MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737815958 · doi:10.1108/jmd-05-2015-0078

Can I make a difference here? The impact of perceived organizational support on volunteer commitment

2017· article· en· W2737815958 on OpenAlexaff
Kenneth McBey, Len Karakowsky, Peggy Ng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Management Development · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicNonprofit Sector and Volunteering
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrganizational commitmentPerceived organizational supportPsychologyCommon-method varianceVariance (accounting)PerceptionSocial psychologyAffective events theoryEmpirical researchJob performanceJob satisfactionBusinessJob attitude

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to empirically examine the impact of perceived organizational support (POS) on organizational commitment in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. The study extends the work done so far on the mediating roles of self-expression and perceived influence. Design/methodology/approach This paper reports an empirical research study which examined the impact of POS on organizational commitment in the voluntary and not-for-profit sector. Survey data were collected from a sample of health services workers (n=275) from a large not-for-profit organization. Findings Analyses showed that perception of organizational support positively influenced self-expression. In addition, self-expression mediated the relationship between perception of organizational support and organizational commitment, and both self-expression and perceived influence were statistically significant in their relationship with organizational commitment. Research limitations/implications First, because of the cross-sectional nature of the authors’ design, it is difficult to establish the direction of causality. For example, POS and organizational commitment may be reciprocally related. It is possible that volunteers who are committed may perceive themselves as being valued and contributing members of the organization. Second, the measures used in this study were based on self-report, suggesting therefore that method variance could possibly influence the results. Because the measures reflect individual perceptions, it was not possible to obtain data from sources other the participants. However, preliminary CFA analysis showed that each measure was distinct which should minimize concerns about method variance. Further, some scholars argue that common method variance may be overstated and not as severe as is generally claimed (Lindell and Whitney, 2001). Practical implications Given the need to maintain adequate levels of volunteerism, it is of critical importance for volunteering organizations to understand how to retain their volunteers for the long-term, particularly because volunteer turnover can be very costly in terms of decreased organizational morale, recruitment and training, and decreased ability to effectively serve the public. The authors’ study serves to underscore the fact that those organizations needs to be mindful that volunteers need to perceive adequate organizational support and feel the opportunity for self-expression if those volunteers are to remain committed. Social implications The authors’ study extends the work done so far on the mediating roles of self-expression and perceived influence in the relationship between POS and organizational commitment in voluntary and other not-for-profit organizations. The results suggest that POS positively influenced self-expression but not perception of influence. It also suggests that self-expression mediated the relationship between POS and organizational commitment, and both self-expression and perceived influence are statistically significantly related to organizational commitment. Even though prior research has examined POS as an antecedent, outcome, and a mediator, there is a paucity of research that has examined the proposed model within the context of voluntary and other not-for-profit sectors. Given the current rate of expansion in the voluntary sector, it is the authors’ hope that the present study will provide an impetus for additional research in this area. Originality/value Few studies have examined the impact of POS on self-expression and perceived influence, and the resulting impact on organizational commitment in the voluntary sector. This paper makes a notable contribution to the literature by empirically exploring this understudied relationship.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.081
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.081
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.033
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Management DevelopmentSame topicNonprofit Sector and VolunteeringFrench-language works237,207