to suggest despite expressing the need for improvement (See Table 4).

Discussion

Volunteer management focuses on the HRM process and has moved to a contingency
approach to consider organizational context, but what about the volunteer experience? In this
study, we examine how volunteer satisfaction with logistics, interactions, and experience with
the organization as well as feelings of inclusion, and views of training influence intent to
volunteer again and being organizational promoters. Drawing upon original survey data and
controlling for individual and organizational level characteristics, we find training and
inclusion increase volunteer retention and the odds of volunteers being organizational
promoters, using the Net Promoter Score. Inclusion and training significantly influence
retention and promotion above and beyond volunteer satisfaction with common volunteer

289
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

management best practices like logistics. Our findings have implications for volunteer
management theory and practice as follows.

Building upon the growing literature on volunteer management, we find support for the
existing literature, particularly on the role of training. Like previous work (Fallon & Rice, 2015;
Hager & Brudney, 2008; Henderson & Sowa, 2018; Newton et al., 2014; Wu et al., 2019), we
find adequate training significantly predicts volunteer retention and whether a volunteer will
be a promoter, according to the Net Promoter Score (NPS), that is strongly recommend the
organization to a friend, family member, or colleague. Prince and Piatak (2022) demonstrate
how the NPS can be a useful tool for volunteer management in gauging volunteer satisfaction
and identifying enthusiastic supporters, a vital resource for the organization. As some argue
and find (Englert et al., 2020; Hidalgo & Moreno, 2009; Moreno‐Jiménez & Villodres, 2010),
training seems to help orient and integrate volunteers into the organization. Training also
predicts the likelihood that volunteers will volunteer again, underscoring the importance of
investing in volunteer training.

Our study also highlights the vital role of an inclusive culture and fostering a sense of belonging
among volunteers. We find inclusion significantly predicts volunteer satisfaction, measured
both as promoting the organization and intentions to volunteer again. In addition to calls for
greater organizational support, being more inclusive was a top comment from volunteers.
Volunteer management should catch up to employee management in examining diversity,
equity, and inclusion efforts for volunteers. Volunteers provide vital services to and for
nonprofit organizations but face a difficult situation of being a bit like outsiders for
organizations that also have paid staff. Our findings on inclusion support past work on the
need for support and respect from staff and leaders (Bang, 2015; Studer, 2016) and the
importance of ensuring volunteers feel comfortable (Maas et al., 2021), but highlight the need
for organizations to do more to foster a sense of belonging, a supportive organizational
climate, and a culture where everyone has a voice.

Like any study, our work is not without its limitations. Our sample was a voluntary survey so
may not be representative of all nonprofit organizations, nor could we calculate a response
rate due to the way the survey was distributed. Relatedly, volunteers tend to be prosocial
people and may perhaps be prone to social desirability bias or generally more positive
volunteers may have been more likely to respond to the survey as most of our sample
responded favorably to our dependent variables. However, this perhaps makes our findings,
particularly on inclusion and training, even more compelling. Data collection began in January
2020, but the COVID–19 pandemic began shortly thereafter, perhaps influencing our findings.

Research is beginning to examine the role of the pandemic on volunteering (e.g., Dederichs,
2022). Future research should examine how the pandemic may have shifted volunteer
management practices. Attention to the volunteer experience following the pandemic would
be helpful as volunteers may have different motivations, expectations, and experiences. Our
sample is positively skewed to include more women, higher levels of education, and an average
age of 55 where findings might vary across different volunteer groups. Moreover, a majority of
volunteers in our sample volunteer for nonprofits serving animals or the environment
followed by human service nonprofits, where volunteer experiences likely vary across
organizational types. Future research may want to examine how sociodemographic variables
might moderate the relationship between the volunteer management practices and the
experience of volunteers. Future work may consider how volunteers view the efficacy of
different volunteer management practices and what their experience is with volunteering and
the organization.

290
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Conclusions

Our study contributes to research on volunteer management in several ways. First, we examine
the NPS, a common performance tool, that provides valuable insights for research to
incorporate this measure and practice for organizations to gain promoters. The NPS can be
used to measure volunteer satisfaction and identify enthusiastic supporters (Prince & Piatak,
2022). We augment our original survey findings with a qualitative analysis of open-ended
responses to provide greater context and understanding of the volunteer experience. Using
both the NPS and intentions to volunteer again as well as qualitative insights, our study paints
a more complete picture of volunteer satisfaction with their experiences.

Second, we examine training, inclusion, and organizational supports from the volunteer
perspective. Moving beyond the organization-focused volunteer management models, our
study centers the volunteer experience. Examining how volunteers view management
practices and their level of satisfaction with them helps provide insights both into the different
practices and how they shape volunteer outcomes. By focusing on the volunteer perspective,
we find training and inclusion matter more than the logistics most volunteer management
models and best practices highlight.

Lastly, we highlight the importance of training and inclusion that not only informs volunteer
management research but also serves as practical guidance to nonprofits. Volunteers can be
seen as a natural resource (Brudney & Meijs, 2009; Koolen-Maas et al., 2023), one that needs
to be invested in and renewed. Organizations should invest in their volunteers by devoting
time, energy, and resources to onboarding and training volunteers and fostering an inclusive
organizational environment. We find training and inclusion play a vital role in the volunteer
experience for volunteers to recommend and promote the organization as well as to want to
continue volunteering. Scholars and practitioners should pay greater attention to the
volunteer experience, training, and fostering a sense of belonging.

Disclosure Statement

The author declares that there are no conflicts of interest that relate to the research,
authorship, or publication of this article.

References

Alfes, K., Shantz, A., & Bailey, C. (2016). Enhancing volunteer engagement to achieve
desirable outcomes: What can non-profit employers do? VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 27(2), 595–617.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9601-3
Bang, H. (2015). Volunteer age, job satisfaction, and intention to stay: A case of nonprofit
sport organizations. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, 36(2), 161–
176. https://doi.org/10.1108/LODJ-04-2013-0052
Barnes, M. L., & Sharpe, E. K. (2009). Looking beyond traditional volunteer management: A
case study of an alternative approach to volunteer engagement in parks and
recreation. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 20(2), 169–187. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-009-9080-5
Boezeman, E. J., & Ellemers, N. (2008). Pride and respect in volunteers’ organizational
commitment. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38(1), 159–172.
https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.415
Bozeman, B., & Feeney, M. K. (2014). Rules and red tape: A prism for public administration
theory and research. Routledge.

291
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Brudney, J. L., & Meijs, L. C. (2009). It ain’t natural: Toward a new (natural) resource
conceptualization for volunteer management. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 38(4), 564–581. http://doi.org/10.1177/0899764009333828
Brudney, J. L., & Sink, H. K. (2017). Volunteer management: It all depends. In J. K. A. Word,
& J. E. Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook: From
theory to practice, (pp. 204–222). Routledge.
https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315181585-12
Burnham, T. A., & Wong, J. A. (2018). Factors influencing successful net promoter score
adoption by a nonprofit organization: A case study of the Boy Scouts of America.
International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, 15(4), 475–495.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12208-018-0210-x
Candid (2021). Connecting you with the nonprofit information you need: Search GuideStar
for the most complete, up-to-date nonprofit data available.
https://www.guidestar.org/
Chui, C. H. K., & Chan, C. H. (2019). The role of technology in reconfiguring volunteer
management in nonprofits in Hong Kong: Benefits and discontents. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 30(1), 89–111. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21369
Clary, E. G., Snyder, M., & Ridge, R. (1992). Volunteers’ motivations: A functional strategy
for the recruitment, placement, and retention of volunteers. Nonprofit Management
and Leadership, 2(4), 333–350. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.4130020403
Connors, T. D. (Ed.). (2011). The volunteer management handbook: Leadership strategies
for success. John Wiley & Sons.
Cnaan, R. A., & Goldberg-Glen, R. S. (1991). Measuring motivation to volunteer in human
services. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 27(3), 269–284.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886391273003
Dederichs, K. (2022). Volunteering in the United Kingdom during the COVID–19 pandemic:
Who started and who quit? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly. Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221122814
DeHart-Davis, L. (2017). Creating effective rules in public sector organizations. Georgetown
University Press.
do Nascimento, T. T., Porto, J. B., & Kwantes, C. T. (2018). Transformational leadership and
follower proactivity in a volunteer workforce. Nonprofit Management and
Leadership, 28(4), 565–576. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21308
Einolf, C. J., & Yung, C. (2018). Super-volunteers: Who are they and how do we get one?
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4), 789–812.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018760400
Englert, B., Thaler, J., & Helmig, B. (2020). Fit themes in volunteering: How do volunteers
perceive person–environment fit? Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 49(2),
336–356. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764019872005
Fallon, B. J., & Rice, S. M. (2015). Investment in staff development within an emergency
services organisation: Comparing future intention of volunteers and paid employees.
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 26(4), 485–500.
https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2011.561222
Farrell, J. M., Johnston, M. E., & Twynam, G. D. (1998). Volunteer motivation, satisfaction,
and management at an elite sporting competition. Journal of Sport Management,
12(4), 288–300. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsm.12.4.288
Galindo-Kuhn, R., & Guzley, R. M. (2002). The volunteer satisfaction index: Construct
definition, measurement, development, and validation. Journal of Social Service
Research, 28(1), 45–68. https://doi.org/10.1300/J079v28n01_03
Garner, J. T., & Garner, L. T. (2011). Volunteering an opinion: Organizational voice and
volunteer retention in nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 40(5), 813–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010366181
Grube, J. A., & Piliavin, J. A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and
volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(9), 1108–
1119. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672002611007

292
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2004). Volunteer management practices and retention of
volunteers. The Urban Institute.
Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2008). Management capacity and retention of volunteers. In
M. Liao-Troth (Ed.), Challenges in volunteer management (pp. 9–27). Information
Age.
Hager, M. A., & Brudney, J. L. (2021). Volunteer management capacity in America’s
charities: Benchmarking a pre-pandemic field and assessing future directions.
Arizona State University.
Handy, F., & Srinivasan, N. (2005). The demand for volunteer labor: A study of hospital
volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34(4), 491–509.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764005278037
Haski-Leventhal, D., & Bargal, D. (2008). The volunteer stages and transitions model:
Organizational socialization of volunteers. Human Relations, 61(1), 67–102.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726707085946
Hatmaker, D. M., & Hassan, S. (2021). When do women receive managerial support? The
effects of gender congruence and the manager-employee relationship. Public
Management Review, 25(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2021.1937683
Henderson, A. C., & Sowa, J. E. (2018). Retaining critical human capital: Volunteer
firefighters in the commonwealth of Pennsylvania. VOLUNTAS: International
Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 29(1), 43–58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-017-9831-7
Henderson, A. C., & Sowa, J. (2019). Volunteer satisfaction at the boundary of public and
nonprofit: Organizational-and individual-level determinants. Public Performance &
Management Review, 42(1), 162–189.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15309576.2018.1471405
Hidalgo, M. C., & Moreno, P. (2009). Organizational socialization of volunteers: The effect
on their intention to remain. Journal of Community Psychology, 37(5), 594–601.
https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.20317
Howlett, S. (2010). Developing volunteer management as a profession. Voluntary Sector
Review, 1(3), 355–360. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080510X538338
Hurst, C., Scherer, L., & Allen, J. (2017). Distributive justice for volunteers: Extrinsic
outcomes matter. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 27(3), 411–421.
https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21251
The Independent Sector. (2023) Value of volunteer time report.
https://independentsector.org/resource/value-of-volunteer-time/
Jiranek, P., Kals, E., Humm, J. S., Strubel, I. T., & Wehner, T. (2013). Volunteering as a
means to an equal end? The impact of a social justice function on intention to
volunteer. The Journal of Social Psychology, 153(5), 520–541.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2013.768594
Koolen-Maas, S. A., Meijs, L. C., van Overbeeke, P. S., & Brudney, J. L. (2023). Rethinking
volunteering as a natural resource: A conceptual typology. Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly, 52(1_suppl), 353S–377S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221127947
Lee, S. P. (2021). Exploring a model of structural relationship for corporate engagement in
sustainable volunteer management. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 32(6), 1346–1358.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00362-6
Lee, Y. J. (2019). Variations in volunteer use among human service organizations in the USA.
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations,
30(1), 208–221. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-018-9969-y
Maas, S. A., Meijs, L. C., & Brudney, J. L. (2021). Designing “National Day of Service”
projects to promote volunteer job satisfaction. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 50(4), 866–888. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764020982664

293
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

McBride, A. M., & Lee, Y. (2012). Institutional predictors of volunteer retention: The case of
AmeriCorps national service. Administration & Society, 44(3), 343–366.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399711413729
Meyer, J. P., Allen, N. J., & Smith, C. A. (1993). Commitment to organizations and
occupations: Extension and test of a three-component conceptualization. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 78(4), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.78.4.538
Mohsen, T., & Dennick, R. (2011). Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. International Journal
of Medical Education, 2, 53–55. https://doi.org/10.5116/ijme.4dfb.8dfd
Mor Barak, M. E. (2016). Managing diversity: Toward a globally inclusive workplace. Sage
Publications.
Mor Barak, M. E., Cherin, D. A., & Berkman, S. (1998). Organizational and personal
dimensions in diversity climate: Ethnic and gender differences in employee
perceptions. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 34(1), 82–104.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0021886398341006
Moreno‐Jiménez, M. P., & Villodres, M. C. H. (2010). Prediction of burnout in volunteers.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(7), 1798–1818.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2010.00640.x
Nencini, A., Romaioli, D., & Meneghini, A. M. (2016). Volunteer motivation and
organizational climate: Factors that promote satisfaction and sustained volunteerism
in NPOs. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 27(2), 618–639. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-015-9593-z
Newton, C., Becker, K., & Bell, S. (2014). Learning and development opportunities as a tool
for the retention of volunteers: A motivational perspective. Human Resource
Management Journal, 24(4), 514–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/1748-8583.12040
Onken-Menke, G., Nüesch, S., & Kröll, C. (2018). Are you attracted? Do you remain? Meta-
analytic evidence on flexible work practices. Business Research, 11(2), 239–277.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40685-017-0059-6
Oostlander, J., Güntert, S. T., & Wehner, T. (2014). Linking autonomy-supportive leadership
to volunteer satisfaction: A self-determination theory perspective. VOLUNTAS:
International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 25(6), 1368–1387.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9395-0
Piatak, J. S. (2016). Time is on my side: A framework to examine when unemployed
individuals volunteer. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(6), 1169–1190.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764016628295
Piatak, J., Dietz, N., & McKeever, B. (2019). Bridging or deepening the digital divide:
Influence of household internet access on formal and informal volunteering.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 48(2S), 123S–150S.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018794907
Prince, W., & Piatak, J. (2022). By the volunteer, for the volunteer: Volunteer perspectives of
management across levels of satisfaction. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640221127974
Pugh, S. D., Dietz, J., Brief, A. P., & Wiley, J. W. (2008). Looking inside and out: The impact
of employee and community demographic composition on organizational diversity
climate. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93(6), 1422–1428.
https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012696
Robichau, R. W., & Sandberg, B. (2022). Creating meaningfulness in public service work: A
qualitative comparative analysis of public and nonprofit managers’ experience of
work. The American Review of Public Administration, 52(2), 122–138.
https://doi.org/10.1177/02750740211050363
Reichheld, F. F. (2003). The one number you need to grow. Harvard Business Review,
81(12), 46–55. https://hbr.org/2003/12/the-one-number-you-need-to-grow
Reichheld, F. (2011). The ultimate question 2.0 (revised and expanded edition): How net
promoter companies thrive in a customer-driven world. Harvard Business Review
Press.

294
 Unpacking the Volunteer Experience

Smith, S. L., & Grove, C. J. (2017). Bittersweet and paradoxical: Disaster response
volunteering with the American Red Cross. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,
27(3), 353–369.
Simsa, R., Rameder, P., Aghamanoukjan, A., & Totter, M. (2019). Spontaneous volunteering
in social crises: Self-organization and coordination. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly, 48(2_suppl), 103S–122S. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764018785472
Studer, S. (2016). Volunteer management: Responding to the uniqueness of volunteers.
Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 45(4), 688–714.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764015597786
Studer, S., & Von Schnurbein, G. (2013). Organizational factors affecting volunteers: A
literature review on volunteer coordination. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of
Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 24(2), 403–440.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-012-9268-y
Walk, M., Zhang, R., & Littlepage, L. (2019). “Don’t you want to stay?” The impact of training
and recognition as human resource practices on volunteer turnover. Nonprofit
Management and Leadership, 29(4), 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21344
Wu, Y. L., Lin, T. W., & Wang, S. S. C. (2019). How do volunteer’s experiences of
organizational facilitators influence their satisfaction and loyalty: An example of
hospital volunteers. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit
Organizations, 30(5), 1104–1117. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-019-00096-6
Zanin, A. C., Hanna, K. N., & Martinez, L. V. (2022). Mirroring empowerment: Exploring
structural barriers to volunteer motivation fulfillment in an all-female youth sport
program. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 51(5), 1158–1183.
https://doi.org/10.1177/08997640211034585

Author Biographies

Jaclyn S. Piatak is an Associate Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public
Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on
public and nonprofit management, including human resource management and volunteering.

Joanne G. Carman is a Professor in the Department of Political Science and Public

Administration at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research has appeared in
a variety of journals including the American Journal of Evaluation, Canadian Journal of
Program Evaluation, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, and Nonprofit and Voluntary
Sector Quarterly.

295
Journal of Public and Nonprofit Affairs

Appendix A. Bivariate Correlations between the Independent and Control Variables (n=323)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (13) (14) (15) (16) (17) (18) (19)

(1) Inclusion Scale 1.000

(2) Training 0.239** 1.000

(3) Satis. - Project 0.313** 0.158** 1.000

Options
(4) Satis. - Ease of 0.175** 0.131* 0.571** 1.000
Registration
(5) Satis. - 0.260** 0.201** 0.671** 0.558** 1.000
Volunteer
Activities
(6) Satis. - 0.494** 0.206** 0.407** 0.300** 0.378** 1.000
Interactions
with Paid Staff
(7) Satis. - 0.308** 0.208** 0.458** 0.447** 0.514** 0.482** 1.000
Interactions
with Volunteers
(8) Satis. - 0.470** 0.251** 0.578** 0.479** 0.593** 0.627** 0.583** 1.000
Experience
with
(9) Number of -0.181** 0.059 0.000 -0.002 -0.029 -0.140* 0.031 -0.079 1.000
Employees
(10) Number of 0.135* -0.018 0.157** 0.150** 0.144** 0.138* 0.072 0.133* -0.194** 1.000
Volunteers
(11) Age of the -0.091 0.033 0.055 0.043 0.005 -0.099 0.019 -0.041 0.539** -0.139* 1.000
Organization
(12) Total Annual -0.215** 0.030 0.009 0.072 -0.017 -0.224** -0.029 -0.102 0.775** -0.086 0.560** 1.000
Revenues (Log)
(13) Age of the -0.059 -0.054 -0.026 -0.124* -0.105 0.056 0.064 -0.016 -0.039 0.115* -0.237** -0.103 1.000
Respondent
(14) Some College 0.113* -0.026 -0.035 0.034 -0.035 -0.042 0.046 -0.033 0.139* -0.091 0.152** 0.003 -0.212** 1.000
or Less
(15) 4 Year College 0.028 -0.044 0.032 -0.054 0.011 0.037 -0.074 -0.007 -0.008 0.034 0.050 0.070 -0.025 -0.422** 1.000
Degree
(16) Professional -0.124* 0.067 -0.002 0.025 0.018 -0.001 0.035 0.035 -0.110* 0.043 -0.179** -0.072 0.204** -0.427** -0.640** 1.000
Degree or
Doctorate
(17) BIPOC -0.059 0.003 -0.014 0.076 -0.005 -0.038 -0.091 -0.004 0.007 -0.076 0.063 0.052 -0.163** 0.034 -0.027 -0.002 1.000

(18) Gender 0.014 -0.093 0.024 0.040 -0.008 0.001 0.022 0.005 0.055 -0.106 0.038 0.149** -0.021 -0.032 -0.013 0.040 0.021 1.000
(Female)
(19) Volunteering 0.048 0.095 0.147** -0.044 0.047 0.104 0.032 0.086 0.122* -0.069 0.164** -0.052 0.182** 0.083 0.009 -0.079 0.014 -0.090 1.000
(How Often)

** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

* Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

296