理想工作者,配角,还是寻求刺激者?同事需求如何影响救护志愿者对自由和有意义工作的体验。

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":"理想工作者,配角,还是寻求刺激者?同事需求如何影响救护志愿者对自由和有意义工作的体验。","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":"{\"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}","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

摘要

对于努力吸引足够数量的志愿者的非营利组织来说,研究是什么让非营利组织的参与有意义是至关重要的,因为不感兴趣的志愿者可以简单地退出。然而,自由是志愿者经历和有意义的工作的核心方面的假设可能在高风险的环境中不成立,因为志愿者必须表现出高度的承诺和专业知识。本研究旨在分析自由如何在高风险的志愿服务中发挥作用,以及它对有意义的工作的影响。通过对在新西兰奥特罗阿九个站点工作的志愿者和有报酬的救护人员的采访,该研究探讨了“超级志愿者”如何在他们的道路工作背景下谈论自由,以及同事如何通过沟通试图影响志愿者的自由。从分析中得出了三种志愿者的简介:理想工作者、配角和寻求刺激者。大多数受薪员工鼓励理想工作者努力实现自我,这是一种积极的工作自由,从而获得最佳的临床表现。配角在工作中享有自决或积极自由的特权,尽管同事成功地推动他们为基本的紧急工作做出贡献。因为寻求刺激的人要求从无聊或肮脏的工作中解脱出来,所以团队合作的呼吁未能打动他们。这项研究做出了两个关键贡献。首先,志愿者唤起和抵制的自由的多样性强调了细微差别的重要性,即志愿服务是一种“自由”的行为。其次,尽管有意义的工作文献正在向支持自由的方向漂移,但它表明,志愿者制定或同事推动的自由可以说是“错误的”——对于志愿者、患者和非营利组织本身。补充信息:在线版本包含补充资料,可在10.1007/s11266-024-00690-3获得。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Ideal Workers, Supporting Actors, or Thrill Seekers? How Coworker Demands Influence Ambulance Volunteers' Experiences of Freedom and Meaningful Work.

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
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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