What Works at Work? Toward an Integrative Model Examining Workplace Campaign Strategies

• Author: Robert K. Christensen,Genevieve G. Shaker,Jonathan J. Bergdoll
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21270
• Published date: 01 September 2017
• Date: 01 September 2017

25

N M  L, vol. 28, no. 1, Fall 2017 © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Published online in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/nml.21270

Journal sponsored by the Jack, Joseph and Morton Mandel School of Applied Social Sciences, Case Western Reserve University.

What Works at Work? Toward an

Integrative Model Examining Workplace

Campaign Strategies

Genevieve G. Shaker ,1 Robert K. Christensen , 2 Jonathan J. Bergdoll 1

1 Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis , 2 Bringham Young University

Many US employees are regularly asked to give charitable donations through work. The

techniques used to solicit workplace donations vary. Drawing on a nationally representa-

tive survey, the study used a sample of donor responses to examine the effectiveness of several

widely used campaign strategies: donor choice, company matching, public recognition,

and solicitation support. The theoretical framework built on workplace research by Bar-

man ( 2007 ) and established charitable giving mechanisms (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011a ,

2011b ). The research question was, “Do workplace campaign strategies lead employees to

participate and to make (larger) donations in the workplace?” The positive outcomes of

the strategies, aside from donor choice, were limited, suggesting that tried-and-true work-

place fundraising strategies warrant additional scrutiny. The findings are meaningful to

campaign managers seeking to identify approaches that generate workplace giving. For

researchers, the results confirm growing attention to the importance of purpose-based giving

in comparison with community-based giving.

Keywords: workplace , philanthropy , fundraising , corporate , giving

THE WORKPLACE IS A SOCIAL environment in which employees are asked to behave phil-

anthropically. Under the umbrella of “workplace giving,” employees make donations—with

employer endorsement, often in the form of a campaign—for charitable purposes. Workplace

giving campaigns, organized eff orts that provide employees with tools to facilitate philan-

thropy, are a regular part of occupational life across all sectors domestically and abroad (Bar-

man 2006 ; Haski-Leventhal 2013 ).

Partly due to the variety of workplace giving methods within an even more diverse system of

organizations, documentation of workplace giving is somewhat limited. Workplace donations

are thought to be sizable, but the most recent national analysis of how sizable took place

when Giving USA ( 2007 ) reported a workplace total of $4.2 billion. The United Way alone

now raises approximately $3.5 to $4.0 billion annually (Hrywna 2015 ).

Correspondence to: Robert Christensen, Brigham Young University, Marriott School of Management,

771 Tanner Building, Provo, UT 84604. Email: rkc@byu.edu

We are grateful for the support we received from the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy Research Fund for this project.

Research Article

Nonprofi t Management & Leadership DOI: 10.1002/nml

26 SHAKER, CHRISTENSEN, BERGDOLL

Workplace giving may be at a turning point, making it more important to understand

employee responses to workplace campaigning. Many in the United States work part time

and on a contractual basis, possibly influencing workers’ desire to participate in employer-

led philanthropic efforts. Moreover, convenient tools now allow individuals to emulate

payroll giving through automatic deductions from bank accounts and credit cards. Ample

online platforms provide avenues to deploy one ’ s own fundraising campaign and partici-

pate in others’ private initiatives (e.g., Donorschoose.org and Fundly.org), and technology

now makes it easier for smaller companies to participate in formal workplace campaigns.

The newest generation of workers, millennials, is expressing strong interest in workplace

giving participation (Millennial Impact Project 2015 ). If organizations hope to continue to

receive substantial gifts through the workplace, it is imperative to understand what “works”

in the workplace.

Drawing on a nationally representative survey, this study relied on a sample of donor

responses to several widely used campaign strategies: donor choice, company matching,

public recognition, and solicitation support. The theoretical framework built on workplace

research by Barman ( 2007 ) and literature about charitable giving mechanisms (Bekkers and

Wiepking 2011a , 2011b ). The research question was, “Do workplace campaign strategies

lead employees to participate and to make (larger) donations in the workplace?” While the

limited literature on workplace giving includes some assessment of campaign strategies—

typically focused on a single organization or industry—we based our empirical analyses of

these factors on a national survey and contextualized the findings with theory.

Contextualizing Workplace Strategies:

An Integrative Model

Scholars provide several multilevel framing approaches to organize the myriad dynamics of

philanthropic giving (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011a ) and workplace giving (Barman 2007 ;

Nesbit, Christensen, and Gossett 2012 ). The Bekkers and Wiepking meta-analysis names eight

mechanisms that influence philanthropic giving: awareness of need, altruism, values, solicita-

tion, reputation, efficacy, costs and benefits, and psychological benefits. Locus matters, and

Bekkers and Wiepking categorize the mechanisms to be within , between , or outside potential

donors. Workplace and federated giving scholars similarly identify micro , meso/dyadic , and

macro dynamics (Barman 2007 ; Nesbit et al. 2012 ). We draw on the similarities of within-

micro , between-meso , and outside-macro to position workplace campaigning in broader notions

of giving (see Figure 1 ).

Micro/Within Dynamics

The microlevel perspective focuses within an individual and specifically on characteristics

and traits—for example, demographic attributes that may correlate with philanthropic giv-

ing behavior (Barman 2007 ). Age is typically significant in giving, but workplace results are

mixed, with only some studies finding significance (Agypt, Christensen, and Nesbit 2012 ;

Bekkers and Wiepking 2011b ; Borden, Shaker, and Kienker 2014 ; Haski-Levanthal 2013 ;

Osili, Hirt, and Raghavan 2011 ). A higher level of education is generally positively correlated

to US philanthropic giving (Bekkers and Wiepking 2011b ), but Osili and colleagues ( 2011 )

found workplace donors to be less likely than nonworkplace donors to have a bachelor ’ s degree.