Effective Motivators for Master Volunteer Program Development

Introduction

Historically, Extension has extended its educational outreach to clientele through the use of volunteers. Laughlin (1990) found that volunteers provided greater diversity of Extension contacts to targeted groups who might not be reached by other methods. Volunteers can coach or mentor clients with problems needing attention. Extension professionals can be assured of greater program visibility and positive image-building activities through the use of volunteers.

Volunteers can increase the depth and continuity of basic Extension programs by relieving Extension professionals to teach other subject matter of a more advanced nature (Feather, 1990). Volunteers interact with other learners and volunteers to gain information and develop new skills. They can gain self-satisfaction by expanding knowledge of new subject matter and by sharing their knowledge with learners in a teaching situation (Erwin et al., 1996). Beneficial support and pride are fostered by the contributions of Extension volunteers as they improve the knowledge base of individuals in homes, businesses, and the community at large.

During the 1960's, master volunteer programs were instituted in Extension education efforts throughout the United States. These master volunteer programs were first developed for the lowest priority programs for Extension agent involvement, such as home horticulture and crafts. Since the late 1980's, master volunteer programs have focused on problems such as family financial management (Steele, Finley, & Edgerton, 1989).

Laughlin and Schmidt (1995) found that the master volunteer program provided several advantages as a program delivery method by multiplying expertise in a subject area; building a strong support base; permitting the agent to have time for in-depth programming; enabling Extension professionals to devote resources to issue based programs; increasing self-esteem for the participants; and providing for volunteer hour support to Extension programming.

Problem Statement

The purpose of the study reported here was to identify and describe the relationship of motivational factors and incentives with certain demographics of four different types of master volunteers in Ohio State University Extension. Furthermore, the study provided a basis for future master volunteer recruitment, recognition, and retention. Atkinson and Birch's model, Motivation = f (Motive x Expectancy x Incentive) provided the construct upon which the research was built (1978). Atkinson and Birch described achievement motives as those which influenced the individual to take pride in accomplishment and a desire for excellence. Affiliation motives influenced people to be concerned about their relationship with others. Power motives were defined as needs indicating a desire for control and influence.

Methodology

A questionnaire was developed containing 28 questions designed to measure reasons for initial volunteering and continuing to volunteer, attitudes about different types of recognition and rewards, and demographic information among four groups of master volunteers. A six-point Likert type scale (6 = very important to 1 = very unimportant) was used to rate the importance of motivational factors (achievement, affiliation, and power) and types of recognition (formal or informal and extrinsic or intrinsic).

The questionnaire was pilot tested for reliability with a group of 36 Extension volunteers. Crombach's alpha scales ranged from .54 to .83 for reliability. Items were revised to increase the reliability before administering the questionnaire to the selected master volunteer population. A panel of experts, including Extension specialists and the leader of program development and evaluation, reviewed the survey instrument for content validity.

Data Collection

The sample was selected from four groups of Ohio State University Extension master volunteers: Master Money Managers, Master Food Preservers, Master Gardeners, and 4-H International County Coordinators. A table for determining sample size from a given population was used to arrive at the appropriate random sample (Krejcie & Morgan, 1970). A stratified random sample of 288 master volunteers who were currently active and/or had been trained was selected from the population of 797. A total of 200 useable responses were received, for a response rate of 69.4%.

Data from the returned surveys were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) computer program, 7.0 for Windows (1995) version. Frequencies, percentages, and means were calculated for the demographic items, the motivational factors, and the incentive/reward factors among the four groups of master volunteers.

Scales were run for interval, including means and variances. Pearson product-moment correlation was run for ratio data. T-tests were used to measure significant differences between the means for items with two categories. One way ANOVA was used to compare means with more than two categories and to test for significant differences. A level of p<.05 was established a priori as the condition for significance.

Findings

Respondents were predominantly white (96%), female (72.5%), married (82%), professionals (37.5%),who had completed an undergraduate degree (33.8%) and had a median income of $50,000 to $60,000. They had an average age of 50.6 years, lived in a suburb/metro area of more than 40,000 (25.8%), volunteered an average of 2.2 hours per week, worked for pay outside the home an average of 21.2 hours per week, and volunteered for an average number of 2.6 organizations outside Extension. Master volunteers rated achievement the highest for beginning service, with a group mean of 18.7 (see Table 1). Affiliation was rated the highest for continuing service. with a group mean of 19.8 (see Table 2).

	N	Mean	SD
Achievement Learn new things Contribution to community Use of leisure time Formal/informal recognition Lead to employment Total	200 200 200 198 200 200	5.61 4.80 4.50 1.99 1.84 18.71	.81 1.18 1.59 1.18 1.24 3.33
Affiliation Extension good organization Meet other volunteers Family encouraged me Friend was involved People like me Total	199 200 198 197 200 200	5.11 4.33 2.60 2.14 2.12 16.21	1.07 1.45 1.70 1.55 1.28 4.24
Power Do my own thing Being in leadership role Responsible for volunteer program Influence over others Receive status Total	200 196 199 199 199 200	3.88 2.98 2.96 2.23 1.94 13.87	1.64 1.55 1.55 1.36 1.19 5.17

	N	Mean	SD
Achievement Learn new things Challenge Obligation to community Formal/informal recognition Lead to employment Total	197 197 198 196 197 198	5.41 4.64 4.01 2.12 1.75 17.84	1.04 1.21 1.49 1.21 1.21 3.82
Affiliation Extension good organization Help people Meet other volunteers Family encourages Friend involved Total	198 198 198 197 195 198	5.25 4.88 4.53 2.85 2.31 19.77	1.12 1.55 1.41 1.72 1.53 4.58
Power Do my own thing Responsible for volunteer program Be in leadership role Influence over others Status in community Total	196 196 196 195 197 198	3.85 3.11 2.93 2.15 2.11 14.01	1.65 1.56 1.57 1.43 1.23 5.40

Significant differences were found between groups for affiliation for beginning and continuing volunteer service. The significance level was p<.05 (see Table 3).

No significant differences were found between groups for initial or continuing motivations related to achievement. Nor were any significant differences found between groups for initial or continuing motives related to power (see Table 3).

	N	Mean	SD	ANOVA p value
Affiliation as an Initiating Motive International County Coordinators Master Gardeners Combination Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Total	19 143 2 23 11 198	18.63 16.30 15.50 14.70 14.00 16.20	4.07 4.17 2.12 3.14 5.33 4.21	.013
Affiliation as a Continuing Motive International County Coordinators Combination Master Gardeners Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Total	19 2 142 23 10 196	22.47 20.50 19.81 18.00 17.70 19.76	3.81 .71 4.50 4.17 5.64 4.55	.014

Intrinsic forms of recognition were rated most important with a group mean of 17 and home visits were the least valued with a group mean of 8.4 (see Table 4).

	N	Mean	SD
Intrinsic Achieve personal goal Others seek opinion Part of a group Compliments Total	199 200 199 199 200	5.24 4.10 3.94 3.85 17.06	.98 2.40 1.48 1.47 4.54
Thank You Notes Extension professional Program participant Another volunteer Family member Total	193 190 187 185 195	3.77 3.44 2.98 2.75 12.55	1.57 1.63 1.50 1.56 5.33
Phone Calls Extension professional Program participant Another volunteer Family member Total	194 190 192 188 196	3.58 3.25 3.04 2.65 12.21	1.59 1.58 1.48 1.45 5.22
Extrinsic County recognition banquet Plaque, pin, certificate District, multi-county banquet State recognition banquet Total	197 198 193 192 199	2.99 2.89 2.54 2.48 10.69	1.63 1.59 1.51 1.48 5.46
Home Visit Extension professional Another volunteer Program participant Family member Total	186 185 185 182 187	2.35 2.19 2.08 1.90 8.41	1.52 1.38 1.36 1.21 4.96

Significant differences were found between groups for types of recognition/incentives. The significance level was p<.05. (See Table 5.)

	N	Mean	SD	ANOVA p value
Thank You Notes International County Coordinators Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Combination Master Gardeners Total	18 23 11 2 140 194	17.17 12.57 12.55 12.00 11.91 12.51	3.07 4.99 6.02 4.24 5.32 5.32	.003
Phone Calls International County Coordinators Combination Master Money Managers Master Food Preservers Master Gardeners Total	18 2 23 11 140 194	15.77 15.00 12.30 11.91 11.70 12.20	5.41 1.41 4.35 6.77 5.11 5.24	.03
Home Visit Combination International County Coordinators Master Money Managers Master Gardeners Master Food Preservers Total	2 18 22 132 11 185	14.00 11.89 8.41 7.88 7.45 8.37	2.83 5.71 4.39 6.61 5.96 4.91	.01

Motivation Related to Demographics

• Residents in towns 10,000 to 40,000 were most likely to favor achievement motives when initiating service.

• Residents in towns under 5,000 were most likely to favor affiliation motives for continuing service.

• Respondents with associate/technical degrees were most likely to favor affiliation motives to begin service.

• As age increased, the importance of achievement for beginning and continuing master volunteer service decreased.

• As the number of volunteer organizations increased, affiliation as a beginning and continuing motive increased.

• As the number of hours worked per week for pay increased, the importance of home visits and extrinsic recognition factors increased.

• Males were more likely to favor home visits as a type of recognition than were females.

Implications

• Volunteers want to learn new things and want to be affiliated with the organization and the people in the program.

• Master volunteers could be catalysts for new recruits and share positive experiences in training programs.

• Frequent communication and feedback by Extension professionals is important for satisfying affiliation motives and recruitment of future volunteers.

• This group of master volunteers volunteered independently, suggesting that marketing efforts for new recruits could include strategies to promote volunteers to come forth on their own.

• Volunteer administrators should devote more attention to achievement and affiliation needs rather than creating positions of power for master volunteers.

• The whole area of recognition has implications for the future. Because the participants in this study preferred intrinsic types of recognition, other volunteer organizations may want to evaluate what they are doing related to the forms of recognition they provide.

• This study also has implications for new research conducted by volunteer specialists and others across the country related to motivation and recognition. Future research should be conducted with similar groups of master volunteers in other states to verify and compare results.

• Recruitment of master volunteers from the older population may be a method to increase their productivity and to bridge intergenerational connections, assuming that clientele who seek master volunteer services are cross-generational. In this sense, the master volunteer program has the potential to foster diversity.

• In an attempt to increase gender equity, strategies should be developed to increase male participation. This could be especially useful in the Master Gardener and Master Money Manager programs where the male population may have been professionals in related areas, including Landscape Architects, Florists, Bankers, and Financiers.

References

Atkinson, J., & Birch, D. (1978). An introduction to motivation. New York: Litton Education Publishing, Inc.

Erwin, S., McNeely, NM., Safrit R.D., & Schwartz, V. (1996). Volunteers and Ohio State University Extension: A winning team. Columbus: Authors.

Feather, B. (1990). Volunteers as teachers. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 28(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1990fall/a9.html

Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. Determining sample size for research activities. In Educational and Psychological Measurement (1970) 30, 607-610.

Laughlin, K.M., & Schmidt, J.L. (1995). Maximizing program delivery in Extension: Lessons from leadership for transformation. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 33(4). Available: http://www.joe.org/jo e/1995august/a4.html

Laughlin, S. (1990), The challenge of working with extenders. Journal of Extension [On-line]. 28(3). Available: http://www.joe.org/joe/ 1990fall/f1.html

SPSS 7.0 for windows [Computer software]. (1995). SPSS Inc. Micro Products.

Steele, S., Finley, C., & Edgerton, C. (1989). Partners for action: The roles of key volunteers. The Cooperative Extension system and University of Wisconsin-Madison: Author

This article is online at http://joe.org/joe/2001april/rb4.html.

Copyright © by Extension Journal, Inc. ISSN 1077-5315. Articles appearing in the Journal become the property of the Journal. Single copies of articles may be reproduced in electronic or print form for use in educational or training activities. Inclusion of articles in other publications, electronic sources, or systematic large-scale distribution may be done only with prior electronic or written permission of the Journal Editorial Office, joe-ed@joe.org.