Ideal Workers, Supporting Actors, or Thrill Seekers? How Coworker Demands Influence Ambulance Volunteers' Experiences of Freedom and Meaningful Work.

IF 2.3 2区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL ISSUES
Voluntas Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-10-22 DOI:10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3
Kirstie McAllum
{"title":"Ideal Workers, Supporting Actors, or Thrill Seekers? How Coworker Demands Influence Ambulance Volunteers' Experiences of Freedom and Meaningful Work.","authors":"Kirstie McAllum","doi":"10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>For nonprofit organizations (NPOs) struggling to attract adequate numbers of volunteers, examining what makes nonprofit engagement meaningful is essential because disenchanted volunteers can simply quit. Yet, the assumption that freedom is a core aspect of the volunteer experience and of meaningful work may not hold true in high-stakes environments where volunteers must demonstrate high levels of commitment and expertise. This study aims to analyze how freedom plays out in high-stakes volunteering and its impact on meaningful work. Drawing on interviews with volunteer and paid ambulance crew working in nine stations in Aotearoa New Zealand, the study explores how \"super-volunteers\" talk about freedom in the context of their on-road work and how coworkers communicatively attempt to influence volunteers' freedom. Three volunteer profiles emerged from the analysis: ideal workers, supporting actors, and thrill seekers. Most paid staff encouraged ideal workers to strive for self-realization, a form of positive freedom <i>in</i> work, which led to optimal clinical performance. Supporting actors privileged self-determination or positive freedom <i>at</i> work, although coworkers successfully pushed them to contribute to basic emergency work. Because thrill seekers demanded freedom <i>from</i> boring or dirty jobs, appeals to teamwork failed to sway them. The study makes two key contributions. First, the diversity of freedoms volunteers evoked and resisted underscores the importance of nuancing the assertion that volunteering is a \"free\" act. Second, although the meaningful work literature is drifting in the pro-freedom direction, it shows that the freedoms enacted by volunteers or promoted by coworkers were arguably \"mistaken\"-for volunteers, patients, and the NPO itself.</p><p><strong>Supplementary information: </strong>The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3.</p>","PeriodicalId":48082,"journal":{"name":"Voluntas","volume":"36 1","pages":"32-42"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11882614/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Voluntas","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL ISSUES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

For nonprofit organizations (NPOs) struggling to attract adequate numbers of volunteers, examining what makes nonprofit engagement meaningful is essential because disenchanted volunteers can simply quit. Yet, the assumption that freedom is a core aspect of the volunteer experience and of meaningful work may not hold true in high-stakes environments where volunteers must demonstrate high levels of commitment and expertise. This study aims to analyze how freedom plays out in high-stakes volunteering and its impact on meaningful work. Drawing on interviews with volunteer and paid ambulance crew working in nine stations in Aotearoa New Zealand, the study explores how "super-volunteers" talk about freedom in the context of their on-road work and how coworkers communicatively attempt to influence volunteers' freedom. Three volunteer profiles emerged from the analysis: ideal workers, supporting actors, and thrill seekers. Most paid staff encouraged ideal workers to strive for self-realization, a form of positive freedom in work, which led to optimal clinical performance. Supporting actors privileged self-determination or positive freedom at work, although coworkers successfully pushed them to contribute to basic emergency work. Because thrill seekers demanded freedom from boring or dirty jobs, appeals to teamwork failed to sway them. The study makes two key contributions. First, the diversity of freedoms volunteers evoked and resisted underscores the importance of nuancing the assertion that volunteering is a "free" act. Second, although the meaningful work literature is drifting in the pro-freedom direction, it shows that the freedoms enacted by volunteers or promoted by coworkers were arguably "mistaken"-for volunteers, patients, and the NPO itself.

Supplementary information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Voluntas
Voluntas SOCIAL ISSUES-
CiteScore
5.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
107
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The official journal of the International Society for Third-Sector Research, Voluntas is an interdisciplinary international journal that aims to be the central forum for worldwide research in the area between the state, market, and household sectors. The journal combines full-length articles with shorter research notes (reflecting the latest developments in the field) and book reviews. Voluntas is essential reading for all those engaged in research into the Third Sector (voluntary and nonprofit organizations) including economists, lawyers, political scientists, psychologists, sociologists, and social and public policy analysts. It aims to present leading-edge academic argument around civil society issues in a style that is accessible to practitioners and policymakers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信