text:
\section{Introduction}

Throughout, let $F$ be a finitely generated (non-trivial) free group, and $H, K$ be finitely generated subgroups of $F$. We define the \emph{reduced rank} of $H \leq F$ to be
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H) = \max(0, \text{rank}(H)-1)
\end{equation*}
The Hanna Neumann conjecture states that
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H \cap K) \leq \overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
A strengthening of this, the Strengthened Hanna Neumann conjecture, was proposed by Walter Neumann \cite{Neu}:
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{HgK\text{ s.t. }H \cap gKg^{-1} \neq \{1\}} \overline r(H \cap g K g^{-1}) \leq \overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
This was proved independently by Joel Friedman \cite{Fri} and Igor Mineyev \cite{Min} in 2011.

The results above do not involve the join of $H$ and $K$ (\emph{i.e.} the group generated by $H \cup K$, which we denote $H \vee K$). By way of analogy with the inclusion/exclusion principle, it seems natural to suppose that when $H \cap K$ is ``large'', $H \vee K$ is ``not much bigger'' than $H$ or $K$. Accordingly, Henry Wilton conjectured\footnote{In a private communication}

\begin{conjecture}[Wilton]
Let $H, K$ be finitely generated subgroups of $F$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\overline r (H \vee K) \, \overline r(H \cap K) \leq \overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
\end{conjecture}

We will refer to this as the Inclusion/Exclusion Hanna Neumann Conjecture (IEHNC). This turns out to be true if we also assume that $K$ is of finite index in $H \vee K$:

\begin{restatable}{theorem}{iehnc}
\label{theorem:IEHNC}
Let $H, K$ be finitely generated subgroups of $F$, with $K$ of finite index in $F$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\overline r (H \vee K) \, \overline r(H \cap K) \leq \overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
\end{restatable}

Unfortunately, the IEHNC is no longer true if we do not make this assumption, and so does not give a strengthening of the Hanna Neumann conjecture.

Note that the Strong Hanna Neumann conjecture is invariant under conjugation of $H$ or $K$ in $F$, while the IEHNC is not. As such, we would not expect to be able to combine the two results.

The IEHNC is slightly stronger than Rosemary Guzman's ``Group-theoretic conjecture'' \cite{Guz}:

\begin{conjecture}[Guzman]
\label{conjecture:guzman}
Let $H, K$ be finitely generated subgroups of $F$ with
\begin{equation*}
m = \text{rk}(H) = \text{rk}(K) \leq \text{rk}(H \cap K)
\end{equation*}
for some $m \geq 2$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\text{rk}(H \vee K) \leq m
\end{equation*}
\end{conjecture}

Note that the IEHNC implies Guzman's conjecture. We give a counterexample to both Guzman's conjecture and the IEHNC (without the finite index assumption) in \cref{section:counterexamples}. Furthermore, \cref{example:IEHNC counterexample} in fact shows that there is no $c > 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\overline r (H \vee K) \, \overline r(H \cap K) \leq c \; \overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
for all $H, K$ finitely generated subgroups of $F$.

The counterexample given to Guzman's conjecture has $m = 5$. Louder and McReynolds \cite{Lou} and Kent \cite{Ken} both proved conjecture \ref{conjecture:guzman} for the case $m=2$, and Guzman herself proved it for $m=3$ \cite{Guz}, so it remains to determine whether or not it holds for $m = 4$.

The first counterexamples to both the IEHNC and Guzman's conjecture were generated using a computer search, with the software package GAP. In \cref{section:graph generation} we discuss the methods used for this, and their suitability to investigating similar problems about free groups. We would be more than happy to share the source code on request.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements}

The author gratefully acknowledges the support of a Trinity College Summer Research Studentship, and would like to thank Henry Wilton for supervising the project. He would also like to thank Trenton Schirmer for pointing out the connection between the IEHNC and Guzman's conjecture.

\section{Stallings graphs}

\subsection{The category of graphs}
Finitely generated subgroups of free groups can be represented by immersions (locally injective maps) of finite graphs, as introduced by Stallings in \cite{Sta}. We consider a graph to be a pair $X = (V(X), E(X))$ of sets of vertices and directed edges, along with a function $E \to E$ and a function $E \to V$. A graph is finite if both its vertex set and edge set are finite. For each $e \in E$ we have an associated edge $\overline e \in E$, the reversal of $e$, and an associated vertex $\iota(e) \in V$, the initial vertex of $e$. We require that $\overline {\overline e} = e$ and $\overline e \neq e$. We define the terminal vertex of $e$ to be $\tau(e) = \iota(\overline e)$.

A map of finite graphs $f: X \to Y$ is a pair of functions ${E(X) \to E(Y)}$ and ${V(X) \to V(Y)}$ such that this structure is preserved, \emph{i.e.} $f(\iota(e)) = \iota(f(e))$ and $\overline{f(e)} = f(\overline e)$. This determines a category of finite graphs in which we may consider pullbacks, pushouts, products, and so on.

The pullback in particular is important (\cref{theorem:pullback is intersection} below). This always exists, and can be constructed explicitly. Given maps of finite graphs

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
& Y \arrow{d}{f} \\
Z \arrow{r}{g} & X \\
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
the pullback is given by
\begin{equation*}
V(Y \times_X Z) = \{(v, v') \in V(Y) \times V(Z) : f(v) = g(v')\}
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
E(Y \times_X Z) = \{(e, e') \in E(Y) \times E(Z) : f(e) = g(e')\} \\
\end{equation*}

\subsection{Immersions and coverings}

We define the \emph{star of $v$ in $X$} to be the set
\begin{equation*}
\text{St}_X(v) = \{e \in E(X) : \iota(e) = v\}
\end{equation*}
Given a map of graphs $f: X \to Y$ and a vertex $v \in V(X)$, we get an induced map $\text{St}_X(v) \to \text{St}_Y(f(v)); e \mapsto f(e)$. A map of graphs is said to be an \emph{immersion} if this induced map is injective for every $v \in V(X)$, and a \emph{covering} if it is bijective for every $v \in V(X)$. (We often denote immersions as $f: X \looparrowright Y$.)

Any map of based graphs $f: (X, x_0) \to (Y, y_0)$ induces a homomorphism of fundamental groups $f_*: \pi_1(X, x_0) \to \pi_1(Y, f(x_0))$ for any $x_0 \in V(X)$. Furthermore, if $f$ is an immersion then this homomorphism is in fact injective. Using the technique of Stallings folding we can represent any finitely generated subgroup $H \leq \pi_1(Y, y_0)$  ($Y$ a finite graph) as a based immersion ${f: (X, x_0) \looparrowright (Y, y_0)}$, where $f_* \pi_1(X, x_0) = H$ and $X$ is a finite graph. For more details, see section 5.4 of \cite{Sta}.

\begin{remark}
Note that $r(H) - 1 = -\chi(X)$ (where $\pi_1(X, x_0) \cong H$). This is because if we pick a maximal spanning tree of $X$, then each edge of $X$ not in this tree determines a basis element of $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ and reduces the Euler characteristic of the graph by 1, and the Euler characteristic of the maximal spanning tree itself is 1. Therefore questions about reduced rank can be reduced to questions about Euler characteristic, which is the technique used in the proofs below.
\end{remark}

\subsection{Useful results about subgroups and graphs}
A key tool needed to investigate the IEHNC using graphs is the following theorem from \cite{Sta}:

\begin{samepage}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem:pullback is intersection}
Let
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
Y_3 \arrow{r}{g_1} \arrow{d}{g_2}
& Y_1 \arrow{d}{f_1}\\
Y_2 \arrow{r}{f_2} & X
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}
be a pullback diagram of finite graphs. Suppose that $f_1$, $f_2$ are immersions. Let $v_1 \in V(Y_1)$, $v_2 \in V(Y_2), w \in V(X)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f_1(v_1) = f_2(v_2) = w
\end{equation*}
Let $v_3 = (v_1, v_2) \in V(Y_3)$. Define $f_3 = f_1g_1 = f_2 g_2$. Let
\begin{equation*}
H_i = (f_i)_* (\pi_1(Y_i, v_i))
\end{equation*}
Then $H_3 = H_1 \cap H_2$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
See \cite{Sta}, theorem 5.5.
\end{proof}
\end{samepage}

This means that we can explicitly construct the immersion representing the intersection of any two subgroups.

Finally, when the subgroup is of finite index we get extra information about the immersion representing it:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:covering iff finite index}
Let $H \leq F$ be represented by an immersion of finite graphs $f: Y \to X$, where $X$ is a rose (\emph{i.e.} has only one vertex). Then $H$ is of finite index in $F$ iff $Y$ is a covering space of $X$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
See \cite{Sta}, remark 7.6 on page 562
\end{proof}

\begin{remark}
Note that this in particular implies that the number of vertices in $Y$ is equal to the index of $H$ in $F$. This is an instance of a more general result from the theory of covering spaces, which will be used again below: if $f: (Y, y_0) \to (X, x_0)$ is a based covering map then the index of $f_*\pi_1(Y, y_0)$ in $\pi_1(X, x_0)$ is equal to the number of sheets in the covering.
\end{remark}

\section{Inclusion/Exclusion Hanna Neumann Conjecture}

In order to prove \cref{theorem:IEHNC}, we will make use of the following result:

\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:index rank relation}
Let $H$ have finite index in $F$. Then
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H) = \overline r(F) |F: H|
\end{equation*}

Additionally, if $H$ is represented by a covering $g: Y \to Z$ where $\pi(Z, z_0) \cong F$, then
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H) = \overline r(F) \frac{|V(Y)|}{|V(Z)|}
\end{equation*}
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
By picking a free basis for $F$, we can represent $F$ by a rose with $\text{rk}(F)$ petals, say $X$, and $H$ by an immersion of finite graphs $f: W \to X$.

By \cref{lemma:covering iff finite index}, $f$ is a covering and $W$ has $|F:H|$ vertices. $W$ has $\text{rk}(F) |F:H|$ edges (each vertex of $W$ has valence $2 \, \text{rk}(F)$ since $W$ is a covering), so
\begin{equation*}
\chi(W) = (1 -\text{rk}(F))|F:H|
\end{equation*}
Since $F$ is non-trivial, $\overline r(F) = \text{rk}(F) - 1$ and $\overline r(H) = -\chi(Y)$, which gives the first equality.

To get the second equality, we note that $|F:H| = |V(Y)|/|V(Z)|$ (since both sides are equal to the number of sheets of the covering ${g: Y \to Z}$).
\end{proof}

We are now in a position to prove \cref{theorem:IEHNC}:

\iehnc*

\begin{proof}
Firstly, we note that we can take $F$ to be $H \vee K$:  we have ${K \leq (H\vee K) \leq F}$ and so $|F:K| = |F:H\vee K| |H \vee K: K|$, hence $K$ is of finite index in $H \vee K$.

Identify $F$ with $\pi_1(X, x_0)$, where $X$ is a rose with $\text{rk}(F)$ petals. Let $H$ (resp. $K$) be represented by the immersion of finite graphs $g_1: (Y, y_0) \to (X, x_0)$ (resp. ${g_2: (Z, z_0) \to (X, x_0)}$), and construct the pullback $Y \times_X Z$. Let $W$ be the component of the pullback that contains the vertex $w_0 := (y_0, z_0)$. Then, by \cref{theorem:pullback is intersection}, $\pi_1(W, w_0) \cong H \cap K$.

\begin{center}
\begin{tikzcd}
(W, w_0) \arrow[two heads]{r}{f_1} \arrow{d}{f_2}
& (Y, y_0) \arrow{d}{g_1}\\
(Z, z_0) \arrow[two heads]{r}{g_2} &(X, x_0)
\end{tikzcd}\hspace{40pt}
\begin{tikzcd}
H \cap K \arrow{r}{(f_1)_*} \arrow{d}{(f_2)_*}
& H \arrow{d}{(g_1)_*}\\
K \arrow{r}{(g_2)_*} & F
\end{tikzcd}
\end{center}

$(W, w_0)$ is a based covering space of $(Y, y_0)$, by construction of the pullback. Indeed, given any vertex $(y, z) \in W$, we have a bijection $\text{St}_Z(z) \to \text{St}_X(x_0)$ and hence for each edge $e$ in $\text{St}_Y(y)$ we have exactly one edge in $\text{St}_Z(z)$ whose image in $\text{St}_X(x_0)$ is the same as the image of $e$.

By \cref{lemma:index rank relation} applied to $f_1: W \to Y$ we have that

\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H \cap K) = \overline r(H) \frac{|V(W)|}{|V(Y)|}
\end{equation*}

Since $W$ is a subgraph of the product $Y \times Z$, we also have

\begin{equation*}
|V(W)| \leq |V(Y)| \, |V(Z)|
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H \cap K) \leq \overline r(H) |V(Z)|
\end{equation*}

Finally, we can use \cref{lemma:index rank relation} on $g_2: Z \to X$ to obtain
\begin{equation*}
\bar{r}(K) = \bar r(F) \; |V(Z)|
\end{equation*}
and so
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H \cap K) \, \overline r(H \vee K) \leq \overline r (H) \, \overline r(K)
\end{equation*}
as desired.
\end{proof}

\section{Counterexamples}
\label{section:counterexamples}

The IEHNC does not necessarily hold when neither $H$ nor $K$ is of finite index in $H \vee K$. Indeed, we can show that there is no $c > 0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\overline r(H \cap K) \, \overline r(H \vee K) \leq c \, \overline r(H) \, \overline r (K)
\end{equation*}
holds for all $H, K$ finitely generated subgroups of $F$. An example demonstrating this is given below.

\begin{example}
\label{example:IEHNC counterexample}
\begin{figure}
	\input{iehnc_counterexample.tikz}
	\caption{Counterexample to the IEHNC}
	\label{figure:IEHNC counterexample}
\end{figure}

Let
\begin{equation*}
H = \langle x_2 x_1^{-1}, x_1 x_2 x_1^{-2}, \ldots, x_1^{v-2}x_2x_1^{-(v-1)}, x_3, x_4, \ldots, x_{\ell + 2} \rangle
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
K = \langle x_1, x_2 \rangle
\end{equation*}
We then get
\begin{gather*}
H \cap K = \langle x_2 x_1^{-1}, x_1 x_2 x_1^{-2}, \ldots, x_1^{v-2}x_2x_1^{-(v-1)} \rangle \\
H \vee K = \langle x_1, \ldots, x_{\ell + 2} \rangle
\end{gather*}
These are illustrated in the pushout diagram shown in \cref{figure:IEHNC counterexample}, in which ${H \cong \pi_1(Y, y_0)}$ and $K \cong \pi_1(Z, z_0)$. For this choice of $H$ and $K$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\overline r(H \cap K) \, \overline r(H \vee K)}{\overline r(H) \, \overline r(K)} = \frac{(v-2)(\ell+1)}{v+\ell-2}
\end{equation*}

Setting $v = \ell$, we obtain $(v^2 - v-2)/(2v-2)$, so as $v \to \infty$ the ratio gets arbitrarily large.
\end{example}
\vspace{5mm}

Using the graph generation algorithm detailed in \cref{section:graph generation}, we were able to find a counterexample to Guzman's ``group-theoretic conjecture'' as well.

\begin{example}
\label{example:guzman counterexample}

Let $F = F(a, b, c, d, x, y)$, and let
\begin{gather*}
H = \langle a, b, x, y^2, yxy^{-1} \rangle \\
K = \langle c, d, y, x^2, xyx^{-1} \rangle
\end{gather*}

\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\input{guzman_counterexample.tikz}
	\end{center}
	\caption{Counterexample to conjecture \ref{conjecture:guzman} (Guzman)}
	\label{figure:guzman counterexample}
\end{figure}

We then get
\begin{gather*}
H \cap K = \langle y^2, yx^2y^{-1}, x^2, yxy^{-1}x, yxyx \rangle \\
H \vee K = \langle a, b, c, d, x, y \rangle
\end{gather*}
and so disprove Guzman's conjecture.

These are illustrated in the pushout diagram shown in \cref{figure:guzman counterexample} (where red and blue correspond to $x$ and $y$).
\end{example}

\section{Graph-based generation algorithm}
\label{section:graph generation}

In order to investigate the above questions about subgroups of free groups, and to find the first counterexamples (though not the ones presented above), we used GAP to generate random subgroups of free groups.

Historically, random subgroups of free groups were usually generated by the ``word-based distribution'', in which $k$-tuples of reduced words $(g_1, \ldots, g_k)$ are chosen in $F$, with each $g_i$ having length less than some fixed $n$. We then consider the subgroup $H = \langle g_1, \ldots, g_k \rangle$.

Recently, Bassino, Nicaud and Weil proposed the ``graph-based distribution'', which generates a random Stallings graph with a fixed number of vertices, and then computes its fundamental group (see section 3 of \cite{bass}). The algorithm first generates a random $r(F)$-tuple of partial injections (by a procedure given explicitly in \cite{bass}), with an $a$-labelled edge going from $v$ to $w$ in the Stallings graph if and only if the partial injection corresponding to $a$ sends $v$ to $w$. If the generated graph is not connected, or has leaves other than the basepoint, then it is discarded and a new one is generated (a ``rejection algorithm''). The fundamental group of this graph can be found by constructing a spanning tree, and then the GAP package FGA was used to calculate the intersection, join and rank of the subgroups generated.

Both the word- and graph-based distributions were able to generate counterexamples; however, the proportion of examples checked that were counterexamples is significantly higher in the graph-based distribution (\cref{figure:IEHNC counterexample frequencies}), as was the proportion of examples which had a non-trivial intersection (\cref{figure:IEHNC trivial frequencies}). Interestingly, the dip in proportion of non-trivial intersections in the graph-based distribution coincides with the peak of the proportion of counterexamples generated, contrary to what might be na\"ively expected; we are unable to explain this.

These figures suggest that the graph-based distribution is better-suited for investigating similar questions using computers.

\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=35em]{iehnc_failure_freq}
	\end{center}
	\caption{The percentage of pairs of subgroups out of a sample of 10,000 randomly-generated subgroup pairs that fail to satisfy the IEHNC, against the parameter to the model (either vertices or maximal length of generating word). The sample contained only subgroups whose reduced ranks are strictly positive, as otherwise the IEHNC holds trivially. The subplots are (left-to-right, top-to-bottom): graph-based, word-based with 4 generators, word-based with 6 generators, and word-based with 8 generators. The different trendlines represent different ranks of the ambient group, as indicated in the legend.}
	\label{figure:IEHNC counterexample frequencies}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}
	\begin{center}
	\includegraphics[width=35em]{iehnc_nontrivial_freq}
	\end{center}
	\caption{The percentage of pairs of subgroups out of a sample of 10,000 randomly-generated subgroup pairs that have a non-trivial intersection, against the parameter to the model (either vertices or maximal length of generating word). The sample used was the same as for \cref{figure:IEHNC counterexample frequencies}. The subplots and trendlines are also the same as in that figure.}
	\label{figure:IEHNC trivial frequencies}
\end{figure}

\newpage

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaArXiv


text:
Home > Documents > Corporate volunteering climate: Mobilizing...
Corporate volunteering climate: Mobilizing...
Date post: 18-Jun-2018
Author: hahanh
View: 212 times
Jessica B Rodell, Jonathan E. Booth, John Lynch and Kate Zipay Corporate volunteering climate: mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Rodell, Jessica B., Booth, Jonathan E., Lynch, John W. and Zipay, Kate P. (2017) Corporate volunteering climate: mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action. Academy of Management Journal . ISSN 0001-4273 DOI: 10.5465/amj.2015.0726 © 2017 Academy of Management Journal This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/69524/ Available in LSE Research Online: February 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author's final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher's version if you wish to cite from it.
Jessica B Rodell, Jonathan E. Booth, John Lynch and Kate Zipay
Corporate volunteering climate: mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action Article (Accepted version) (Refereed)
Original citation: Rodell, Jessica B., Booth, Jonathan E., Lynch, John W. and Zipay, Kate P. (2017) Corporate volunteering climate: mobilizing employee passion for societal causes and inspiring future charitable action. Academy of Management Journal . ISSN 0001-4273 DOI: 10.5465/amj.2015.0726 2017 Academy of Management Journal This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/69524/ Available in LSE Research Online: February 2017 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the authors final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publishers version if you wish to cite from it.
http://dx.doi.org/10.5465/amj.2015.0726http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/69524/
Corporate Volunteering Climate: Mobilizing Employee Passion
for Societal Causes and Inspiring Future Charitable Action
Jessica B. Rodell
University of Georgia [email protected]
Jonathan E. Booth London School of Economics and Political Science
John W. Lynch
University of Illinois at Chicago [email protected]
Kate P. Zipay University of Georgia
Page 1 of 47 Academy of Management Journal
As a society, we grapple with a host of national and global social issues ranging from hunger and poverty to education to financial stability. Todays corporations are playing an increasing role in efforts to address such concerns, predominantly through corporate volunteering. Yet, because research on corporate volunteering has been primarily focused on the individual volunteer experience, we still know relatively little about how corporate volunteering can help address grand challenges. In this study, we introduce the concept of corporate volunteering climate in order to examine the broader, more system-level functioning of corporate volunteering in workplaces. Drawing on the sensemaking process, we theorize about how a corporate volunteering climate develops to what extent is it driven by company-level policies versus employee convictions for a cause? We also explore the potential influence of corporate volunteering climate for volunteers and non-volunteers, both in terms of the workplace (through employee affective commitment) and in terms of the broader community (through employee intentions to volunteer, both in corporate opportunities and on personal time). The results of a study conducted with United Way Worldwide suggest that corporate volunteering climate not only arises through either employees belief in the cause or corporate policies, but also that these forces act as substitutes for one another. Moreover, by fostering a sense of collective pride among employees, this climate is related to affective commitment, as well as both corporate and personal volunteering intentions.
Volunteers play a critical, though often unnoticed, role in a functioning society. Even
when envisioned at a small scale, within one particular community, volunteers carry a heavy load
they serve as fire fighters, deliver meals to homeless youth or homebound seniors, provide
health care services for the homeless and poor, make neighborhoods and parks clean and safe,
care for animals in need, build schools and advance education, and the list could go on
(Idealist.org, 2008). At a grander level, volunteers can even help to create stable political
environments, organize and mobilize basic services such as sustainable food and water
distribution from natural resources, and promote the ideals of civic participation and active
citizenship (Institute for Social Research and Community Development, 2008; Points of Light
Institute, 2011). Worldwide, it is estimated that approximately 140 million people across 37
countries volunteer every year (Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies,
2011). As noted by the Points of Light Institute (2011):
Page 2 of 47Academy of Management Journal
If those 140 million volunteers comprised the population of a country, it
would be the 9th largest country in the world. Those 140 million volunteers
represent the equivalent of 20.8 million full-time equivalent jobs. Its
estimated that volunteers contribute around $400 billion to the global
economy annually.
Volunteers may very well be the most important resource that society has and, as such,
represent the worlds best option to affect real change and address important societal challenges
across the globe. To provide a modern example, Googles ReCAPTCHA program provides
people, worldwide, with an opportunity to create long-term sustainable value. Although captchas
(the online form that asks users to input a distorted sequence of characters) were designed to
verify that someone is human and not a computer program, they are also a global volunteering
initiative that helps to digitize and preserve books, an endeavor that provides infinite education
benefits globally. Combined, each day, people type approximately 200 million captchas, which
translates into around 100 million digitized words a day (the equivalent of about 2.5 million
books a year). Looking at a few more traditional examples, volunteers have helped build homes
for 6.8 million people through Habitat for Humanity since the companys foundation, they are
currently promoting independence and health for nearly 2.4 million seniors in the U.S. through
Meals on Wheels, and they supported UNICEF in supplying 25.5 million people with safe
drinking water in 2015.
Despite the vital role that volunteers play in society, indications suggest that volunteering
rates are trending down slowly each year (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015). If this trend were to
continue, it could represent its own challenge on top of the vast number of social issues that the
non-profit organizations face themselves. One area where this is not the case and volunteerism
is actually on the rise is in the corporate world. Todays business environment encourages
organizations to be not only fiscally responsible, but also socially responsible to exhibit
compassion and concern for people outside the boundaries of their organization (Aguilera, Rupp,
Williams, & Ganapathi, 2007; Muller, Pfarrer, & Little, 2014). An increasingly prevalent method
of achieving this goal is the implementation of corporate volunteering programs formal and
informal practices and policies created by organizations to coordinate and encourage employees
to donate their time to an external volunteer group (Grant, 2012; Henning & Jones, 2013; Rodell,
2013). Estimates suggest that at least 60% of companies in the United States have formal
volunteering programs, and approximately 90% of companies have taken informal steps to
encourage and support employee volunteering in some fashion (Basil, Runte, Basil, & Usher,
2011; CECP, 2011, 2014; Points of Light Foundation, 2006). Indeed, corporate volunteering
programs have been described as one of the fastest-growing areas of voluntary activity of our
time (Bussell & Forbes, 2008: 364).
Volunteering initiatives within corporations can be likened to a form of social movement
a collective effort aimed at addressing a broader social need (Muller et al., 2014; Toch, 1965;
Simon, Loewy, Sturmer, Weber, Freytag, Habig, Kampmeier, & Spahlinger, 1998). Given the
extensive workforce that can be generated by the ubiquitous nature of corporate volunteering
programs, corporations collectively have the potential to exert significant impact on national and
global societal issues. For example, Morgan Stanley recognized by VolunteerMatch as one of
the top corporate volunteering programs strives to ensure that young people have access to
quality healthcare and education (VolunteerMatch, 2013). Likewise, Darden Restaurants focuses
on the battle against hunger in every community that they serve (The Darden Foundation).
Health, education, and poverty are grand challenges, of course, and represent only a portion of
the grand challenges facing society. Still, companies like these invest in these endeavors with the
hope of making a difference. In order to achieve such a lofty goal, corporate leaders would
benefit from a clearer understanding of how volunteering functions within their organizations.
Although scholarly research on employee volunteering has recently begun to flourish
(e.g., Brockner, Senior, & Welch, 2014; Grant, 2012; Jones, Willness, & Madey, 2014; Rodell,
2013), the majority of this research speaks to individual employee experiences with volunteering.
For example, research has addressed an individuals predispositions and motivations to volunteer
(e.g., Brockner et al., 2014; Rodell, 2013), as well as the personal and work-related outcomes of
their volunteering (e.g., Booth, Park, & Glomb, 2009; Jones, 2010; Mojza, Sonnentag, &
Bornemann, 2011). However, there remains little information and guidance regarding the
system-level functioning of corporate volunteering. Although we recognize that we cannot
provide a completely comprehensive picture of the entire corporate volunteering system in one
study, our goal in this manuscript is to elevate the existing conversation regarding volunteering
by initiating a discussion of the company-wide considerations and implications for corporate
volunteering (both within and beyond the companys borders). In particular, we seek to address
two research questions:
First, what are the conditions that foster an environment of corporate volunteering?
As part of their corporate volunteering programs, companies have begun to provide a variety of
resources to support employee volunteering, such as time off work, transportation, and material
goods (Basil, Runte, Easwaramoorthy, & Barr, 2009; Booth et al., 2009; MacPhail & Bowles,
2009). Yet there is little data regarding the utility of these efforts. Is this the best way to mobilize
a volunteering movement within an organization? Without hard evidence, it is possible that the
rapid adoption of these programs is merely the result of mimetic adoption (DiMaggio & Powell,
1983) without much consideration of the best process. Recent theorizing regarding corporate
philanthropy alternatively suggests that such movements may also arise from employee interest
and concerns (Muller et al., 2014; Madden, Duchon, Madden, & Plowman, 2012). Thus, are
volunteering movements better motivated by grassroots employee beliefs? A clearer
understanding of how a corporate volunteering environment emerges may help companies
determine where to invest their energy in order to create long-term sustainable programs.
Second, what are the ultimate implications of an environment of corporate volunteering
within and outside of the organization? Research to date has provided evidence that individual
volunteers benefit in terms of well-being (Mojza et al., 2011), as well as improved job attitudes
and behaviors (e.g., Booth et al., 2009; Jones, 2010; Rodell, 2013). However, because these
findings pertain solely to volunteers, this research provides only a partial picture. What if any
are the implications of a volunteering movement for employees who choose not to participate
in corporate volunteering? Moreover, does this type of movement have the ability for social
change beyond the boundaries of the organization that is, can it affect employee actions not
only in the work domain, but also in the non-work domain through their personal lives?
To address these research questions, we draw from the climate literature and introduce
the concept of corporate volunteering climate a shared perception regarding the extent to
which employees volunteer through their corporate volunteering programs. This climate reflects
the sense that volunteering behavior is something people do here on behalf of the employees.
As shown in Figure 1, we will examine the process through which a corporate volunteering
climate emerges to what extent it is driven by company-level decisions regarding the
corporate volunteering program (e.g., resources and benefits) versus an employee-driven process
led by their beliefs and convictions. In addition, we will examine the extent to which this climate
ultimately influences employees attitudes and intentions, both within the workplace (in terms of
affective commitment) and beyond (in terms of volunteering intentions through corporate efforts
and in their personal lives). Importantly, we propose that a corporate volunteering climate has the
potential to influence all employees, regardless of whether they participate in corporate
volunteering or not. We theorize that, by fostering a sense of pride within the organization, this
climate has the potential to impact both volunteers and non-volunteers alike. Existing scholarly
conversations about volunteering have not theorized about such crossover effects. If found,
these effects would significantly broaden the importance and reach of corporate volunteering
programs.
Insert Figure 1 about here
This research advances our understanding of volunteering in the corporate world in at
least two ways. First, by conceptualizing corporate volunteering at the unit level, we extend our
understanding of this construct and offer new information about how corporate volunteering
functions in the workplace. In particular, by taking this approach, we provide evidence that the
effects of corporate volunteering may not simply live in the act of volunteering that
employees may not necessarily need to volunteer themselves in order to get a sense of that value
system at the company and for it to impact their attitudes and behaviors. Second, by including a
non-work behavior employees personal volunteering intentions we are able to
demonstrate that the role of corporate volunteering may extend beyond the four walls of their
employer. Together these advancements in the literature highlight the possibility that corporate
volunteering may have the potential to contribute to broader social change in society.
CORPORATE VOLUNTEERING CLIMATE
As described above, corporate volunteering climate refers to employees shared
perception about the extent of employee volunteering through their corporate volunteering
programs. Using Chans (1998) terminology for multilevel models, corporate volunteering
climate represents a referent-shift consensus model because it is conceptually and empirically
based on an aggregate of individual assessments of group experiences. Although corporate
volunteering climate is derived from individual ratings regarding corporate volunteering
(Through the corporate volunteering program, employees at my company give their time to help
a volunteer group), these perceptions are conceptually distinct from an individuals ratings of
their own corporate volunteering behavior (Through the corporate volunteering program, I give
my time to help a volunteer group). Indeed, an individual employee does not need to volunteer
in order to perceive the climate of corporate volunteering. In the sections below, we will theorize
about how corporate volunteering climate emerges, as well as the broader implications of this
climate for employees (volunteers and non-volunteers), both in the work and non-work domains.
Emergence of a Corporate Volunteering Climate
Climate emerges from the interactions among employees (Schneider & Reichers, 1983).
It is the result of a sensemaking process where, essentially, employees look to their environment
for social cues and information, and then interpret and organize those stimuli into some
meaningful structure (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978; Zalesny & Ford, 1990; Weick, 1995).
Schneiders theorizing on climate emergence goes into more detail, suggesting that employees
experience or witness events (and actions), which they interpret through their own individual
lens, and make sense of through repeated conversation and interaction with colleagues
(Schneider & Reichers, 1983).
Information about volunteering in the workplace can come from two sources either
directly from the company or through the individual experiences of employees. Indeed, a
combination of anecdotal evidence on corporate volunteering and theorizing on related topics
(e.g., philanthropy and compassion) points to two possible processes through which corporate
volunteering climate may form: company-driven practices regarding corporate volunteering and
employee attitudes regarding volunteering (e.g., Booth et al., 2009; Cavallaro, 2006; Gatignon-
Turnau & Mignonac, 2015; Grant, 2012; Muller et al., 2014). This distinction echoes multilevel
theorizing that the emergence of group level phenomena can be either top-down driven by
higher-level contextual influences within a system or bottom-up where lower-level,
individual properties converge or spread among employees to create a collective phenomena
(Kozlowski & Klein, 2000). Although we focus on just two possible processes, existing research
on volunteering points to the particular prevalence and importance of these two factors
company policies and employees belief in the volunteering cause (e.g., Basil et al., 2009;
Cavallaro, 2006; Geroy, Wright, & Jacoby, 2000; MacPhail & Bowles, 2009).
Company-level influence through policies and procedures on volunteering is reflected in
an organizations corporate volunteering program. Indeed, these programs consist of procedures
and policies set at a higher, organizational level, designed to influence behavior at a lower,
individual level. As described by Muller et al. (2014), this company-driven model represents the
prevailing paradigm in corporations regarding philanthropic decisions where executives
unilaterally make decisions about the likelihood, scale, and form of community involvement on
behalf of their employees.
Reliance on this approach is particularly evident in regard to corporate volunteering. A
significant number of empirical studies have focused on the various policies and procedures that
companies employ in order to encourage corporate volunteering (Basil et al., 2009; Booth et al.,
2009; Cavallaro, 2006; Gatignon-Turnau & Mignonac, 2015). Some of the most common of
these practices include: time benefits such as time-off for volunteering or adjusting schedules
to accommodate volunteering, financial support such as donations of goods (e.g., prizes, gift
certificates, t-shirts) and paying entry fees, and logistical support such as the use of company
facilities, equipment, and transportation. We use the term company-provided resources to refer
to the collection of resources and benefits that companies offer employees as part of their
corporate volunteering programs (see also Booth et al., 2009).
According to climate scholars, company-level practices and policies such as these
provide the primary foundation for climate to emerge (Schneider, Ehrhart, & Macey, 2011). In
essence, these resources can be viewed as artifacts of the companys underlying culture a
manifest way of signaling latent company values to its employees (Schein, 1990, 2010). Even if
employees do not participate in the corporate volunteering program, the existence of such
policies and procedures serves as a salient reminder that corporate volunteering is something that
the organization values and encourages. Thus, the greater a company invests in resources for
corporate volunteering, the more likely it is that employees will perceive a corporate
volunteering climate.
Hypothesis 1: Company-provided resources will be positively related to a corporate
Alternatively, theorizing on organizational philanthropy and compassion has recently
adopted an emergent, employee-driven focus (e.g., Madden et al., 2012; Muller et al., 2014). In
his recent theorizing on corporate volunteering, Grant (2012) also speculated that it is typically
led by the bottom-up grassroots efforts of employees (p. 590). This employee-driven process
centers on the information that employees gather based on what their peers are doing, what their
Page 10 of 47Academy of Management Journal
peers are saying, and the emotions that their peers convey. Through repeated interaction and
communication, employees are continually transferring this information amongst themselves,
resulting in individual perceptions and opinions converging on an organizational phenomenon
(Hardin & Higgins, 1995).
Much of the social information conveyed about corporate volunteering lives in the
attitudes that employees project about their involvement in the activity. Although volunteers may
hold a variety of attitudes and motives for their volunteering, evidence suggests that a sense that
it is important and meaningful is a predominant force for employees (Geroy et al., 2000). In
some of the initial investigations of the functions served by volunteering, Clary and colleagues
(1998) introduced the concept of value fulfillment that volunteering was a way to act on what a
person values and an outlet to do something they perceive as worthwhile. Subsequent research
on corporate volunteering suggests that this sentiment holds particular importance for employed
individuals (Geroy et al., 2000; Pajo & Lee, 2011; Peloza & Hassay, 2006). Of all of the
commonly listed reasons for volunteering, employees appear overwhelming concerned with the
extent to which it is meaningful, important, and helps a worthwhile cause (Geroy et al., 2000;
Pajo & Lee, 2011; Peloza & Hassay, 2006). Accordingly, in this study, we examine employees
belief in the cause, which reflects their desire to help a worthy organization achieve its goals.
Employees may communicate their belief in the volunteering cause both explicitly and
implicitly (Barsade, 2002; Kelly & Barsade, 2001). For example, an employee passionate about a
particular volunteering cause may explicitly share stories with coworkers about his or her
personal volunteering experiences. In addition, employees may implicitly share their interest for
a volunteering cause with coworkers by wearing their corporate volunteering t-shirt or displaying
pictures from a recent volunteering event on their desk.
Page 11 of 47 Academy of Management Journal
Moreover, research has also shown that the more intensely an individual member of a
group feels about something, the more intensely they convey that information to others and the
more likely it is that collective perceptions emerge (Barsade, 2002). Thus, the more an employee
cares about and believes in a particular volunteering cause, the more likely this information is to
spread and allow a collective perception of corporate volunteering to emerge. Importantly,
following this line of theorizing, employees need not volunteer themselves to be aware of the
climate for corporate volunteering. By experiencing the attitude from others second-hand either
explicitly or implicitly they too can gain a sense of the collective norms and values regarding
volunteering in their workplace.
Hypothesis 2: Employee belief in the cause will be positively related to a corporate
Workplace Implications of a Corporate Volunteering Climate
Similar to other forms of work climate, corporate volunteering climate has the potential
to exert meaningful influence on employee attitudes and behaviors (for a review, see Kuenzi &
Schminke, 2009). Uniquely, however, corporate volunteering climate may serve as a conduit
through which the concept of volunteering may affect not only those employees who participate
in the company program (which we refer to as volunteers) but also those who do not participate
in the company program (which we refer to as non-volunteers). In particular, we anticipate that
corporate volunteering climate will influence employee affective commitment by creating a
positive tone in the environment.
Shared perceptions and experiences such as climate foster shared emotions among
colleagues (Rime, 2007). Volunteering is a particularly emotion-laden activity. Individual
volunteers tend to comment on how it makes them feel good (United Health Group, 2013).
One commonly noted reaction to volunteering is a sense of pride a feeling of pleasure and self-
respect (Mael & Ashforth, 1992; Tyler & Blader, 2001). For example, based on recent survey of
volunteers, the Human Services Council reported that over 90% of people felt that volunteering
provided them with a sense that they accomplished something and made a positive difference in
the world (Holroyd, 2011). This reaction holds true for employees volunteering through their
companys endeavors as well (Caudron, 1994; Grant, Dutton, & Rosso, 2008; Jones, 2010). For
example, Jones and colleagues found that employee opinions about corporate volunteering were
linked to a sense of organizational pride (Jones, 2010) and that job seekers anticipated a sense of
pride from being affiliated with a company known for community involvement (Jones et al.,
There are also indications that volunteering can provide people with a sense of
enthusiasm that volunteering encourages them to look forward to each day (Holroyd, 2011)
and that it can promote awareness and perspective taking about ones own life circumstances
compared to others (Clary, 1999; Clary et al., 1998; Bartel, 2001), which can lay the foundation
for inspiration (Thrash et al., 2010). Although these emotions pride, enthusiasm, and
inspiration have some distinctions, they are all similarly positioned near 30 degrees on the
affect circumplex (Remington, Fabrigar, & Visser, 2000; Yik et al., 2011). This position, referred
to as activated pleasure, reflects a highly pleasant state with a slight level of activation (Yik
Russell, & Steiger, 2011). Yik et al. (2011) characterize this state as one where people feel
enthusiastic and positive about what they are doing, as well as inspired by and proud of the
activity. Despite slight differences in these discrete emotions, it appears that people are likely to
experience this general form of positive emotion in reaction to volunteering.
Emotions, such as these, are shared with others in the workplace explicitly and
implicitly enabling them to manifest at a higher level (Barsade, 2002; George, 1990; Rime,
2007). Explicitly, employees are likely to directly communicate their emotions to colleagues
through their repeated interactions (Kelly & Barsade, 2001). Implicitly, emotions also spread at a
less conscious level, based on automatic processing (Barsade, 2002). For example, feelings can
be communicated through non-verbal signals, such as facial expressions, body language, and
tone. The act of sharing an emotion either explicitly or implicitly increases that feeling in
both the agent and the target (Rime, 2007). As a result, the emotion spreads across individuals
and creates a particular emotional climate. Likewise, according to intergroup emotions theory,
people experience group-level emotions when they belong to and identify with a particular
group, such as their workplace (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000; Smith et al., 2007). Thus, we
expect that the particular positive sentiment associated with corporate volunteering at the
individual level that of pride, enthusiasm, and inspiration will be shared among colleagues
and converge at the group level as well. We use the term collective pride to capture this shared
affective experience among employees.
Research in this area suggests that a sense of collective pride should influence
employees attachment attitudes (Grant et al., 2008; Jones, 2010). Employees who feel a sense of
pride rooted in their group membership are likely to identify with their company (Ashforth &
Mael, 1989). These individuals have an emotional desire to remain with that group in order to
continue to reap the feelings of pleasure and self-respect (for example, pride and/or inspiration)
that they associate with it (Ashforth & Mael, 1989: Tyler & Blader, 2001). As a result, these
employees are likely to experience stronger affective commitment an emotional attachment to
and identification with their organization (Meyer & Allen, 1991). Empirical evidence supports
this connection in regard to corporate volunteering. For example, Jones (2010) found that
employees who viewed corporate volunteering more positively reported more pride in their
company and, ultimately, higher intentions to remain in the organization. In addition, Grant et al.
(2008) discussed the key role that pride played in fostering affective commitment in reaction to
company giving programs. Thus, we expect that, by fostering a sense of collective pride,
companies with a higher volunteering climate will exhibit higher levels of employee affective
Hypothesis 3a: Corporate volunteering climate will exhibit a positive indirect
relationship with affective commitment through collective pride.
Because the emotional process that we are describing occurs at the unit level, both
volunteers and non-volunteers are likely to go through the same process. Non-volunteers may
feel the emotions either directly as result of knowledge of the corporate volunteering climate or
indirectly by catching the emotions of volunteers contributing to the groups collective pride.
Indeed, research has shown that people can feel emotions on behalf of a group even if they are
not personally affected by it (Smith et al., 2007). Thus, it is likely that non-volunteers are equally
capable of internalizing this group state.
As a result of recognizing and internalizing this group state (Salancik & Pfeffer, 1978;
Weick, 1995), non-volunteers may exhibit increased affective commitment to a similar degree as
volunteers. Although the majority of research on corporate volunteering has focused on the
subset of employees who volunteer, there are some indications that non-volunteers have similar
patterns of workplace attitudes. For example, although Jones (2010) did not explicitly distinguish
between volunteers and non-volunteers, he found that positive views of corporate volunteering
and pride were related to commitment intentions across all employees. Likewise, deGilder,
Schuyt, and Breedijk (2005) noted how non-volunteers at a company with a strong volunteering
presence exhibited similar levels of commitment as volunteers. Thus, we expect that the
relationship hypothesized above will hold for all employees within the company, regardless of
whether they participate in corporate volunteering (volunteers) or not (non-volunteers).
Hypothesis 3b: The indirect relationship between corporate volunteering climate and
affective commitment will exist for both volunteers and non-volunteers within the
corporate volunteering program.
Societal Implications of a Corporate Volunteering Climate
Moving beyond workplace implications, we are also interested in whether corporate
volunteering climate may motivate employees future volunteering behaviors both with their
employer and on their own time, as well as for volunteers and non-volunteers. If so, the ultimate
impact of corporate volunteering climate may go beyond the four walls of the company and help
contribute to broader societal issues. To quote Steve Jobs (2005), cultivating a corporate
volunteering climate may then be able to help companies put a ding in the Universe.
As discussed in the previous section, corporate volunteering climate should foster an
environment where employees are proud of their affiliation with a group that is willing to help
others. Internalizing such emotion can influence individual employee action (Schneider &
Reichers, 1983; Smith et al., 2007; Swann & Read, 1981). In particular, research on group
identification suggests that people are likely to behave in consistent ways that reinforce positive
images of themselves (Swann & Read, 1981). A sense of inspiration and pride tends to evoke an
approach motivation where people are compelled to express or imitate the act that sparked that
sentiment (Thrash et al., 2010). Moreover, research on group emotions suggests that people are
likely to associate themselves with the underlying identity of a particular group-level emotion, in
this case the volunteering climate that fostered pride, and act accordingly (Mackie et al., 2000;
Smith et al., 2007). Thus, we expect that employees at companies with higher levels of corporate
volunteering climate are likely to want to engage in additional actions that will help others. Most
directly relevant in this context is employee intentions to help others through involvement in
their companys volunteering efforts. We use the term corporate volunteering intentions to refer
to employees intentions to volunteer through their companys volunteering program in the
As was the case with affective commitment, we expect that the impact of corporate
volunteering climate on volunteering intentions will exist equally in the group of volunteers and
non-volunteers within an organization. Because all employees are exposed to and internalize the
sense of collective pride, volunteers and non-volunteers alike are capable of exhibiting these
behavioral intentions affiliated with corporate volunteering climate.
relationship with corporate volunteering intentions through collective pride.
corporate volunteering intentions will exist for both volunteers and non-volunteers within
the corporate volunteering program.
In addition, drawing on the work-non-work literature, we suspect that this internalized
sense of pride will transfer home with employees and influence their actions beyond the
workplace boundaries. In particular, the concept of a spillover effect is particularly relevant to
this possibility (for a review see Edwards & Rothbard, 2000). A spillover perspective suggests
that employees can carry thoughts and emotions with them from one life domain (e.g., the
workplace) into another life domain (e.g., home). The spillover of moods and emotions is highly
likely and unintentional employees may not intend to carry their feelings home with them from
work, but they do it anyway without realizing it (Edwards & Rothbard, 2000).
This theorizing suggests that the internalized emotion garnered by a corporate
volunteering climate a sense of pride and inspiration is likely to transfer home with
employees when they leave the workplace. Similar to the implications for corporate volunteering
intentions, we then expect that employees should be more likely to seek out opportunities to
engage in volunteering in the non-work domain (Smith et al., 2007; Swann & Read, 1981). We
use the term personal volunteering intentions to refer to employees intentions to volunteer on
their own time (outside of the corporate volunteering structure). Moreover, as with the theorizing
above, we expect to see a similar pattern of relationships for volunteers and non-volunteers
because they equally share in the general sense of inspiration at their company.
relationship with personal volunteering intentions through collective pride.
personal volunteering intentions will exist for both volunteers and non-volunteers within
Sample and Data Collection
Companies and participants were recruited through their affiliation with United Way
Worldwide. United Way Worldwide is a global organization with a mission to improve lives by
mobilizing the caring power of communities around the world (United Way Worldwide). The
participating companies collaborate with United Way Worldwide as part of their corporate
volunteering programs. Each of the recruited companies has their own form of a corporate
volunteering program, which vary widely in structure. Through their corporate volunteer
program, employees volunteered for organizations such as Meals on Wheels, the Humane
Society, Boys and Girls Club, the American Cancer Society, March of Dimes, and Habitat for
Humanity as well as other volunteer activities, such as one-time events (e.g., Relay for Life,
United Ways Day of Caring, and Race for the Cure). Each United Way Worldwide affiliate
designates an employee a United Way liaison to manage its corporate volunteering program.
Through collaboration with the United Way, we were put in contact with each companys
volunteering liaison the employee who oversees their corporate volunteering program and
coordinates their efforts with their local United Way office. At the start of our study, the liaison
from each participating company completed a survey about the structure of their corporate
volunteering program specifically about company-provided resources. Of the 108 companies
that we contacted, we received completed surveys from 58 company liaisons, resulting in a
response rate of 54%. After adjusting for incomplete surveys and liaison surveys without any
matched employee surveys, our final sample included surveys from 50 different companies.
These companies represented a range of industries 20% utilities, 22% retail, 30% financial,
14% education and health, and 14% other. On average, the liaisons were 42.18 years old (SD =
9.38) and had company tenure of 12.10 years (SD = 8.15). Of the 50 liaisons in our final sample,
78% identified as female and 73% were Caucasian.
In addition to completing the survey about company-provided resources, each liaison was
asked to identify approximately 10 employees to participate in our study including a mix of
employees who volunteered through the corporate volunteering program and employees who did
not volunteer through the program. As a result, we contacted 520 potential participants, of which
445 completed Time 1 surveys, resulting in a response rate of 86%. At the end of the first survey,
we asked participants if they would be interested in completing a second survey, of which 319
participants agreed. Approximately four weeks later, we emailed these individuals the Time 2
survey. We received 255 completed responses, resulting in a response rate of 80%. After
removing incomplete responses, our final sample included 229 participants 160 of whom
indicated that they had volunteered through their corporate volunteer program and 69 of whom
indicated that they did not. On average, we had complete data from six employees (SD = 2.29) in
each company, which represented approximately 35% (SD = 6.9%) of the total company
population. These participants were, on average, 42.88 years old (SD = 10.51) and had company
tenure of 11.62 years (SD = 9.97). Of the 229 participants in our final sample, 65% identified as
female and 82% were Caucasian.
At Time 1, employees completed a survey including measures of their belief in the
corporate volunteering cause, as well as their perceptions of corporate volunteering climate and
basic individual differences and demographic information. The Time 2 survey included measures
of employees perceptions of collective pride and prosocial climate, as well as individual
outcomes of affective commitment, and corporate and personal volunteering intentions.
Unless otherwise noted, all measures used a five-point Likert scale from 1 =
Strongly Disagree to 5 = Strongly Agree.
Company provided resources. Company liaisons assessed company-provided resources
for volunteering using a nine-item measure developed by Booth et al. (2009). Following the
prompt of Our companys volunteer program includes, example items included, Approval to
take time off to spend some time volunteering, Approval of use of facilities or equipment for
employee volunteer activities, and Donation of prizes, gift certificates, food, etc. ( = .73).
Employee belief in the cause. We developed four items to assess the extent to which
employees who volunteered did so because they cared about the volunteering cause. Following
the prompt of I volunteer the items read as follows: Because I believe in the cause of the
volunteer organization, To help the volunteer organization meet its goals, To improve the
chances that the volunteer organization will achieve their mission, and Because I support the
mission of the volunteer organization ( = .82). These rating were only provided by the subset
of employee volunteers in our sample. Using an additive composition model (Chan, 1998), the
level of belief in the cause within each company was operationalized as the average of these
ratings. Initial evidence points to the validity of this measure both convergent (r = .40 with
prosocial identity and .34 with empathy) and discriminant (non-significant relationships with
other motives, such as socialization -.02, gaining skills .12, impression management -.08).
Corporate volunteering climate. To measure corporate volunteering climate, we
adapted Rodells (2013) five-item volunteering measure. Corporate volunteering climate reflects
a referent-shift composition model, which measures employees shared belief regarding
employees engagement in the corporate volunteering program. As such, we adapted items to
reference employees at my company rather than I. Following the prompt of Through the
companys volunteering program, example items included Employees at my company give
their time to help a volunteer group and Employees at my company employ their talent to aid a
volunteer group ( = .97). Employees responded to these items with a frequency scale ranging
from 1 = Almost Never to 5 = Very Often. Initial evidence for the validity of this concept can be
drawn from prior research on volunteering using this scale for example, it has correlated
strongly (r = .64) with other measures of volunteering (Gillath, Shaver, Mikulincer, Nitzberg,
Erez, & Ijzendoorn, 2005 and a direct measure of volunteering; see Rodell, 2013) and from an
expected pattern of relationships with data in the current study (e.g., r = .34 with prosocial
climate and .19 with company positive tone).
The referent-shift nature of corporate volunteering climate is supported by an
examination of within-group agreement of individual ratings of this scale (Chan, 1998). Thus, we
calculated rwg and ICC scores for each company to establish the appropriateness of aggregating
employee responses from the individual level to the company level (James, Demaree, & Wolf,
1984). Although the ICC scores were rather low ICC(1) .05 and ICC(2) .16 the average rwg
score across companies was .83. The low ICC scores were not entirely surprising, given that our
recruitment process encouraged within-company variance in volunteering (both volunteers and
non-volunteers participated) and suppressed between-company variance by surveying companies
with an existing relationship with a worldwide volunteering organization (United Way).
However, the rwg provided support for aggregation and we calculated the average value of
employee responses within each company to create corporate volunteering climate. In order to
capture and examine the within-company variation, we also calculated the standard deviation of
these ratings and controlled for this variation when testing our hypotheses.
Collective pride. We measured collective pride using a referent-shift adaptation of three
items from the PANAS-X (Watson & Clark, 1994). These three items correspond with a
particular quadrant of the affect circumplex at the 30 degree angle called activated pleasure
which reflects emotions that primarily denote a high state of pleasantness with a secondary
implication of arousal (Yik, Russell, & Steiger, 2011). In particular, participants rated the extent
to which employees in my company tend to feel: proud, enthusiastic, and inspired on
a scale ranging from 1 = Very Slightly/Not At All to 5 = Extremely ( = .88). The average rwg
score across companies was .74 and ICC(1) and ICC(2) were .14 and .39, respectively.
Affective commitment. We measured affective commitment using Meyer and Allens
(1997) six-item scale. Example items include I feel like part of the family at my company
and I feel a strong sense of belonging to my company ( = .92).
Corporate volunteering intentions. We measured corporate volunteering intentions
using an adapted version of Rodells (2013) five-item measure of employee volunteering. In
particular, we adapted the prompt to capture the future orientation of this variable, which stated
Next year, through my companys volunteering programs, I intend to Example items
included Give my time to help a volunteer group and Engage in activities to support a
volunteer group ( = .96).
Personal volunteering intentions. Similarly, personal volunteering intentions was
assessed with adapted version of Rodells (2013) five-item measure of employee volunteering.
Following the prompt, Next year, outside of my companys volunteering programs, I intend
to, example items included Give my time to help a volunteer group and Engage in
activities to support a volunteer group ( = .97).
Control variables. We included several control variables designed to speak to alternative
explanations for the relationships predicted in our model. Primarily, we wanted to account for the
known relationship between prosocial nature and volunteering (Penner, 2002; Rodell, 2013;
Wilson, 2000) both at the individual and company level. To account for an individuals
prosocial nature, we controlled for employees prosocial identity the extent to which a person
sees themselves as caring and kind (Grant et al., 2008; = .79). We also controlled for employee
perceptions of prosocial climate using a referent-shift adaptation of Grant et al.s (2008) scale
( = .91; average rwg = .91; ICC(1) = .15; ICC(2) = .41). Those three items were: I see this
company as caring, I think that this company is generous, and I see this company as being
genuinely concerned about its employees. Including prosocial climate ensures that volunteering
climate has a unique role beyond a general sense that employees at a company are good and
kind. In addition, this form of climate accounts for a potential cognitive evaluation (in contrast
to the emotional explanation that we modeled) that may explain the impact of a corporate
volunteering climate on employee attitudes.
We tested our model using multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) in MPlus
(Muthn & Muthn, 2010), which adopts a FIML (full information maximum likelihood)
approach. MSEM is able to capture the nested nature of the data, thus addressing potential issues
with non-independence inherent in multilevel data (Bliese, 2000). In particular, we used the
cluster option within this program based on company level identifiers. Given our smaller
sample size at the organizational level, we used single indicators to model these latent variables
(factor loadings provided in parentheses): company-provided resources (.86), employee belief in
the cause (.92), corporate volunteering climate (.98), collective pride (.93), and prosocial climate
(.96) with the error variances for these latent products set to (1-alpha)*variance (Kline, 2005).
Individual-level variables were modeled as fully latent variables (average factor loadings
provided in parentheses): affective commitment (.81), corporate (.93) and personal (.91)
volunteering intentions, and prosocial identity (.78).
The measurement model provided good fit to the data (2 [281] = 571.06, CFI = .92,
RMSEA = .07, SRMR = .03). We then added paths to reflect the conceptual model presented in
Figure 1, which also suggested good fit to the data (2 [305] = 557.02, CFI = .93, RMSEA = .06,
SRMR = .05). The descriptive statistics and zero-order correlations for our variables are shown in
Table 1, and a summary of the standardized MSEM results are in Figure 2. All path coefficients
and p-values are presented below or in the relevant tables and figures. Given sample size loses with
aggregate data, we report both p
were used as single indicators of the latent interaction variables. The coefficient alphas for the
interaction terms were calculated with the formula: ((rxx*rzz) + r2
xz))/(1 + r2
xz), where X was the
independent variable, Z was the moderator, and rxz was the correlation between those latent
variables (Cortina et al., 2001). We relied on Edwards and Lamberts (2007) approach for
second-stage moderated mediation using bias-corrected bootstrapping to test these moderated
indirect effects. As expected, in regard to Hypothesis 3b, we saw that the indirect relationship
between corporate volunteering climate and affective commitment was not moderated by
corporate volunteer participation. Moreover, as shown in Table 2, the indirect relationship
between corporate volunteering climate and affective commitment was significant for both non-
volunteers (.15) and volunteers (.18) and a test of the difference between those estimates was
non-significant.
Hypotheses 4 and 5 focus on the societal implications of corporate volunteering climate.
Hypothesis 4a predicts that corporate volunteering climate will exhibit a positive indirect
relationship with corporate volunteering intentions through collective pride. Although the
relevant path coefficients ( =.27, p=.04, and =.15, p=.02, respectively) were significant, this
indirect relationship ( =.04, p=.14) was not significant (R2 for corporate volunteering intentions
was .26, p=.00). In addition, in regard to Hypothesis 4b, we found that employees current
corporate volunteering participation significantly moderated this relationship ( = -.12, p=.04).
As presented in Table 2 and Figure 3, the indirect relationship between corporate volunteering
climate and corporate volunteering intentions was significant for non-volunteers (.08) and not
significant for volunteers (-.05). Moreover, the difference between these two estimates was
significant (-.13). In terms of the control variables, employee prosocial identity ( = .26, p=.00)
was significantly related to corporate volunteering intentions.
Insert Table 2 and Figure 3 about here
relationship with personal volunteering intentions through collective pride. Based on the relevant
path coefficients ( =.27, p=.04, and =.29, p=.00, respectively), this indirect relationship (
=.08, p=.08) was significant (R2 for personal volunteering intentions was .23, p=.00). As
expected, in regard to Hypothesis 5b, the indirect relationship between corporate volunteering
climate and personal volunteering intentions was not different for volunteers and non-volunteers.
As shown in Table 2, although the relationship was significant for non-volunteers (.16) but not
significant for volunteers (.09), a test of the difference between those estimates was non-
significant. Regarding the control variables, prosocial identity ( = .22, p=.00) and prosocial
climate ( = -.14, p =.06) were both significantly related to personal volunteering intentions.
Interaction of company-driven and employee-driven processes
Theorizing on climate emergence would suggest that there might be integrative effects of
various sources of information (Schneider & Reichers, 1983). People gather information from
their surroundings company policies and procedures, as well as peer attitudes, emotions, and
behaviors then integrate this information and interpret it through their own personal lenses.
This logic suggests that company provided resources and employee belief in the cause may not
only have direct implications for corporate volunteering climate, but also may interact in some
fashion to influence that climate.
We did not formally hypothesize this interaction because theoretical arguments can be
made for contradictory patterns for this relationship (see Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Edwards &
Rothbard, 2000; Howell, Dorfman, & Kerr, 1986). On one hand, company-provided resources
and employee beliefs may act in a complementary fashion where they serve to reinforce each
other and ultimately enhance or magnify the level of corporate volunteering climate. Following
this line of theorizing, it is possible that company-provided resources allow for the mobilization
of employee beliefs into the kinds of activities and interactions that can give rise to climate. On
the other hand, these forces may act as substitutes that compensate one another. In the absence of
company-provided resources for employees, it may be possible for other more easily accessible
factors such as employee beliefs in a volunteering cause to act as a substitute and exert a
significant influence on corporate volunteering climate (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Howell et
al., 1986).
As shown in Figure 2, there was, indeed, a significant interaction between company-
provided resources and employee belief in a cause ( = -.29, p=.02). The plot of this relationship
(see Figure 4) supports the idea that these two forces act as substitutes for one another in the
absence of company-provided resources, employee belief has a significant relationship with
corporate volunteering climate, and vice-versa.
As a society, we grapple with a host of national and global social issues, ranging from
hunger and poverty to education to financial stability. Focusing on hunger in particular, recent
reports suggest that one out of every nine individuals around the world approximately 805
million people face chronic hunger (World Hunger Education Service, 2015). Over the past
few decades, the role of corporations in the fight against such issues has been steadily increasing.
For example, Panera Bread runs Panera Cares Community Cafes non-profit locations that will
feed anyone whether they can pay or not (Panera Cares). Likewise, Darden Restaurants run a
program called Darden Harvest where they rescue food from landfills and get it to those in need.
Through this program, Darden Restaurants has donated more than 100 million meals as they
put it, enough to feed every person in Manhattan three meals a day for three weeks (The
Darden Foundation).
Given the large-scale efforts of companies like these and others, there is the potential for
the corporate world to exert significant social change. This potential raises the questions: How
can these efforts be fostered within organizations? What are the organizational implications of
them? And, can the environment of corporate volunteering inspire employees to tackle grand
challenges in their own personal lives? With these questions in mind, the goals of this study were
twofold: First, to examine the conditions that foster a corporate volunteering climate within an
organization, and second, to examine the impact of this climate on employee actions both
within and outside of the companies boundaries.
By examining these questions, we were able to gain insight into how the corporate world
may be able to uniquely and positively impact grand societal challenges. One of the most
relevant take-aways in this regard is that corporate volunteering climate may improve
volunteering rates. Specifically, we saw that employees in companies with higher volunteering
climates had higher intentions to volunteer, both in the corporate program and on their own
personal time, compared to companies with lower volunteering climates. Importantly, corporate
volunteering climate did not only wind up impacting the subset of employees who already
volunteer, but it also increased volunteer intentions among non-volunteers. Given the increasing
adoption of and participation in corporate volunteering programs, the impact of this relationship
could be tremendous. As noted at the onset of this paper, volunteers represent a significant (and
free!) resource that can be used to address societal issues. Over the past 13 years, the
volunteering work by Americans alone is estimated as a $2.1 trillion value efforts that have
helped the 670,000 homeless, 48 million hungry, and 46.2 million living in poverty, among
others, in that country alone (Corporation for National & Community Service, 2014; Volunteers
of America, 2016). Moreover, volunteers are twice as likely to donate money to such causes,
compared to non-volunteers (Corporation for National & Community Service, 2014). If
corporate volunteering climates can help increase volunteering rates, they may also indirectly
increase income to these important causes.
In addition, the corporate world may just be uniquely suited to tackle these types of
challenges. Not only is it the fastest growing sector of volunteerism (Bussell & Forbes, 2008),
but also the skills necessary in the business world may be precisely what non-profit organizations
need in order to increase their impact. Most volunteer organizations suffer from lack of business
acumen in particular, they struggle with management of human resources, such as their
volunteer workforce (Connors, 2012; McKee & McKee, 2012). In her introduction to a recent
volunteer management handbook, Connors wrote, many volunteer resource programs remain
underappreciated and under developed regarding their strategic potential to the organizations
ability to fulfill its public service mission and managers need more training in such
management areas as strategic planning and implementation (2012: p. XV). Corporate
involvement may inherently bring theoretical and practical knowledge to non-profit
organizations enabling them to, ultimately, address the societal challenges more efficiently.
Given the amount of good that corporate volunteering climate may help accomplish,
companies are likely to want to know how to cultivate this type of environment. The results of
this study suggest that the development of corporate volunteering climate is the result of both a
bottom-up process stemming from the passion that employees have for the volunteering cause
and a top-down process driven by company policies and practices pertaining to corporate
volunteering. Moreover, these processes appear to be able to compensate for one another. In the
absence (or low levels) of one driving force, the other is capable of driving the corporate
volunteering climate. This finding seems to suggest that either approach is an effective
mechanism for forming and sustaining a volunteering climate.
Taken together, these results provide insight on how corporate volunteering could be
used to address the grand challenges that face society today. In instances where companies do
not have a significant employee volunteering presence, management may want to consider
creating and implementing a formal program to support and encourage the behavior. Given the
important role played by employees belief in the cause, organizations with an existing volunteer
force may instead want to focus on the types of challenges employees are most passionate about.
The evidence here suggests that allowing employees to continue with their grass-roots interests
will organically foster a corporate volunteering climate. As a climate for corporate volunteering
emerges, it then becomes more salient to employees both participants and non-participants
that volunteering is something that employees do at a given organization. That climate can
then inspire employees to grapple with grand challenges on their own personal time perhaps
the same issues the corporate programs are addressing or still new issues not considered by the
Implications for Organizational Theory
The current study advances the nature of the conversation among volunteering scholars in
a few significant ways. First, this is the first study to conceptualize corporate volunteering as a
group-level perception. As such, we are able to empirically examine the role of corporate
volunteering programs in creating an environment for corporate volunteering. This framework
also enables us to expand the current discussion about volunteering to include employees who
choose not to participate in corporate volunteering programs (i.e. non-volunteers). As the results
demonstrated, this was indeed the case in our sample corporate volunteering climate
influenced non-volunteers affective commitment to their employer, as well as their intentions to
volunteer both through the companys efforts and in their personal lives.
Second, although a handful of scholars have discussed the impact of personal
volunteering on ones work domain experiences (Mojza & Sonnentag, 2010; Mojza et al., 2011),
there has not yet been much discussion of the impact of corporate volunteering on employees
home behavior particularly in terms of their personal volunteering behaviors. In this
manuscript we make the conceptual distinction between corporate volunteering and personal
volunteering although both are instances of employees volunteering, one is part of company
initiative in the work domain (corporate volunteering) and the other is part of employees
personal lives in the non-work domain (personal volunteering). This distinction allows us to see
a type of transferring of attitudes and behaviors from the work domain to non-work domain and,
more broadly, provides hints of the larger social impact of corporate volunteering climates.
Limitations and Future Research
There were several limitations within this study that should be noted, a few of which
point to potential areas for future research. First, we relied on various self-reports of
phenomenon a practice that may inject common method bias (Podsakoff, MacKenzie, Lee, &
Podsakoff, 2003). That said, we took steps to avoid common method concerns whenever
possible. For example, data collection of the focal antecedents believe in the cause and
corporate volunteering climate was separated in time from the outcomes affective
commitment and volunteering intentions (Doty & Glick, 1998). In addition, corporate
volunteering climate and the mediating mechanism (collective pride) were modeled as group-
level perceptions, and interacted with an individual-level volunteering variable reducing
concerns about correlation inflation (Lai, Li, & Leung, 2013 Podsakoff, et al., 2003). In cases of
cross-level main effects, where common method bias is thought to be a larger concern, the
results presented hold up to their suggested higher standard of p < .01 (Lai et al., 2013).
A second issue pertains to the representativeness of the respondents in our data. Although
we were able to assess employees in a broad range of companies 50 organizations across
various industries the number of respondents in each organization was rather low (M = 6, SD =
2.29). Although this type of sampling is consistent with recent climate research (e.g., Collins &
Smith, 2006; Schminke, Ambrose, & Neubaum, 2005), it still may present a validity concern
primarily that we cannot be certain that the climate perceptions by our participants are fully
representative of their broader organization. Relatedly, the nature of our data collection approach
presents two unique concerns regarding aggregating company-level perceptions. First, we
collected data from both volunteers and non-volunteers within each company, which inherently
increases within-company variance in perceptions. Second, companies were recruited to
participate based on their existing partnership with the United Way Worldwide, which implies at
least some degree of volunteering presence and likely limits the between-company variance in
volunteering climates. As a result of these procedures, our sample may suffer from selection
bias. In an ideal situation, and as research on specific types of climate progresses, we would like
to collect data from a broader set of companies including those with strong volunteering
programs as well as those without existing volunteering programs as well as a more
representative sample of employees within each organization.
Third, we relied on one particular employee attitude about corporate volunteering belief
in the cause as an indicator of the bottom-up process for climate emergence. Although this
individual factor was supported in our data, there may be other individual factors to consider in
this process. For example, employees have also been shown to be motivated to participate in
corporate volunteering because it represents an opportunity for socializing with coworkers and
for building work-related skills (Geroy et al., 2000). Future research may consider how some of
these other individual motives factor into corporate volunteering climate.
Fourth, there are two related assumptions in our model regarding volunteering intentions.
To start, we are assuming that volunteering intentions reflect subsequent behaviors. Although
there is precedence to expect a significant relationship between intentions and behaviors (e.g.,
Ajzen, 1991; Webb & Sheeran, 2006), the two are not interchangeable and not all intentions will
be successfully realized. Moreover, there is an assumption that this volunteering ultimately
benefits the intended targets and exerts impact on societal issues. Although we do not have data
from the direct beneficiaries, there is evidence to suggest these effects from other sources. For
example, the 2013 Societal Impact of Volunteerism study by the Points of Light Institute
demonstrated that volunteering makes a significant contribution to the global economy, makes
communities stronger and safer, and enhances connections between business sectors. Combining
data from the Corporation for National and Community Service and the Independent Sector
provides quantitative data that, in 2014, 62.8 million volunteers in America volunteered 7.9
billion hours, which constitutes 184 billion dollars of services contributed.
The nature (and limitations) of our study point to several directions for future research as
well. To offer one example, future research on corporate volunteering climate may benefit from
including perceptions of others motivations for volunteering. Although, in our sample, we saw
that employee belief in the cause translated into corporate volunteering climate, non-volunteer
reactions to that attitude might depend on the perceived sincerity. Such opinions may also
influence the impact of volunteering climate on employees. Indeed, Rodell and Lynch (2016)
recently demonstrated that colleague perceptions of motives factored into whether acts of
volunteering were credited or stigmatized and, ultimately, how colleagues reacted to those
volunteers.
To offer another example, the role of company-provided resources was not significant as
we expected. Given the size of the path coefficient, it is possible that this result reflects a lack of
power at the company level (N=50) in our sample. It is also possible that employee reception to
company-provided resources may depend on other factors, such as how the information is
communicated or the attributions that employees assign for the companys involvement.
Although not yet empirically examined in-depth, researchers have reported that companies take a
range of approaches regarding how to communicate information about corporate volunteering to
their employees (e.g., Basil et al., 2009). In addition, Gatignon-Turnau & Mignonac (2015)
provide some evidence that public relations attributions for corporate volunteering programs
harm employee reactions. Understanding these types of nuances regarding corporate
volunteering programs would provide better guidance to companies on where to focus their
efforts and investments in order to create the most successful environment possible.
Given the increasing position of corporations to address social issues through corporate
volunteering, it is important to understand the system-level role that these efforts play within
those organizations. By introducing the concept of corporate volunteering climate, this study
takes one of the first steps in that direction. Our results indicate that corporate volunteering
climate may be fostered through either an employee-driven process emerging from employee
belief in the volunteering cause or through a company-driven process, based on resources that
companies provide for corporate volunteering. In addition, our results suggest that corporate
volunteering climate has positive implications for employee attitudes regarding their employee
(in terms of affective commitment), as well as intentions for social action through both corporate
and personal volunteering intentions. The seeming ability of corporate volunteering climate to
cross life boundaries (from work to non-work) hints at the vast level of social change that may be
sparked by such endeavors. Moreover, our results generally suggest that this pattern of attitudes
and intentions is consistent among employees, regardless of whether they are volunteers or non-
REFERENCES Ajzen, I. 1991. The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 50: 179-211. Aguilera, R. V., Rupp, D. E., Williams, C. A., & Ganapathi, J. 2007. Putting the S back in
corporate social responsibility: A multilevel theory of social change in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 32: 836863.
Ashforth, B. E., & Mael, F. 1989. Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14: 2039.
Barsade, S. G. 2002. The ripple effect: Emotional contagion and its influence on group behavior. Administrative Science Quarterly, 47: 644675.
Bartel, C. A. 2001. Social comparisons in boundary-spanning work: Effects of community outreach on members organizational identity and identification. Administrative Science Quarterly, 46: 379-413.
Basil, D., Runte, M., Basil, M., & Usher, J. 2011. Company support for employee volunteerism: Does size matter? Journal of Business Research, 64: 6166.
Basil, D., Runte, M., Easwaramoorthy, M., & Barr, C. 2009. Company support for employee volunteering: A national survey of companies in Canada. Journal of Business Ethics, 85: 387398.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. 1995. The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117: 497-529.
Bliese, P. D. 2000. Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability: Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein & S. W. Kozlowski (Eds.), Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations (pp. 349381). San Francisco: Jossey.
Booth, J. E., Park, W. K., & Glomb, T. M. 2009. Employer-supported volunteering benefits: Gift
exchange among employers, employees, and volunteer organizations. Human Resource Management, 48: 227249.
Brockner, J., Senior, D., & Welch, W. 2014. Corporate volunteerism, the experience of self-integrity, and organizational commitment: Evidence from the field. Social Justice Research, 27: 123.
Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2015. Vounteering in the United States 2015. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. 2008. How UK universities engage with their local communities: A study of employer supported volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 13: 363378.
Caudron, S. 1994. Volunteer efforts offer low-cost training options. Personnel Journal, 73: 38-43. Cavallaro, L. 2006. Corporate volunteering survey: The extent and nature of corporate
volunteering programs in Australia. Australian Journal on Volunteering, 11: 6569. CECP, 2011. Giving in numbers, 2011 Edition. In association with The Conference Board.
http://cecp.co/measurement/benchmarking-reports/giving-in-numbers/2011-edition. CECP, 2014. Giving in numbers, 2014 Edition. In association with The Conference Board.
http://cecp.co/research/benchmarking-reports/giving-in-numbers.html. Corporation for National & Community Service. 2014. Volunteer and civic life in America.
https://www.volunteeringinamerica.gov/national. Chan, D. 1998. Functional relations among constructs in the same content domain at different
levels of analysis: A typology of composition models. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83: 234246.
Collins, C. J., & Smith, K. G. 2006. Knowledge exchange and combination: The role of human resource practices in the performance of high-technology firms. Academy of Management Journal, 49: 544560.
Connors, T. D. (Ed.) 2012. Volunteer management handbook: Leadership strategies for success (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Cortina, J. M., Chen, G., & Dunlap, W. P. 2001. Testing interaction effects in LISREL: Examination and illustration of available procedures. Organizational Research Methods, 4: 324360.
deGilder, D., Schuyt, T. N. M., & Breedijk, M. 2005. Effects of an employee volunteering on the work force: The ABN-AMRO Case. Journal of Business Ethics, 61: 143-152.
DiMaggio, P. J., Powell, W. W. 1983. The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48: 147160.
Doty, D. H., & Glick, W. H. 1998. Common method bias: Does common method variance really bias results? Organizational Research Methods, 1: 374406.
Edwards, J. R., & Lambert, L. S. 2007. Methods for integrating moderation and mediation: A general analytical framework using moderated path analysis. Psychological Methods, 12: 1-22.
Edwards, J. R., & Rothbard, N. P. 2000. Mechanisms linking work and family: Clarifying the relationship between work and family constructs. Academy of Management Review, 25: 178199.
Gatignon-Turnau, A-L., & Mignonac, K. 2015. (Mis)Using employee volunteering for public relations: Implications for corporate volunteers organizational commitment. Journal of Business Research, 68: 718.
George, J. M. 1990. Personality, affect, and behavior in groups. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75: 107116.
Geroy, G. D., Wright, P. C., & Jacoby, L. 2000. Toward a conceptual framework of employee volunteerism: An aid for the human resource manager. Management Decision, 38: 280286.
Grant, A. M. 2012. Giving time, time after time: Work design and sustained employee participation in corporate volunteering. Academy of Management Review, 37: 589615.
Grant, A. M., Dutton, J. E., & Rosso, B. D. 2008. Giving commitment: Employee support programs and the prosocial sensemaking process. Academy of Management Journal, 898918.
Hardin, C. & Higgins, E. T. 1995. Shared reality: How social verification makes the subjective objective. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.). Handbook of motivation and cognition: Foundations of social behavior: 828842. New York: Guilford.
Henning, J. B., & Jones, D. A. 2013. Volunteer programs in the corporate world. In J. B. Olson-Buchanan, L. L. Koppes Bryan, & L. F. Thompson (Eds.), Using industrial-organizational psychology for the greater good: helping those who help others (SIOP Organizational Frontiers Series): 110147. New York: Routledge.
Holroyd, M. 2011. Volunteering benefits emotional health. The Columbian. http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/dec/26/volunteering-benefits-emotional-health/. Posted December 25, 2011.
Howell, J. P., Dorfman, P. W., & Kerr, S. 1986. Moderator variables in leadership research. Academy of Management Review, 11: 88-102.
Idealist.org. 2008. Why is volunteering important? http://www.idealist.org/info/Volunteer/Why Institute for Social Research and Community Development. 2008. National Survey on
Volunteerism in Kenya Perspectives, Structures & Systems.
James, L. R., Demaree, R. G., & Wolf, G. 1984. Estimating within-group interrater reliability with and with-out response bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 69: 8598.
Johns Hopkins University Center for Civil Society Studies. 2011. ILO Manual on the
Measurement of Volunteer Work.
Jones, D. A. 2010. Does serving the community also serve the company? Using organizational identification and social exchange theories to understand employee responses to a volunteerism programme. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 83: 857878.
Jones, D. A., Willness, C. R., & Madey, S. 2014. Why are job seekers attracted by corporate social performance? Experimental and field tests of three signal-based mechanisms. Academy of Management Journal, 57: 383404.
Kelly, J. R., & Barsade, S. G. 2001. Mood and emotions in small groups and work teams. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 99130.
Kline, R. B. 2005. Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford. Kozlowski, S. W. J., & Klein, K. J. 2000. A multilevel approach to theory and research in
organizat
Volunteering Solutions - Affordable volunteering program worldwide
Australian University Student Volunteering: Volunteering ... · Australian University Student Volunteering: Volunteering to Learn . and . Learning to Volunteer: Companion guide .
Engaging Generations X and Y in Volunteering. Volunteering WA Advocacy & research in volunteering Education and promotion of volunteering Member agency.
National Volunteering Forum - Employer Supported Volunteering
The value of our volunteers - IFRC.org Fiji HR.pdf · (FRCS) by mobilizing 136 ... It also identified benefits volunteering has brought to the community, the volunteers and to the
Mobilizing Against Injustice
Mobilizing for War
LYNDSEY FRIDIE. Volunteering Volunteering Summer Reading Summer Reading The Horse Boy - Rupert Isaacon Volunteering Volunteering Southampton Fresh Air.
Mobilizing for Defense
Mobilizing Knowledge Resources:
Benefits of Volunteering Abroad with Volunteering Solutions
Mobilizing the Community
INCLUSIVE VOLUNTEERING › wp-content › uploads › 2017 › 07 › ... · mainstream volunteering. We can define inclusive volunteering as volunteering opportunities that are available
Mobilizing Web Sites
EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERING AND EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERING …ec.europa.eu/.../EUAV_Study_Employee_Volunteering_Europe_FINAL… · EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERING AND EMPLOYEE VOLUNTEERING IN HUMANITARIAN
Volunteering work opportunities in Thailand | Volunteering Solutions
Mobilizing Narratives
Mobilizing - WordPress.com

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


The History of Geology Group (HOGG) exists to encourage interest in the lives and work of those scientists and philosophers who influenced both the study and the practice of geology. It is open to anyone with an interest in the subject and is affiliated to the Geological Society of London. For further details and to join please see the About Us page.
For details of our latest news please consult our social media accounts via Facebook and Twitter (our twitter feed can also be seen on the left of this page). Members receive a copy of the current newsletter which is subsequently archived here. They also have access to our jiscmail list which provides up-to-date information on our activities and the opportunity to discuss research with other members.
Most of HOGG's meetings are held in the Geological Society's apartments at Burlington House, Piccadilly, in London, and details of forthcoming meetings and HOGG field trips can be found here.
Occasionally, the Geological Society of London publishes collections of papers based on the themes of HOGG meetings, as well as other books relating to the history of geology. Fellows of the Geological Society and some affiliated societies can purchase these books at a discount from the Geological Society's bookshop. The latest books compiled and edited by HOGG members can be found on the Publications page.


Boys Hope Girls Hope Chats with Fox 2 News!
Deacon Farrelly, Executive Director of Boys Hope Girls Hope St. Louis, gives Fox 2 News a sneak peek of one of our most exciting projects! Check him out as he chats with local news anchor, Lisa Hart, and shares a behind-the-scenes look of the current construction!
You may also notice his awesome Vessel hard hat, complete with the best mascot ever - the KU Jayhawk. Nice touch, Deacon!