give them something to smile about: a marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers

This article was downloaded by: [University of Guelph]On: 09 December 2014, At: 08:51Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Journal of Nonprofit & PublicSector MarketingPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

Give Them Something to SmileAbout: A Marketing Strategyfor Recruiting and RetainingVolunteersKatherine A. Karl , Joy V. Peluchette & Leda M. HallPublished online: 08 Sep 2008.

To cite this article: Katherine A. Karl , Joy V. Peluchette & Leda M. Hall (2008)Give Them Something to Smile About: A Marketing Strategy for Recruiting andRetaining Volunteers, Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, 20:1, 71-96,DOI: 10.1080/10495140802165360

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165360

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and viewsexpressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wnon20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10495140802165360

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10495140802165360

indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Give Them Something to Smile About:A Marketing Strategy for Recruiting and

Retaining Volunteers

Katherine A. Karl

Joy V. Peluchette

Leda M. Hall

ABSTRACT. Using a marketing perspective, this study investigateswhether the issue of ‘‘fun at work’’ would appeal to volunteers as apart of an effort to enhance recruitment and retention. Specifically, weexamined volunteers’ attitudes toward fun, their perceptions of whatkinds of activities are fun and what are not, and the relativeimportance of workplace fun in what they perceive as an idealvolunteer position. In general, we found that volunteers had positiveattitudes towards fun and experiencing fun at work was associatedwith higher job satisfaction and lower turnover intentions. Although‘‘a fun workplace’’ was ranked relatively low in importance relative toother reasons why they volunteer, creating such an environment couldenhance retention. Some age and gender differences were found in the

Journal of Nonprofit & Public Sector Marketing, Vol. 20(1) 2008Available online at http://jnpsm.haworthpress.com# 2008 by The Haworth Press. All rights reserved.

doi: 10.1080/10495140802165360 71

Katherine A. Karl, PhD, is Professor of Management, Graduate Schoolof Management, Marshall University, 100 Angus E. Peyton Dr., SouthCharleston, WV 25303 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Joy V. Peluchette, PhD, Professor of Management, Department ofManagement, MIS, and ACS, College of Business, University of SouthernIndiana 8600 University Blvd., Evansville, IN 47712 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Leda M. Hall, PhD, Campus Dean/Program Director, School of Publicand Environmental Affairs, Indiana University South Bend, 1800Mishawaka Ave. P.O. Box 7111, South Bend, IN 46634 (E-mail: [email protected]).

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

perceptions of whether certain activities are fun or not. Theimplications of these results and directions for future research arediscussed.

KEYWORDS. Volunteers, recruitment, retention, workplace fun

Volunteers are a critical human resource for many organizations.While nonprofits have traditionally depended on volunteers in lieu ofpaid employees, public organizations are now also increasingly addingsuch workers to their ranks (Brudney 1999, 2000; Frederickson 2004).According to a study conducted by Independent Sector, the estimateddollar value of volunteer time in the U.S. was $18.04 per hour for 2005(Value of Volunteer Time 2006). Given the benefits of this valuable andunique human resource, organizations are recognizing that the key totheir success is often dependent on the effective recruitment andretention of volunteers.

To accomplish these efforts, it has been suggested that suchorganizations adopt a marketing approach to the recruitment andretention of their volunteers (Wymer 1999). Such an approach viewsvolunteer opportunities like a marketplace in which various ‘‘employ-ing organizations’’ (i.e., nonprofit or public organizations who utilizevolunteers) compete against one another for ‘‘customers’’ (i.e.,volunteers). Indeed, it has been said of nonprofit organizations thatvolunteers are their most important group of customers in that thoseneeding services are plentiful but the supply of volunteers is scarce(Wright, Larsen, and Higgs 1995). It has also been suggested thatvolunteer work represents an exchange between the ‘‘seller’’ (theorganization utilizing volunteers) and the ‘‘buyer’’ (the volunteer)whereby the seller receives the volunteer’s labor and the volunteerreceives some form of psychosocial benefit (Wymer and Samu 2002).Successful marketers understand the importance of serving theircustomers better than competitors. Thus, it is critical for organiza-tions to understand their ‘‘customers’’ and what their needs ormotives are for volunteering.

Fortunately, there has been considerable research examining themotivations of volunteers (e.g., Bussell and Forbes 2002; Clary,Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen, and Miene 1998; Gillespieand King 1985; Hwang, Grabb, and Curtis 2005; Smith 1994; Starnesand Wymer 1999; Unger 1991; Wymer, Riecken, and Yavas 1996;

72 JOURNAL OF NONPROFIT & PUBLIC SECTOR MARKETING

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Wymer and Starnes 2001). These studies suggest that manyindividuals volunteer for altruistic reasons (i.e., a desire to helpothers or do something to benefit society or the community); asense of duty or obligation to reciprocate for services received byfriends or family members; personal development or careerenhancement (i.e., gain new skills and useful experience); thedesire to feel useful, productive, or to occupy spare time; andsocial rewards (i.e., sense of belonging, meet new people). Whileknowledge of these motives is helpful for recruiting volunteers,retention of this valuable resource is equally important. If donewell, effective retention reduces the need for recruitment (Wymerand Starnes 2001) but requires careful attention to all aspects ofthe volunteer experience. Turnover of volunteers can be a ‘‘costly’’problem for organizations, with rates of up to 30 % in somesectors (Wymer 1998). Evidence also shows that it costs at leastfive times more to develop a new volunteer than to cultivategreater exchanges with existing ones (Mitchell and Taylor 2004). Ithas been suggested that what attracts volunteers to an organizationis not necessarily what sustains them once they are ‘‘on board’’(Bussell and Forbes 2002).

Given the importance of retaining volunteers, it is imperative thatorganizations create an internal marketing plan focused on increasingvolunteers’ commitment and long-term loyalty. In designing such aplan, Mitchell and Taylor (2004) recommend focusing on the ‘‘4 Ps’’that make up the marketing mix. The product is the volunteerexperience; price is the monetary and non-monetary costs ofvolunteering; place refers to ease of donation in terms of time andeffort; and promotion refers to communications between the volunteerand organization. In expanding on the concept of product, theorganization should consider a host of factors which impactthe volunteer’s experience. This involves not only sensitivity to theindividual’s desire for challenge or stimulation in their work role, butattention to the workplace environment and whether social needs arebeing met. For example, Bussell and Forbes (2002) argue that ‘‘aperson may be motivated to volunteer for altruistic reasons, yet at thesame time be satisfied with the experience because it meetssocialization needs’’ (263). Starnes and Wymer (1999) report that,when hospice volunteers strongly believe in the organization’smission and feel their work is valued, their retention is greater.

Karl, Peluchette, and Hall 73

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Murrant and Strathdee (1995) similarly report that volunteerscontinue their involvement when they feel respected and valued.Likewise, Mitchell and Taylor (2004) suggest that recognizing andcelebrating volunteer achievements is an important means ofpromoting continued commitment. Others have also argued thatretention is enhanced by positive relations between paid staff andvolunteers (Callow 2004; Mitchell and Taylor 1997; Wilson andPimm 1996).

In their efforts to enhance motivation, teamwork, and retention,many private sector organizations have incorporated fun into theirorganizational culture (Marriotti 1999; McGhee 2000; Meyer 1999;Paulson 2001; Ramsey 2001; Weiss 2002). In fact, many of thecompanies who have been recognized as one of the The 100 BestCompanies to Work for in America have made having fun a part oftheir corporate mission (Levering and Moskowitz 1994). Others havesuggested that workplace fun will enhance customer satisfaction(Berg 2001; Lundin, Christensen, Paul, and Strand 2002; Lundin,Paul, and Christensen 2002, 2003). Matt Weinstein (1996), author ofthe popular press book Managing to Have Fun, supports this idea bystating ‘‘You can’t expect your employees to provide ‘service with asmile’ if you don’t give them something to smile about!’’ (21).

While such a concept is having success in the private sector, would itwork with equal success in a nonprofit or volunteer work environment?Although limited, there is some evidence of support for this philosophy.For example, Temkin (1994) argues that encouraging fun is a criticalcomponent for building commitment in nonprofit organizationsthrough such activities as work parties, social get-togethers, food, andmingling time at meetings. Similar viewpoints were expressed in severalarticles published in Staff Leader, a newsletter for nonprofit adminis-trators. For example, according to ‘‘No kidding: Putting fun intoproductivity (2002),’’ the writer suggests that managers should considerincluding fun in the workplace as a way to retain employees or form funcommittees as outlined in ‘‘Fun is what you do by committee! (2000)’’.The benefits of humor in the workplace, including reducing stress,promoting trust and increasing camaraderie, are discussed in ‘‘Canyour workplace be both funny and fair (2003)?’’ According toconsultant, Bernie DeKoven, play and sense of fun are especiallyimportant to the success of volunteer-based efforts. ‘‘In my experience,no organization suffers more from the ‘serious syndrome’ more than


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

nonprofits, especially for the volunteers’’ (Gilbert 2001). Similarly,Muehrcke (2005) opines that ‘‘without laughter, there’s no energy, nojoy, no spirit. And without spirit, there’s low productivity and scantchance of fulfilling dreams.’’ Finally, Scheier (1987) notes that, insteadof the annual award banquet, other varieties of volunteer recognitionare gaining popularity including: having volunteers, staff, boardmembers, clients, families and friends go on a picnic, to the zoo, on ahike, play softball, or put on a skit, or sing songs. ‘‘Having fun togetherbecomes more celebration than competition for the title of bestvolunteer of all, or longest-lasting one. There’s more fun than fussiness,more party than pompousness. The whole thing is inclusive rather thanexclusive, largely unspeechified, unglamorous, and unforgettable.’’

While the sources above provide anecdotal support, what is sorelylacking is any empirical research on this issue. The purpose of thispaper is to empirically investigate the idea of creating a ‘‘fun workenvironment’’ for volunteers in a non-profit work environment.Specifically, we will examine volunteers’ attitudes toward workplacefun, the extent to which volunteers say they experience fun in theirvolunteer work and its impact on their satisfaction and turnoverintentions, the relative importance of workplace fun to volunteers,and their perceptions of what is fun and what is not.

Attitudes Toward Fun

While many supporters of fun at work have argued that fun canand should be infused in to every workplace (e.g., Yerkes 1997),Aldag and Sherony (2001) have cautioned that ‘‘it would be simplisticto expect that all individuals would have similar views about fun atwork.’’ Most people want their work to be satisfying, but what thatmeans varies with the individual. For some people, fun at work isneither expected nor deemed appropriate. For example, some havestated, ‘‘I don’t expect work to be fun—that’s why they call it work’’(Paulson 2001, 16). Similarly, some employees at Cooley DickinsonHospital reacted to the introduction of fun-related activities as ‘‘toosilly for a hospital’’ (Mellen 2003). Likewise, Fleming (2005) foundthat about half of the 30 call center employees he intervieweddisplayed some degree of cynicism when the company introduced itsfun philosophy. For example, some felt they were being treated likechildren instead of dignified rational adults. Others felt the funculture program was pretentious and lacked honesty.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Evidence suggests that there are differences in attitudes towardworkplace fun based on demographic differences. According to severalpopular press writers, today’s younger workers, when compared toearlier generations, want greater work/life balance, and more fun intheir work (e.g., Raines, Zemke, and Filipczak 1999; Tulgan 1995). Ithas also been said that younger workers ‘‘view jobs as a means to anend–that end being life after work,’’ and in order to get them motivatedand excited about work, ‘‘managers should attempt to develop a senseof fun in the workplace’’ (Buckley, Beu, Novicevic, and Sigerstad2001). Hays (1999) similarly stated that Generation X wants jobs thatare ‘‘cool, fun and fulfilling.’’ In support, in a recent study of age andgender differences in attitudes toward workplace fun, Karl andHarland (2005) found no relationship between age and respondents’attitudes toward fun; however, younger respondents generally ratedmost ‘‘fun’’ workplace activities (e.g., games, contests, celebrations) asbeing more fun than older workers.

Significant gender differences were also reported, whereby womengenerally perceived fun at work to be more important than men andgave higher ratings to most ‘‘fun’’ activities (Karl and Harland 2005).The social psychology literature on gender differences in emotionmay help explain these differences. For example, Alexander andWood (2000) note that women (as compared to men) tend to morepositively evaluate experiences that are associated with ‘‘maintainingrelationships, caring for others, and expressing solidarity and support(191).’’ Studies of gender differences in work values indicate that menplace greater value on achievement, prestige, autonomy, andintellectual stimulation whereas women see social interactions,aesthetics, and routines for work and leisure as more important(Moore and Ollenburger 1986). Others report that socializationdifferences between men and women result in different workorientations in that women have a communal orientation (concernfor others, selflessness, and desire to be with others) and men have anagentic orientation (self-assertion, self-expansion, and urge to master)(Bakan 1966; Eagly 1987). It seems plausible that perceptions ofworkplace fun activities (which are typically social) would reflectthese kinds of values, orientations, or experiences.

Attitudes towards fun have also been examined across employmentsectors, namely private, public and nonprofit workers. Althoughworkers in all three sectors had positive attitudes towards fun, there


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

were significant differences between sectors in worker’s ratings offorty fun activities (Karl, Peluchette, Harland, and Hall 2005). Publicsector employees tended to rate the activities as less fun than at leastone of the other two groups. Nonprofit employees rated outings (e.g.,organization wide trip to an amusement park or baseball game) asmore fun than either of the other two groups.

To date, there has been no research examining the attitudes ofvolunteers regarding workplace fun. However, as stated earlier, theresults of several studies suggest that many individuals volunteer foraltruistic reasons (e.g., Bussell and Forbes 2002; Clary, Snyder,Ridge, Copeland, Stukas, Haugen, and Miene 1998; Gillespie andKing 1985; Hwang, Grabb, and Curtis 2005; Smith 1994; Unger1991). Based on these findings, it could be argued that workplace funmay not be important to volunteers. On the other hand, there arethose who argue that paying attention to the workplace environmentcan make a difference in the recruitment and retention of volunteers.For example, it has been found that the social environment (Stevens1991) and perceived organizational support (Farmer and Fedor 1999)are related to turnover intentions among volunteers. In addition,Callow (2004) found that decisions to volunteer and to remain avolunteer were influenced by the perceived costs and benefits of doingso. Many volunteers were conscious of the fact that they werededicating their free time to help out when it could be dedicated toother, more self-indulgent activities, reinforcing the importance ofvolunteers wanting to feel recognized and appreciated for the ‘effort’they had put into such endeavors. Also, given that volunteeringusually happens when one is normally not at work, and thus replacesrecreational ‘‘fun’’ time, having fun at one’s volunteer workplace maybe even more important than having fun at one’s paid workplace.This suggests volunteers may have positive attitudes toward fun inthe workplace, seeing such activities as a welcome release from workthat is often undervalued and underappreciated. Additionally, sincevolunteers are unpaid, fun activities may be an important source ofnon-monetary compensation.

Experienced Fun

Experienced fun is the extent to which a person perceives theexistence of fun in their workplace. Proponents of fun at work claimthat when people have fun doing their jobs, they are more energized


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

and motivated (Stern and Borcia 1999), get along together better(Meyer 1999), provide better customer service (Berg 2001), experienceless stress (McGhee 2000; Miller 1996), and are less like to be absent orleave the organization (Marriotti 1999; Zbar 1999). Therefore, wepredict that experienced fun will be positively related to job satisfactionand negatively related to turnover intentions of volunteers.

The Relative Importance of Workplace Fun

While workplace fun may result in positive benefits for volunteers,another important consideration is the relative importance of work-place fun to volunteers compared to other factors. That is, would theinclusion of fun activities enhance the recruitment and retention ofvolunteers? While there are numerous studies on why individuals dovolunteer work, there is limited research examining the relativeimportance of various motives for volunteering. One exception is astudy by Hwang, Grabb and Curtis (2005) who compared the surveyresponses of American and Canadian volunteers (N5 907 and N5739,respectively) to a set of 14 possible reasons for being active in voluntaryassociations. Those rated as the most important were: compassion forthe needy; to repay, give back something; contribute to localcommunity; sense of duty, moral obligation; and to give hope, dignityto disadvantaged. Those rated as least important were: did not want to,couldn’t refuse; social reasons, to meet people; and time on my hands.Based on these results, we expect that workplace fun, which is typicallya social activity, will be less important to volunteers than altruisticfactors such as helping others or benefiting society.

Finally, there is some research that suggests that there are age andgender differences in why people volunteer. For example, somestudies suggest that women are more likely than men to volunteer forsocial reasons (King and Fluke 1990; Ibrahim and Brannen 1997;Morrow-Howell and Mui 1989; Omoto and Syder 1990), to place ahigher value on a sense of accomplishment (Wymer and Samu 2002),and to derive a sense of personal satisfaction and growth fromvolunteering (Ibrahim and Brannen 1997). It has also been suggestedthat women associate volunteering as an expression of caring whilemen associate volunteering with the accomplishment of specific tasks(Wuthnow 1996). With regard to age, some studies suggest thatseniors are more altruistic (less egoistic) than younger volunteers(Chappell and Prince 1997; Wymer 1999). Based on these findings, we


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

expect that workplace fun will be of less importance to older or malevolunteers, as compared to younger or female volunteers.

What’s Fun and What’s Not

With titles like Fun and Gains, Get Weird!, 301 More Ways to HaveFun at Work, How to Make Work Fun!, and Funny Works!, popularpress writers have proposed a wide range of possible activities tomake the work place fun (Berger 2002; Firth 1995; Greenwich 2001;Hemsath 2001; Putzier 2001). Previous research examining the use offun-related activities in the workplace found that the top three mostfrequently used activities were casual dress days, employee recogni-tion and rewards, and company-provided food and refreshments(Ford, McLaughlin, and Newstrom 2003). Similarly, Karl and others(2005) found that workers in all three sectors (public, private, andnonprofit) agreed that food-related activities such as a potluck lunchor dinner, going out for lunch, or having cake and ice cream tocelebrate birthdays were the most fun. Those activities considered tobe the least fun were those categorized as ‘‘wild and wacky’’ such aslining up chairs and pretending to ride a roller coaster.

Even though, as stated by Bernie DeKoven (Gilbert 2001), nonprofitorganizations suffer from the ‘serious syndrome,’ we believe thatvolunteers will be similar to other employees in their ratings of funactivities. However, as is true with most leisure or pastime activities(sports and hobbies), it is expected that there will be wide variationamong volunteers in the degree to which certain activities are consideredfun. Likewise, given previous research on other employee groups, weexpect some of this variation to be due to age and gender differences.

METHOD

Sample

Respondents in this study were recruited from a social serviceagency, a counseling center, two private colleges, a hospital, a publicschool mentoring program and one public university (students andfaculty). Of the 160 surveys distributed, 103 were returned, producinga response rate of 64%. Due to missing data, only 99 surveys wereuseable, thus, the final response rate was 63%. About half of the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

respondents were female (56%) and 37% were married. Althoughrespondents ranged in age from 18 to 77, the mean age was 37.2years.

Survey Instrument

The survey instrument consisted of three sections: (1) fun at workactivities, (2) work-related beliefs and attitudes, and (3) jobcharacteristics considered important in a volunteer position.Demographic information was tapped through single item questions,including gender, age, marital status, and type of organization.

Fun at Work Activities

This measure was developed using suggestions made by authors ofpopular press books on how to make work more fun (e.g., Berger2002; Greenwich 2001; Hemsath 2001; Hemsath and Yerkes 1997;Putzier 2001; Weinstein 1996; Yerkes 2001). Respondents were giventhe following instructions: ‘‘Please indicate how ‘‘fun’’ you think eachof the items would be at the organization where you volunteer byselecting the number which best describes the way you feel about eachactivity.’’ The measure consisted of 40 activities, each rated on a 5-point scale (1 5 not at all fun, 2 5 neither fun nor not fun, 3 5

somewhat fun, 4 5 fun, 5 5 a lot of fun). Examples of such activitiesare ‘‘baby picture contest’’, ‘‘theme days with decorations, food,music, and dress focused around a particular theme (e.g. Hawaiian,disco)’’ and ‘‘play bingo during the lunch hour once a month onFriday afternoons’’.

Work-related Beliefs and Attitudes

The work-related beliefs and attitudes section consisted of fourmeasures: (1) attitudes toward fun at work, (2) level of fun experiencedat work, (3) job satisfaction and (4) turnover intentions. Theinstructions for this section were as follows: ‘‘The following items aredesigned to measure your beliefs and attitudes toward yourVOLUNTEER work. Please use the following rating scale to indicateyour level of agreement with each statement.’’ All items in this sectionwere rated on a 5-point scale (15Strongly Disagree, 55Strongly Agree).

We used three scales developed by Karl et al., (2005) to measureattitudes toward fun. More specifically, four items measure the


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

perceived appropriateness of workplace fun (e.g., ‘‘Work hours arethe time to work and non-work hours are the time to have fun.’’), fiveitems measure the importance or salience of workplace fun (e.g.,‘‘Having fun at work is very important to me.’’), and eight itemsmeasure perceived consequences of workplace fun (e.g., ‘‘Fun at workusually gets out of hand.’’).

The level of fun experienced at work was measured using 5 itemsdeveloped by Peluchette and Karl (2005). Sample items include: ‘‘Myorganization is a fun place to work,’’ ‘‘At my organization, we try tohave fun whenever we can,’’ ‘‘Managers encourage volunteers to havefun at work,’’ ‘‘We laugh at lot at my workplace,’’ and ‘‘Sometimes Ifeel more like I’m playing than I’m working.’’

Job satisfaction was measured using five items adapted fromBrayfield and Rothe’s (1975) job satisfaction index. When used byJudge, Locke, Durham, and Kluger (1998), a coefficient alpha of .88was reported for this reduced 5-item measure. Sample items include:‘‘I feel fairly satisfied with my present volunteer job,’’ ‘‘Most days Iam enthusiastic about my volunteer work,’’ and ‘‘I find realenjoyment in my volunteer work.’’

The turnover intentions measure consisted of four items adaptedfrom the Michigan Organizational Assessment Questionnaire(Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, and Klesh 1979; c.f., Cook,Hepworth, Wall, and Warr 1981; and Walsh, Ashford, and Hill1985). The four items were as follows: ‘‘I often think about quittingmy volunteer job,’’ ‘‘I will leave this organization in the next year,’’ ‘‘Iam starting to ask my friends and contacts about other volunteerpossibilities,’’ and ‘‘It is very likely that I will actively look for a newvolunteer job in the next year.’’

To measure the job characteristics considered important byvolunteers, we asked respondents, ‘‘What is important to you in avolunteer position?’’ This question was followed by instructionswhich stated ‘‘Below are 10 job-related items. Please rank order these10 items in terms of how important they are to you in what youconsider to be an ‘‘ideal’’ volunteer position (‘‘1’’ 5 most important,10 5 least important).’’ The 10 items included: (1) good coworkers,(2) opportunity to gain new skills and valuable experience,(3)interesting work, (4) helping others, (5) chance to benefit societyyour community, and/or the environment, (6) a feeling of accom-plishment, (7) a fun workplace, (8) opportunity to socialize and meet


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

new people, (9) a sense of pride in your organization, and (10) flexiblehours/job.

RESULTS

Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, reliability coeffi-cients, and correlations among age, gender, attitudes toward fun,experienced fun, job satisfaction and turnover intentions. The meanscores indicate that the volunteers in our sample expressed positiveattitudes towards workplace fun including its appropriateness,importance, and consequences. They experienced a moderate levelof fun in their volunteer workplaces, were generally satisfied withtheir volunteer positions, and their turnover intentions were low. Anexamination of the correlations shows that, as predicted, volunteerswho experienced higher levels of fun in their volunteer workplace alsohad higher satisfaction with their volunteer positions and lowerturnover intentions. Age and gender were not related to attitudestoward fun or experienced fun. However, the older volunteers in oursample, reported higher satisfaction with their volunteer positionsand also had lower turnover intentions.

Table 2 shows the mean scores of our volunteers’ importancerankings for 10 characteristics of volunteer jobs, although there isconsiderable variation in these ratings. Interesting work wasconsidered most important, followed by helping others, good co-workers, a feeling of accomplishment, and a chance to benefit society,your community, and/or the environment. Those ranked as leastimportant were a fun workplace, and an opportunity to socialize andmeet new people. To examine age differences in these importancerankings, we correlated age with each of the 10 volunteer jobcharacteristics. These results showed that older volunteers, comparedto younger volunteers, placed significantly higher importance onhelping others (r 5 2.30, p5.003; where a lower rank means greaterimportance), benefiting society, the community or the environment (r 5

2.25, p 5 .014), a sense of accomplishment (r 5 2.25, p 5 .017) andpride in one’s organization (r 5 2.24, p 5 .02). Consistent with ourexpectations, younger volunteers tended to rank workplace fun asmore important than the other items, although this relationship wasonly marginally significant (r5.18, p 5 .08). When we used an


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

TABLE 1. Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities1, and Correlations among Age, Gender, Attitudes TowardFun, Experienced Fun, Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intentions

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3a 3b 3c 4 5 6

1. Age 37.2 18.06

2. Gender 1.57 .50 .19

3. Attitudes toward fun

a. Appropriateness 3.88 .83 2.01 .06 (.73)

b. Importance 3.99 .70 2.10 2.08 .38*** (.69)

c. Consequences 3.92 .57 .00 2.02 .36*** .61*** (.77)

4. Experienced fun 3.41 .63 2.02 .04 .05 .10 2.04 (.72)

5. Job satisfaction 3.91 .73 .33*** .15 .10 .01 .26* .23* (.82)

6. Turnover intentions 2.09 .99 2.36*** .03 2.16 .00 2.15 2.21* 2.68*** (.81)

1Coefficient alphas are in parentheses.* p , .05.** *p , .001.

Ka

rl,P

eluch

ette,a

nd

Ha

ll8

3

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

ANOVA to compare the mean rankings of men and women, wefound no significant differences in the characteristics consideredimportant by men and women in a volunteer position which wascontrary to our expectations.

Table 3 presents a listing of those fun activities rated mostpositively and most negatively by all respondents. As shown, thehighest rated activities include contests, organization-wide outingsduring work hours, food-related events, a humor bulletin board, and anannual award ceremony. The lowest rated activities were very similarto those reported by Karl and others (2005) and include activities thatrespondents may have considered weird or silly. As expected,perceptions of what volunteers find to be fun and not fun variedwidely.

Because the use of multiple univariate tests leads to a greatly inflatedoverall type I error rate (Stevens, 1986), a MANCOVA was conductedin order to examine age and gender differences in volunteers’ ratings ofthe 40 fun activities. The results of the multivariate test revealed asignificant effect for both age [F (39, 50) 5 2.70, p 5 .001] and gender[F (39, 50) 5 1.18, p 5.024]. An examination of the univariate testsrevealed that older workers rated 7 of the 40 activities as less fun thanyounger workers: traveling flower bouquet, office Olympics, adoptingpets for the office, and all four of the organization-wide outings (theatre,baseball game, amusement park, golf).

TABLE 2. Mean Rankings for Job Characteristics Considered Importantby Volunteers

Job characteristic Meanranking

SD

1. Interesting work 3.91 2.76

2. Helping others 4.15 2.95

3. Good coworkers 4.28 3.35

4. A feeling of accomplishment 4.48 2.70

5. Chance to benefit society, your community, and/or the environment 4.70 2.88

6. Opportunity to gain new skills and valuable experience 4.81 3.23

7. A sense of pride in your organization 5.01 2.70

8. Flexible hours/job 5.33 3.02

9. A fun workplace 6.02 3.02

10. Opportunity to socialize and meet new people 6.65 3.35

Note: Respondents ranked the most important item as ‘‘1’’ and the least important item as ‘‘10.’’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

TABLE 3. Highest and Lowest Rated ‘‘Fun’’ Activities

Highest rated activities Mean SD

1. ‘‘Guess Who?’’ Contest. Each employee provides one true fact about themselves that

no one else knows and everyone tries to guess who belongs to each fact.

3.62 1.06

2. Arrange an organization-wide trip to an amusement park during work hours. 3.61 1.34

3. Arrange an organization-wide baseball game during work hours. 3.57 1.34

4. Everyone goes out to lunch once a month. 3.49 1.13

5. Potluck lunch or dinner 3.49 1.15

6. A Humor Bulletin Board with cartoons, jokes or funny stories. 3.43 1.13

7. High School Yearbook Photo Contest. Prizes can be awarded for guessing correctly or

judging who is ‘‘least changed’’, etc.

3.42 1.14

8. Arrange an organization-wide outing to theatre during work hours. 3.39 1.28

9. Celebrate employee’s birthdays by bringing in cake and ice cream once a month. 3.37 1.14

10. Annual Award Ceremony with a combination of genuine and wacky awards. 3.31 1.27

Lowest rated activities

1. Form a Fun Committee or Laughter Club to plan activities that help infuse the

workplace with fun and laughter.

2.83 1.29

2. Employees are encouraged to contribute their suggestions for fun activities. The

employee who provides the best suggestion each year wins a prize.

2.82 1.19

3. Employees form teams and play trivia, board or card games during lunch periods. 2.57 1.30

4. Start meetings by asking everyone to complete an open-ended sentence: ‘‘Wouldn’t

it be fun if . . . ‘‘ or ‘‘The funniest thing I’ve seen at work is . . .’’

2.48 1.16

5. Adopt pets for the office (birds, fish) and give them fun names. 2.46 1.29

6. Play Bingo during the lunch hour once a month on Friday afternoons. The Bingo

board may include a company theme.

2.39 1.26

7. Place a ‘Humor First-Aid Kit’ filled with toys and games where everyone can get to it. 2.36 1.18

8. Employees create an anthem for their team or department which is sung at some major

celebration.

2.23 1.24

9. Traveling flower bouquet. Each employee keeps bouquet for 1 hour then passes it on to

someone else.

2.21 1.28

10. Everyday at a certain time employees do something wacky like lining up chairs and

pretending they are riding a roller coaster.

2.01 1.18

Ka

rl,P

eluch

ette,a

nd

Ha

ll8

5

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

With regard to gender, women rated 5 of the 40 activities as morefun than men including: coworker appreciation certificates, anorganizational newsletter, theme days, a wagon filled with gifts fornew employees, and parents or grandparents write down theirchildren’s response to the question ‘‘What do you think I do allday?’’. Only one of the 40 activities (organization-wide golf outing)was rated as more fun by men than women. Marginally significantdifferences were found for four additional activities. Women rated ababy picture contest, traveling flower bouquet, and adopting pets forthe office as more fun than men. Men rated an organization-wideouting (baseball game) as more fun than women. Thus, as predicted,variations in the ratings of fun activities differed by age and gender.

An additional analysis was conducted to determine if there wereany significant age and gender differences when the fun activitieswere grouped into categories. In performing this analysis, we used thefun activities factors developed by Karl et al., (2005). These factorsincluded Food (4 items, alpha 5 .76), Contests (3 items, alpha 5 .75),Outings (4 items, alpha 5 .83), Games (2 items, alpha 5 .82) and Wildand Wacky (6 items, alpha 5 .82). Three other factors identified bythese authors (awards/prizes, gifts, and celebrations) had coefficientalphas .65 or less so they were not included in this analysis. To testfor age and gender differences among the five categories, weconducted a MANCOVA in which gender was entered as a fixedfactor and age was entered as a covariate. These results revealed thatonly one of the categories, Outings, was significantly related to age. Ingeneral, younger volunteers rated Outings as more fun than oldervolunteers (r 5 2.37, p , .001). No significant differences werefound between men and women on these five categories.

DISCUSSION

So, should we give volunteers something to smile about? Ourfindings suggest that managers of volunteers could expect positiveoutcomes from creating a fun work environment or implementing aculture of fun. When asked about their attitudes toward workplacefun, most volunteers in our sample reported that having fun in theirvolunteer workplace was important to them and that it wasappropriate and led to positive consequences for the organization.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

In addition, those volunteers who reported having more fun in theirvolunteer positions (e.g., ‘‘Sometimes I feel more like I am playingthan working.’’) had greater satisfaction with their volunteerpositions and lower turnover intentions. Thus, workplace funinitiatives may enhance volunteer retention.

With regard to the types of activities which volunteers think arefun or not fun, we were not surprised to find that outings and food-related events have appeal. Outings provide variety and the allure ofengaging in a potentially entertaining activity. Volunteers may alsoperceive outings to be a means by which the organization rewardsthem for the unpaid work they provide. Food-related events provideboth physical (eating good food) and emotional enjoyment (inter-acting with others in a convivial environment). The high ratings givento the annual award ceremony was also not surprising given thatmany volunteers report the desire to be recognized for their efforts(Callow 2004; Jamison 2003). Some of the lowest rated activities werethose in which participants were required to act in playful ways orwere expected to laugh at themselves and each other. It is possiblethat those, who are primarily motivated to donate their free time indoing good for others, are not interested in ‘‘playing’’ during theirvolunteer hours. Behaving in what may be perceived as silly andfrivolous activities may be an insult to those who feel they arevolunteering for serious and honorable reasons. This notion issomewhat supported by Morrow-Howell and Mui (1989) who foundthat task-oriented volunteers (as opposed to people-oriented) viewedsocial interaction as an unnecessary distraction while volunteering.Other activities considered least fun may not have been perceived assilly, but merely mundane or just not fun. As suggested by Callow(2004), volunteers are conscious that they are ‘‘dedicating their freetime to help out when it could be dedicated to other, more self-indulgent activities.’’ Perhaps volunteers take into consideration theopportunity costs of some of these activities, or in other words, thereare a lot more fun things that they would rather be doing.

Similar to Karl and Harland (2005), we found significant age andgender differences in what was considered fun and not fun by oursample of volunteers. However, it should be noted that most of thesignificant differences were for activities that were neither in the list ofthe 10 most fun activities nor the list of 10 least fun activities. Whenthe activities were grouped into categories (Food, Contests, Outings,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Games, Wild and Wacky), only the Outings category was rated asmore fun by younger volunteers than older volunteers and there wereno gender differences. These findings suggest that managers shouldchoose their fun activities with care in contexts that have considerableage and gender diversity. Additionally, organization-wide outingsduring working hours would not be practical for many organizationswhich utilize volunteers and may not even be feasible from a coststandpoint if they were held after work hours.

With regard to the relative importance of workplace fun, ourrespondents ranked ‘‘a fun workplace’’ and ‘‘an opportunity tosocialize and meet new people’’ lowest in what they considered to beimportant in a volunteer position. These results are consistent withpast research suggesting that many people volunteer for altruisticreasons and that failure to provide a challenging assignment or toproperly match the volunteer’s skills and interests with the assign-ment given are key reasons why people stop volunteering (e.g.,Hwang, et al. 2005; Jamison 2003; Miller, Powell, and Seltzer 1990;Wilson 2000). Thus, while fun might be viewed positively, ensuring arewarding volunteer assignment may be of more importance tomanagers in retaining satisfied volunteers.

On the other hand, it should be noted that self-report measures cansuffer from self-presentation or social-desirability bias. That is,respondents tend to present themselves in a socially desirable manner(Zerbe and Paulhus 1987). Past research examining self-reportedvalues has found that only a very small proportion of Americans(7.2%) identify excitement, fun and enjoyment of life as being mostimportant (Kahle, Poulos, and Sukhdial 1988). However, when self-report measures have been corrected for social desirability bias, funand enjoyment of life was ranked as having greater importance thanwithout the correction (Fisher and Katz 2000). Thus, it is very likelythat our respondents over-rated the importance of altruistic motivesand under-rated the importance of workplace fun.

In support, a study examining respondent’s reactions to volunteerrecruitment advertisements found that the advertisements emphasiz-ing personal benefits were as effective, or more effective, thanaltruistic advertisements regardless of whether the respondents hadhigh or low altruistic motives for volunteering (Bennett and Kottasz2000). These authors conclude that advertisements shouldprovide substantial information about the professional development


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

opportunities available (e.g., experience, training), the affectiveadvantages (self-esteem, feeling good), and the social interaction itprovides. Additional evidence for the importance of social motivesand having fun can be found in the increasing number of volunteerprograms are targeting single volunteers (Ellis 1999). For example,Anne Lusk created Single Volunteers, Inc. in 1995, a singles-onlyvolunteer organization. According to Lusk, ‘‘I’m out to show peoplethat clearing trails or planting bulbs can be a lot more rewarding thananswering a personal ad. Even if you don’t meet a life mate, you’ll beworking for a good cause—and having a really good time’’ (c.f.,Penney 1998). Single Volunteers Inc., now has 28 chapters across theUSA, Canada and Australia and over 6500 members (c.f., SingleVolunteers of Greater Denver, http://www.svgd.org/about/index.php). Another example is Travelocity’s ‘‘Travel for Good’’program which promotes volunteer vacations (Winerman 2006).These ‘‘vacations’’ (a.k.a. voluntourism) involve activities such ascleaning up national parks or building houses for Habitat forHumanity. GlobeAware, another nonprofit service vacation organi-zer, claims its registrations have increased 33 % since 2000(Winerman 2006).

What does all this mean with regard to marketing volunteeropportunities? It is likely that volunteer positions which arepromoted as opportunities for fun and laughter, may not appeal toeveryone. In fact, task-oriented individuals may be less likely tovolunteer in such situations. On the other hand, there are others whoare likely to have multiple motives for volunteering, includingaltruistic (a sincere desire to help others or the community), egoistic(to gain new skills or feel good about oneself) and hedonistic (to havefun and enjoyment through meeting new people and making newfriends). From a marketing perspective, it is argued that thoseproducts that offer buyers the most ‘‘bang for their buck’’ will resultin the greatest sales. Applied to volunteer recruitment, opportunitiesthat offer volunteers the greatest psychosocial benefits for their timeand effort are likely to be the most successful. Thus, we argue thatimplanting a culture of fun may improve both recruitment andretention efforts. By using fun activities that are focused onrecognition, rewards, and improving staff and volunteer relations,managers of volunteers should be able to attract more volunteers andbuild the commitment and retention of its current volunteers.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Limitations and Future Research

It should be noted that this study is not without limitations. Forexample, our research was exploratory so we targeted volunteers inseveral different public and nonprofit organizations. However, it ispossible that introducing a culture of fun may have a positive effecton retention in one organization but may not be effective in otherorganizations. Thus, future research should examine the implementa-tion of fun activities in a specific organization. Also, given that oursample size was relatively small, the generalizability of our findings toother volunteers is limited. In addition, we used self-report measurescollected all at one time. Ideally, future research should involvelongitudinal investigations that examine outcome variables beforeand after the implementation of fun activities. Qualitative researchinvolving interviews with volunteers would also be valuable inunderstanding why some activities are perceived as fun and others arenot, and under what circumstances such activities might enhancevolunteer satisfaction and retention.

Future research should also examine the relationship betweenworkplace fun, job burnout and turnover among volunteers.Burnout, or a state of emotional exhaustion, has been found tobe a common phenomenon in helping and caring professions and incustomer-service (Jackson, Schwab, and Schuler 1986). In addition,job satisfaction has been found to be adversely affected by job-related stress and burnout (Beehr and Newman 1978; Cameron,Horsburgh, and Armstrong-Stassen 1994; Lee and Ashforth 1996).There is some research suggesting that a healthy and playful senseof humor serves as a moderator for the aversive effects of stress onhealth and well-being (Martin 1996). Broussine, Davies, and Scott(1999) conducted interviews with social service workers and foundevidence that humor is used as a means of coping with distressingand threatening events. Based on these findings, we propose thatworkplace fun may have positive benefits for volunteers bybuffering the impact of work-related stress on job burnout andturnover. In addition, future research should examine potentialinteractions between our variables. For example, how does havingfun impact the importance placed on altruism or social relations?Given our small sample size, it was not possible to examine thiswith our data.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

CONCLUSION

Because workplace fun has positive implications for volunteerretention, organizations that depend on this type of human resourcewould clearly benefit from creating a work environment that ‘‘givesthem something to smile about.’’ However, given that we foundconsiderable variation in preferences for certain types of funactivities, managers of volunteers would need to exercise caution inhow they implement such efforts into the work environment. It ishoped that this exploratory study will provide the impetus foradditional research into how workplace fun might help ensure theretention of this valuable human resource.

REFERENCES

Aldag, Ramon, and Kate Sherony (2001). ‘‘A spoonful of sugar: Some thoughts on

‘fun at work’,’’ Current Issues in Management, 1 (1), 62-76.

Alexander, Michele and Wendy Wood (2000). ‘‘Women, men, and positive emotions:

A social role interpretation,’’ in A. Fischer (Ed.), Gender and Emotion: Social

Psychological Perspectives (pp. 189-210). Cambridge University Press:

Cambridge.

Bakan, David (1966). The Duality of Human Existence: An Essay on Psychology and

Religion. Chicago: Rand McNally.

Beehr, Terry and John Newman (1978). ‘‘Job stress, employee health and

organizational effectiveness: A facet analysis, model and literature review,’’

Personnel Psychology, 31 (4), 665-699.

Bennett, Roger and Rita Kottasz (2000). ‘‘Advertisement style and the recruitment

of charity volunteers,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 8 (2),

45-63.

Berg, Deanna H. (2001). ‘‘The power of a playful spirit at work,’’ The Journal for

Quality and Participation, 24 (2), 57-62.

Berger, Claire (2002). Funny Works!: 52 Ways to Have More Fun at Work. Encino,

CA: SJS Press.

Brayfield, Arthur H. and Harold F. Rothe (1951). ‘‘An index of job satisfaction,’’

Journal of Applied Psychology, 35 (5), 307-311.

Broussine, Mike, Fred Davies and James C. Scott (1999). ‘‘Humour at the edge: An

inquiry into the use of humour in British social work,’’ Bristol Business School

Teaching and Research Review, 1. Retrieved February 7, 2005 from: http://www.

uwe.ac.uk/bbs/trr/Issue1/IS1-2_1.htm, ISSN 1468-4578.

Brudney, Jeffrey L. (1999). ‘‘The effective use of volunteers: Best practices for the

public sector,’’ Law and Contemporary Problems, 62 (4), 219-255.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Brudney, Jeffrey L. (2000). ‘‘Volunteers in state government: Involvement, manage-

ment, and benefits,’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 29 (1), 111-130.

Buckley, M. Ronald, Danielle Beu, Milorad Novicevic and Thomas Sigerstad (2001).

‘‘Managing Generation NeXt: Individual and organizational perspectives,’’

Review of Business, 22 (2), 81-85.

Bussell, Helen and Debbie Forbes (2002). ‘‘Understanding the volunteer market: The

what, where, who and why of volunteering,’’ International Journal of Nonprofit

and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7 (3), 244-257.

Callow, Michael (2004). ‘‘Identifying promotional appeals for targeting potential

volunteers: An exploratory study on volunteering motives among retirees,’’

International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 9 (3), 261-274.

Cameron, Sheila J., M Beth Horsburgh and Marjorie Armstrong-Stassen (1994). ‘‘Job

satisfaction, propensity to leave and burnout in RNs and RNAs: A multivariate

perspective,’’ Canadian Journal of Nursing Administration, 7 (3), 43-64.

‘‘Can your workplace be both funny and fair?’’ (2003). Staff Leader, January 2003,

16 (5), 7.

Chappell, Neena L. and Michael J. Prince (1997). ‘‘Reasons why Canadian seniors

volunteer,’’ Canadian Journal of Aging, 16 (2), 336-353.

Clary, E. Gil, Mark Snyder, Robert D. Ridge, John Copeland, Arthur A. Stukas,

Julie Haugen and Peter Miene (1998). ‘‘Understanding and assessing the

motivations of volunteers: A functional approach,’’ Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74 (6), 1516-1530.

Cook, John D., Sue J. Hepworth, Toby D. Wall and Peter B. Warr (1981).

Experience of work: A compendium and review of 249 measures and their use. New

York: Academic Press.

Eagly, Alice Hendrickson (1987). Sex Differences in Social Behavior. A Social-Role

Interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Farmer, Stephen M. and Donald B. Fedor (1999). ‘‘Volunteer participation and

withdrawal,’’ Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 9 (4), 349-368.

Firth, David (1995). How to Make Work Fun: An Alphabet of Possibilities.

Hampshire, England: Gower Publishing.

Fisher, Robert J. and James E. Katz (2000). ‘‘Social-desirability bias and the validity

of self-reported values,’’ Psychology and Marketing, 17 (2), 105-120.

Fleming, Peter (2005). ‘‘Workers’ playtime? Boundaries and cynicism in a ‘‘culture of

fun’’ program,’’ The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 41 (3), 285-303.

Ford, Robert C., Frank S. McLaughlin and John W. Newstrom (2003). ‘‘Questions

and answers about fun at work,’’ Human Resource Planning, 26 (4), 18-33.

Fredericksen, Patricia J. (2004). ‘‘Accountability and the use of volunteer officers in

public safety organizations,’’ Public Performance and Management Review, 27 (4),

118-143.

‘‘Fun is what you do by committee!’’ (2000). Staff Leader, January 2000, 13 (5), 7.

Gilbert, Michael C. (2001). ‘‘On having fun: Interviewing Bernie DeKoven,’’

Nonprofit Online News, News of the Online Nonprofit Community. Retrieved, 9/

6/06 from: http://news.gilbert.ort/Bernie.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Gillespie, David F. and Anthony E. King (1985). ‘‘Demographic understanding of

voluntarism,’’ Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 12 (4), 798-816.

Greenwich, Carolyn (2001). Fun and Gains: Motivate and Energize Staff with

Workplace Games, Contests and Activities. Sydney, Australia: McGraw-Hill

Australia.

Hays, Scott (1999). ‘‘Generation X and the art of the reward,’’ Workforce, 78 (11),

45-47.

Hemsath, Dave and Leslie Yerkes (1997). 301 Ways to Have Fun at Work. San

Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Hemsath, Dave (2001). 301 More Ways to Have Fun at Work. San Francisco:

Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Hwang, Monica, Edward Grabb, and James Curtis (2005). ‘‘Why get involved?

Reasons for voluntary-association activity among Americans and Canadians,’’

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 34 (3), 387-403.

Ibrahim, Nabil A. and Dalton E. Brannen (1997). ‘‘Implications of gender

differences on the motivations to volunteer in hospitals,’’ Journal of Social

Service Research, 22 (4), 1-18.

Jackson, Susan E., Richard L. Schwab and Randall S. Schuler (1986). ‘‘Toward an

understanding of the burnout phenomenon,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 71

(4), 630-40.

Jamison, Irma Browne (2003). ‘‘Turnover and retention among volunteers in human

service agencies,’’ Review of Public Personnel Administration, 23 (2), 114-132.

Judge, Timothy A., Edwin A. Locke, Cathy C. Durham and Avraham N. Kluger

(1998). ‘‘Dispositional effects on job and life satisfaction: The role of core

evaluations,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology, 83 (1), 17-34.

Kahle, Lynn R., Basil Poulos and Ajay Sukhdial (1988). ‘‘Changes in social values in

the United States during the past decade,’’ Journal of Advertising Research, 28 (1),

35-41.

Karl, Katherine A., Joy A. Peluchette, Lynn Harland and Leda McIntyre Hall

(2005). ‘‘Attitudes toward workplace fun: A three sector comparison,’’ Journal of

Leadership and Organizational Studies, 12 (2), 1-17.

Karl, Katherine A., and Lynn Harland (2005). ‘‘What’s fun and what’s not: An

examination of age, gender differences, and attitudes toward fun activities at

work,’’ Proceedings of the Midwest Academy of Management meeting. Chicago, IL.

King, Rosalie R. and Jacquelyn Fluke (1990). Volunteers: America’s Hidden

Resource. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Lee, Raymond T. and Blake E. Ashforth (1996). ‘‘A meta-analytic examination of

the correlates of the three dimensions of job burnout,’’ Journal of Applied

Psychology, 81 (2), 123-133.

Levering, Robert and Milton Moskowitz (1994). The 100 Best Companies to Work

for in America. New York: Plume Book.

Lundin, Stephen, John Christensen, Harry Paul and Philip Strand (2002). Fish!

Tales: Real-life Stories to Help Transform Your Workplace and Your Life. New

York, NY: Hyperion.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Lundin, Stephen, Harry Paul and John Christensen (2002). Fish! A Remarkable Way

to Boost Morale and Improve Results. New York, NY: Hyperion.

Lundin, Stephen, Harry Paul and John Christensen (2003). Fish! Sticks: A

Remarkable Way to Adapt to Changing Times and Keep Your Work Fresh. New

York, NY: Hyperion.

Marriotti, John (1999). ‘‘A company that plays together, stays together,’’ Industry

Week, 248 (6), 63.

Martin, Rod A. (1996). ‘‘Humour as therapeutic play: Stress-moderating effects of

sense of humour,’’ Journal of Leisurability, 23 (4). Retrieved February 7, 2005

from: http://www.lin.ca/resource/html/Vol23/v23n4a3.htm.

McGhee, Paul (2000). ‘‘The key to stress management, retention, and profitability?

More workplace fun,’’ HR Focus, 77 (9), 5-6.

Martinez, Michelle Neely (2000). ‘‘Winning ways to recruit,’’ HR Magazine, 45 (6),

56-64.

Mellen, Kathleen (2003). ’’Fish! tackles workplace morale. Workers all over the

country have ‘gone fishing’,’’ GazetteNet. Retrieved March 29, 2004 from:http://

www.gazettenet.com/business/02242003/3715.htm.

Meyer, Harvey (1999). ‘‘Fun for everyone,’’ Journal of Business Strategy, 20 (2), 13-17.

Miller, Jacqueline (1996). ‘‘Humour: an empowerment tool for the 1990s,’’

Management Development Review, 9 (6), 36-40.

Miller, Lynn E., Gary N. Powell and Joseph Seltzer (1990). ‘‘Determinants of

turnover among volunteers,’’ Human Relations, 43 (9), 901-917.

Mitchell, Mark Andrew and Susan Taylor (1997). ‘‘Adapting internal marketing to a

volunteer system,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 5 (2), 27-42.

Mitchell, Mark Andrew and Susan Taylor (2004). ‘‘Internal marketing: key to

successful volunteer programs,’’ Nonprofit World, 22 (1), 25-26.

Moore, Helen and Jane Ollenburger (1986). ‘‘What sex is your parachute? Interest

inventory/counseling models and the perpetuation of the sex/wage segregation of

the labor market,’’ Work and Occupations, 13 (4), 511-531.

Morrow-Howell, Nancy and Ada Mui (1989). ‘‘Elderly volunteers: Reasons for

initiating and terminating service,’’ Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 13 (3-

4), 21-34.

Muehrcke, Jill (2005). ‘‘The best medicine,’’ Nonprofit World, 23 (1), 2.

Murrant, Gloria and Stephanie Strathdee (1995). ‘‘Motivations for service volunteer

involvement at Casey House AIDS Hospice,’’ Hospice Journal, 10 (3), 27-38.

‘‘No kidding: Putting fun into productivity’’. (2002). Staff Leader, November 2002,

16 (3), 4.

Omoto, Allen M. and Mark Snyder (1990). ‘‘Basic research in action: Volunteerism

and society’s response to AIDS,’’ Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16

(1), 152-165.

Paulson, Amanda (2001). ‘‘Fun at the firm: The role of play at work,’’ Christian

Science Monitor, 94 (17), 16.

Peluchette, Joy and Katherine A. Karl (2005). ‘‘Attitudes toward incorporating fun

into the health care workplace,’’ The Health Care Manager, 24 (3), 268-275.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Penney, C. (1998). ‘‘Single-minded volunteers,’’ Good Housekeeping, 227 (4), 27.

Putzier, John (2001). Get Weird: 101 Innovative Ways to Make Your Company a

Great Place to Work. New York: AMACOM.

Raines, Claire, Ron Zemke and Bob Filipczak (1999). Generations at Work:

Managing the Clash of Veterans, Boomers, Xers, and Nexters in Your Workplace.

New York, NY: AMACOM.

Ramsey, Robert (2001). ‘‘Fun at work: Lessons from the fish market,’’ Supervision,

62 (4), 7-9.

Scheier, Ivan (1987): ‘‘Exploding the big banquet theory of volunteer recognition: An

incendiary analysis,’’ Yellowfire Press. Retrieved April 5, 2007 from: http://

academic.regis.edu/volunteer/Ivan/sect16/sect16f.htm.

Smith, David Horton (1994). ‘‘Determinants of voluntary association participation

and volunteering,’’ Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 23 (3), 243-263.

Starnes, Becky J. and Walton Wymer (1999). ‘‘Demographic, personality traits,

roles, motivations, and attrition rates of hospice volunteers,’’ Journal of Nonprofit

and Public Sector Marketing, 7 (2), 61-76.

Stern, Gerry and Yvette Borcia (1999). ‘‘Motivation strategy,’’ Executive Excellence,

16 (7), 17-18.

Stevens, Ellen Sandra (1991). ‘‘Toward satisfaction and retention of senior

volunteers,’’ Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 6 (3-4), 33-41.

Temkin, Terrie (1994). ‘‘Nonprofit leadership: New skills are needed,’’ Nonprofit

World, 12 (5), 35-39.

Tulgan, Bruce (1995). Managing Generation X: How to Bring Out The Best In Young

Talent. Santa Monica, CA: Merritt Publishing.

Unger, Lynette S. (1991. ‘‘Altruism as a motivation to volunteer,’’ Journal of

Economic Psychology, 12 (1), 71-94.

Value of Volunteer Time. (2006). Retrieved 9/25/06 from: http://www.

independentsector.org/programs/research/volunteer_time.html.

Walsh, James P., Susan J. Ashford and Thomas E. Hill (1985). ‘‘Feedback

obstruction: The influence of the information environment on employee turnover

intentions,’’ Human Relations, 38 (1), 23-46.

Weinstein, Matt (1996). Managing to have fun. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.

Weiss, Joyce (2002). ‘‘Loyal employees or the revolving door?’’ Executive Excellence,

19 (6), 17.

Wilson, Aubrey and Gina Pimm (1996). ‘‘The tyranny of the volunteer: The care and

feeding of voluntary workforces,’’ Management Decision, 34 (4), 24-40.

Wilson, John (2000). ‘‘Volunteering,’’ Annual Review of Sociology, 26 (1),

215-240.

Wright Newell D., Val Larsen and Roger Higgs (1995). ‘‘Consumer satisfaction and

the marketing of volunteerism: The case of the Appalachian Mountain Housing,’’

Journal of Consumer Satisfaction, Dissatisfaction and Complaining Behavior, 8, 88-

197.

Wuthnow, Robert (1996). Learning to Care: Elementary Kindness in an Age of

Indifference. New York: Oxford University Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

Wymer, Walter (1998). ‘‘Youth development volunteers: Their motives, how they

differ from other volunteers and correlates of involvement intensity,’’ Journal of

Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 3 (4), 321-366.

Wymer, Walter (1999). ‘‘Understanding volunteer markets: The case of senior

volunteers,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 2 (2-3), 1-24.

Wymer, Walter, Glen Reicken and Ugur Yavas (1996). ‘‘Determinants of

volunteerism: A cross-disciplinary review and research agenda,’’ Journal of

Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 4 (4), 3-26.

Wymer, Walter and Sridhar Samu (2002). ‘‘Volunteer service as symbolic

consumption: Gender and occupational differences in volunteering,’’ Journal of

Marketing Management, 18 (9/10), 971-989.

Wymer, Walter and Becky J. Starnes (2001). ‘‘Conceptual foundations and practical

guidelines for recruiting volunteers to serve in local nonprofit organizations: Part

I,’’ Journal of Nonprofit and Public Sector Marketing, 9 (1/2), 63-96.

Yerkes, Leslie (2001). ‘‘Fun Works: Creating Places Where People Love to Work.’’

San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers, Inc.

Zbar, Jeffrey D. (1999). ‘‘Are we having fun yet?’’ Computerworld, 33 (38), 70.

Zerbe, Wilfred and Delroy Paulhus (1987). ‘‘Socially desirable responding in

organizational behavior: A reconception,’’ Journal of Management Review, 12 (2),

250-264.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f G

uelp

h] a

t 08:

51 0

9 D

ecem

ber

2014

give them something to smile about: a marketing strategy for recruiting and retaining volunteers

Documents