Hostname: page-component-68c7f8b79f-lvtpz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-01-02T10:41:51.437Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Work Engagement in the Third Sector

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Kirsikka Selander
Kirsikka Selander*
Affiliation:
University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland
*
e-mail: kiira.k.selander@jyu.fi
Get access

Abstract

It has been assumed that third-sector organizations attract ideologically oriented employees. Therefore, employees consider their work as more meaningful. However, employees’ ideological orientation has not been taken into account in previous studies on work engagement. With this in mind, the present study sets out to apply an extended job demand-resources (JD-R) model in a survey conducted with Finnish third-sector employees (N = 1,412). The results showed that third-sector employees report higher work engagement than employees generally in the work engagement studies. In addition to job demands and resources, work engagement is associated with public service motivation and value congruence. Thus, public service motivation theory offers more insight into third-sector employees’ work engagement than the conventionally used JD-R model.

Résumé

Résumé

Les organisations du tiers-secteur sont supposées attirer les employés sensibles à une idéologie, qui attribueraient alors plus de sens à leur travail. Cependant, l’orientation idéologique des employés n’a pas été prise en compte dans les études précédentes portant sur l’engagement au travail. En gardant cela à l’esprit, la présente étude établit un modèle « besoins-ressources de travail » étendu pour l’appliquer à une enquête menée auprès d’employés du tiers-secteur finlandais (N = 1,412). Les résultats montrent que les employés du tiers-secteur indiquent un engagement au travail supérieur à celui des employés interrogés généralement dans les études portant sur l’engagement au travail. Outre les besoins et les ressources, l’engagement au travail est ici associé à la motivation de service public et à la congruence des valeurs. Ainsi, la théorie de la motivation de service public offre un meilleur éclairage sur l’engagement au travail des employés du tiers-secteur que le modèle besoins-ressources habituellement utilisé.

Zusammenfassung

Zusammenfassung

Man ist bislang davon ausgegangen, dass Organisationen des Dritten Sektors ideologisch orientierte Mitarbeiter anziehen. Somit messen diese Mitarbeiter ihrer Arbeit eine größere Bedeutung bei. Doch in früheren Studien zum Arbeitsengagement wurde die ideologische Orientierung von Beschäftigten nicht berücksichtigt. Vor diesem Hintergrund wendet die vorliegende Studie bei der Befragung von finnischen Mitarbeitern im Dritten Sektor (N = 1,412) ein erweitertes Modell zu Arbeitsbelastungen und -ressourcen (Job-Demands-Resources-Modell) an. Die Ergebnisse zeigten, dass in den Studien zum Arbeitsengagement die Beschäftigten im Dritten Sektor ein größeres Arbeitsengagement angeben als andere Beschäftigte im Allgemeinen. Neben den Arbeitsbelastungen und -ressourcen wird das Arbeitsengagement mit der Motivation zu öffentlichen Dienstleistungen (Public Service Motivation) und der Wertekongruenz in Verbindung gebracht. Somit bietet die Theorie der Public Service Motivation einen tieferen Einblick in das Arbeitsengagement der Beschäftigten im Dritten Sektor als das konventionell angewandte Job-Demands-Resources-Modell.

Resumen

Resumen

Se ha asumido que las organizaciones del sector terciario atraen a empleados orientados ideológicamente. Por consiguiente, los empleados consideran su trabajo como un trabajo más significativo. Sin embargo, la orientación ideológica de los empleados no ha sido tomada en cuenta en estudios previos sobre el compromiso laboral. Con esto en mente, el presente estudio procura aplicar un modelo ampliado de Demandas-Recursos Laborales a una encuesta realizada con empleados finlandeses del sector terciario (N = 1,412). Los resultados mostraron que los empleados del sector terciario declaran un compromiso laboral más elevado que los empleados en general en los estudios sobre el compromiso laboral. Además de las demandas y recursos laborales, el compromiso laboral se asocia a la motivación de servicio público y a la congruencia del valor. De este modo, la teoría de la motivación de servicio público ofrece una mejor percepción del compromiso laboral de los empleados del sector terciario que el modelo Demandas-Recursos Laborales utilizado convencionalmente.

摘要

摘要

以往的研究常常假设第三部门组织吸引以意识形态为导向的员工。因此,这些员工认为他们的工作更有意义。然而,以往关于工作投入度的研究并未考虑员工的意识形态取向因素。针对该种情况,在对芬兰第三部门员工(数量 = 1,412)进行调查的过程中,本研究运用一个经扩展的“工作需求-资源”模型。结果显示,与一般工作投入度研究所获得的员工工作投入度相比,第三部门员工的工作投入度更高。除了工作需求与资源,工作投入度与公共服务动机、价值观一致性等因素相关联。因此,与常规使用的“工作需求-资源”模型相比,公共服务动机理论对于第三部门员工的投入度的洞察和理解要更加深刻。

要約

要約

第三セクターの組織はイデオロギー的な指向を持つ従業員を引き付けているとみなされてきた。従って従業員は仕事を有意義なものと考えている。ただし、従業員のイデオロギー的な指向は先行研究の仕事の取り組みにおいては考慮されてこなかった。これを念頭において、本研究ではフィンランドにおける第 3 部門の従業員 (N = 1,412) に実施した調査での拡張したジョブ・デマンド・リソースのモデルを適用する。仕事の取り組みにおける研究では、第三部門の従業員は一般的に従業員よりも高い仕事の取り組みを報告していることが明らかになった。仕事の要望、資金だけでなく仕事の取り組みは、公共サービスにおける動機および価値の一致と関係している。従って公共サービスの動機付けの理論では、従来のジョブ・デマンド・リソースのモデルよりも第三セクターにおける従業員の仕事の取り組みに注目する。

ملخص

ملخص

قد تم إفتراض أن منظمات القطاع الثالث تجتذب الموظفين الموجهين أيديولوجيا˝. لذلك، الموظفين ينظرون إلى عملهم على إنه أكثرتعبيرا˝. مع ذلك، لم يتخذ التوجه الأيديولوجي للموظفين في الحسبان في الدراسات السابقة الإرتباط بالعمل. مع أخذ ذلك في الإعتبار ، تحدد هذه الدراسة إلى تطبيق نموذج الإجهاد المهني موسع الذي يشير إلى مطالب العمل – الموارد في إستطلاع رأي تم إجراؤه مع العاملين في القطاع الثالث الفنلندي (1,412 = N). أظهرت النتائج أن العاملين في القطاع الثالث أبلغوا عن أعلى إرتباط بالعمل من الموظفين عموما˝ في دراسات الإرتباط بالعمل. بالإضافة إلى مطالب العمل والموارد، يرتبط إرتباط العمل مع دافع الخدمة العامة وقيمة التطابق. بالتالي، نظرية دافع الخدمة العامة يوفر المزيد من الفطنة في إرتباط موظفي القطاع الثالث بالعمل أكثرمن نموذج مطالب العمل – الموارد المستخدم تقليديا˝.

Keywords

Third sectorWork engagementPublic service motivationJob demandsJob resources

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , August 2015 , pp. 1391 - 1411
Copyright
Copyright © International Society for Third-Sector Research and The Johns Hopkins University 2014

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alonso, P., & Lewis, G. (2001). Public service motivation and job performance: Evidence from the Federal Sector. The American Review of Public Administration, 31(4), 363–380. doi: 10.1177/02750740122064992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anseel, F., Lievens, F., Shollaert, E., & Choragwicka, B. (2010). Response rates in organizational science 1995–2008: A meta-analytic review and guidelines for survey researchers. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(3), 335–349. doi: 10.1007/s10869-010-9157-6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakker, A., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: State of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22(3), 309–328. doi: 10.1108/02683940710733115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borzaga, C., & Tortia, E. (2006). Worker motivations, job satisfaction, and loyalty in public and nonprofit social services. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(2), 225–248. doi: 10.1177/0899764006287207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bosman, J., Rothmann, S., & Buitendach, J. H. (2005). Job insecurity, burnout and work engagement: The impact of positive and negative affectivity. Journal of Industrial Psychology, 31(4), 48–56.Google Scholar
Brewer, G., & Selden, S. (2000). Why elephants gallop: Assessing and predicting organizational performance in federal agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(4), 685–711. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bright, L. (2008). Does public service motivation really make a difference on the job satisfaction and turnover intentions of public employees?. The American Review of Public Administration, 38(2), 149–166. doi: 10.1177/0275074008317248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, W., & Yoshioka, C. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management & Leadership, 14(1), 5–18. doi: 10.1002/nml.18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crewson, P. (1997). Public-service motivation: Building empirical evidence of incidence and effect. Journal of Public Administration Review and Theory, 7(4), 499–518. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, I. (2001). Sweet charity! Managing employee commitment in the UK voluntary sector. Employee Relations, 23(3), 226–239. doi: 10.1108/01425450110392616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., & Jegers, M. (2011). A cross-sector comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(2), 296–317. doi: 10.1177/0899764009342897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Jonge, J., & Kompier, M. (1997). A critical examination of the demand-control-support model from a work psychological perspective. International Journal of Stress Management, 4(4), 235–258. doi: 10.1023/B:IJSM.0000008152.85798.90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Demerouti, E., Bakker, A., Nachreiner, F., & Schaufeli, W. (2001). The job demands-resources model of burnout. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 499–512. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.86.3.499.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hakanen, J. (2002). Työuupumuksesta työn imuun—positiivisen työhyvinvointikäsitteen arviointimenetelmän suomalaisen version validointi opetusalan organisaatiossa. Työ ja ihminen, 16, 42–58.Google Scholar
Hakanen, J. (2009) Työn imun arviointimenetelmä. Työn imu menetelmän (Utrecth Work Engagement Scale) käyttäminen, validointi ja viitetiedot Suomessa. Työterveyslaitos, Helsinki.Google Scholar
Hakanen, J., & Roodt, G. (2010). Using the job demands-resources model to predict engagement: Analysing a conceptual model. In Bakker, A. & Leiter, M. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 85–101). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Hakanen, J., Schaufeli, W., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work Stress, 22(3), 224–241. doi: 10.1080/02678370802379432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halbesleben, J. (2010). A meta-analysis of work engagement: Relationships with burnout, demands, resources and consequences. In Bakker, A. & Leiter, M. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 102–117). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Huynh, J.-Y., Metzer, J., & Winefield, A. (2012). Engaged or connected? A perspective of the motivational pathway of the job demands-resources model in volunteer working for nonprofit organizations. Voluntas, 23(4), 870–898. doi: 10.1007/s11266-011-9233-1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Julkunen, R. (2000). Social background of the rise of the third sector: The Finnish welfare reform in the 1990s. In Siisiäinen, M., Kinnunen, P., & Hietanen, E. (Eds.), The third sector in Finland: Review to research of the Finnish Third Sector (pp. 52–70). Helsinki: The Finnish Federation for Social Welfare and Health.Google Scholar
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain: Implications for job redesign. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24(2), 285–308. doi: 10.2307/2392498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy work: Stress, productivity, and the reconstruction of working life. New York, NY: Basic books.Google Scholar
Kim, S., & Lee, J. (2007). Is mission attachment an effective management tool for employee retention? An empirical analysis of a nonprofit human services agency. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 27(3), 227–248. doi: 10.1177/0734371X06295791.Google Scholar
Lee, Y.-J., & Wilkins, V. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and nonprofit managers’ job motivations. Public Administration Review, 71(1), 45–56. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2010.02305.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leiter, M. (2008). A two process model of burnout and work engagement: Distinct implications of demands and values. Psicologia, 30(1 Supplemento A), A52–A58.Google ScholarPubMed
Leiter, M., & Maslach, C. (2010). Building engagement: The design and evaluation of interventions. In Bakker, A. & Leiter, M. (Eds.), Work engagement: A handbook of essential theory and research (pp. 164–180). New York, NY: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Light, P. (2002). The content of their character: The state of the nonprofit workforce. Nonprofit Quarterly, 9(3), 6–16.Google Scholar
Mann, G. (2006). A motive to serve: Public service motivation in human resource management and the role of PSM in the nonprofit sector. Public Personnel Management, 35(1), 33–48. doi: 10.1177/009102600603500103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maslach, C., Schaufeli, W., & Leiter, M. (2001). Job burnout. Annual Review of Psychology, 52(1), 397–422. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.397.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mauno, S., Kinnunen, U., & Ruokolainen, M. (2007). Job demands and resources as antecedents of work engagement: A longitudinal study. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 70, 149–171. doi: 10.1016/j.jvb.2006.09.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McMullen, K., & Schellenberg, G. & Canadian Policy Research Networks. (2003). Job quality in non-profit organizations. CPRN Research series on human resources in the non-profit sector, 2, Ottawa.Google Scholar
Mirvis, P., & Hackett, E. (1983). Work and workforce characteristics in the nonprofit sector. Monthly Labor Review, 116(4), 3–12.Google Scholar
Möttönen, S., & Niemelä, J. (2005). Kunta ja kolmas sektori: Yhteistyön uudet muodot. Jyväskylä: PS-kustannus.Google Scholar
Moynihan, D., & Pandey, S. (2007). The role of organizations in fostering public service motivation. Public Administration Review, 67(1), 40–53. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00695.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naff, K., & Crum, J. (1999). Working for America: Does public service motivation make a difference?. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19(4), 5–16. doi: 10.1177/0734371X9901900402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD. (2012). Trade union density drawn from employment database. Retrieved September 6, 2012 from http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=UN_DEN.Google Scholar
Park, S., & Word, J. (2012). Driven to service: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management, 41(4), 705–734. doi: 10.1177/009102601204100407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J. (1996). Measuring public service motivation: An assessment of construct reliability and validity. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 6(1), 5–22. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J., & Hondeghem, A. (2008). Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199234035.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J., & Vandenabeele, W. (2008). Behavior dynamics: Institutions, identities, and self-regulation. In Perry, J. & Hondeghem, A. (Eds.), Motivation in public management: The call of public service. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oso/9780199234035.001.0001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, J., & Wise, L. R. (1990). The motivational bases of public service. Public Administration Review, 50(3), 367–373. doi: 10.2307/976618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, H. G. (1982). Reward preferences among public and private managers: In search of the service ethic. The American Review of Public Administration, 16(4), 288–302. doi: 10.1177/027507408201600402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rainey, H. G., & Steinbauer, P. (1999). Galloping elephants: Developing elements of a theory of effective government organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 9(1), 1–32. doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a024401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Register of Associations. (2011). Retrieved December 2, 2011 from http://www.prh.fi/fi/yhdistysrekisteri.html.Google Scholar
Register of Foundations. (2011). Retrieved December 2, 2011 from http://www.prh.fi/fi/saatiorekisteri.html.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, S. (1996). Altruism, nonprofits, and economic theory. Journal of Economic Literature, 34(2), 701–728.Google Scholar
Ruuskanen, R., Selander, K., & Anttila, T. (2012). Job Quality in Finnish Third Sector Organizations. ISTR working paper.Google Scholar
Ruuskanen, R., Selander, K., & Anttila, T. (2013). Palkkatyössä kolmannella sektorilla. Työ ja elinkeinoministeriön julkaisuja, Työ ja yrittäjyys 20/2013.Google Scholar
Salamon, L., & Anheier, H. (1996). The International Classification of Nonprofit Organizations: ICNPO-Revision 1, 1996. Working Papers of the Johns Hopkins Comparative Nonprofit Sector Project, 19. The Johns Hopkins Institute for Policy Studies, Baltimore.Google Scholar
Salamon, L., Sokolowski, W., & List, R. (2003). Global civil society: An overview. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University.Google Scholar
Schaufeli, W., & Bakker, A. (2004). Job demands, job resources, and their relationship with burnout and engagement. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 25, 293–315. doi: 10.1002/job.248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W., Bakker, A., & Salanova, M. (2006). The measurement of work engagement with a short questionnaire: A cross-national study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(4), 701–716. doi: 10.1177/0013164405282471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schaufeli, W., Salanova, M., Gonzalez-Roma, V., & Bakker, A. (2002). The measurement of engagement and burnout: A two sample confirmatory factor analytic approach. Journal of Happiness Studies, 3(1), 71–92. doi: 10.1023/A:1015630930326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seligman, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shih, T.-H., & Fan, X. (2008). Comparing response rates from web and mail surveys: A meta-analysis. Field Methods, 20(3), 249–271. doi: 10.1177/1525822X08317085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high-effort/low-reward conditions. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 1(1), 27–41. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.1.1.27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Statistics of Finland. (2012). Special compilation of business register. http://tilastokeskus.fi/tup/yritysrekisteri/index_en.html. Accessed 18 Jan 2013.Google Scholar
Sverke, M., Hellgren, J., & Näswall, K. (2002). No security: A meta-analysis and review of job insecurity and its consequences. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7(3), 242–264. doi: 10.1037/1076-8998.7.3.242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, J. (2007). The impact of public service motives on work outcomes in Australia: A comparative multi-dimensional analysis. Public Administration, 85(4), 931–959. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9299.2007.00686.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wijkström, F. (2011). “Charity speak and business talk”. The on-going (re)hybridization of civil society. In Wijkström, F. & Zimmer, A. (Eds.), Nordic civil society at a cross-roads. Transforming the popular movement tradition, 12 (pp. 27–54). Baden–Baden: European Civil Society, Nomos. doi: 10.5771/9783845231624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Word, J., & Carpenter, H. (2013). The new public service? Applying the public service motivation model to nonprofit employees. Public Personnel Management, 42(3), 315–336.10.1177/0091026013495773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, B., & Pandey, S. (2008). Public service motivation and the assumption of person-organization fit: Testing the mediating effect of value congruence. Administration & Society, 40(5), 502–521. doi: 10.1177/0095399708320187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar