Nonprofit talent recruitment: An online experiment on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities

Geib, Nils; Boenigk, Silke Article — Published Version Nonprofit talent recruitment: An online experiment on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities Nonprofit Management and Leadership Provided in Cooperation with: John Wiley & Sons Suggested Citation: Geib, Nils; Boenigk, Silke (2024) : Nonprofit talent recruitment: An online experiment on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities, Nonprofit Management and Leadership, ISSN 1542-7854, Wiley Periodicals, Inc., Hoboken, NJ, Vol. 35, Iss. 2, pp. 461-490, https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21626 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/313769 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ RESEARCH ARTICLE Nonprofit talent recruitment: An online experiment on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities Nils Geib | Silke Boenigk Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany Correspondence Nils Geib, Faculty of Business, Economics and Social Sciences, Universität Hamburg, Von-Melle-Park 9, D-20146 Hamburg, Germany. Email: [email protected] Abstract Recruiting talented employees is challenging for nonprofit organizations. This study examines the effects of two possible human resource recruitment practices— offering new ways of working and leadership development opportunities—on the intention of talent to apply for a position at a nonprofit organization. Building on the self-determination theory, the authors conducted an online survey experiment (n=389) with aspiring employees in Germany. The results show that, of the offered practices, only “new ways of working”significantly increase individuals' intention to apply. Regarding work sector preferences, nonprofits are in a war for talent, as only 13.6% prefer the nonprofit sector, with most participants (47.8%) preferring to find a job with a for-profit company or in the public sector (38.6%). As a key nonprofit management implication, recruiters should develop and implement new ways of working to attract talented employees to the nonprofit sector. KEYWORDS job advertisement, leadership development, new ways of working, nonprofit human resource management, online experiment, recruitment, talent management Received: 30 January 2023 Revised: 20 May 2024 Accepted: 21 May 2024 DOI: 10.1002/nml.21626 This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. © 2024 The Author(s). Nonprofit Management & Leadership published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Nonprofit Management and Leadership. 2024;35:461–490. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/nml 461 1|INTRODUCTION Talent recruitment is crucial for nonprofit organizations (Suh, 2018). It is important because it helps to meet future needs, boosts human capital, and caters to leadership and successions (Carpenter, 2017; Geib & Boenigk, 2022; Kim, 2017; Rothwell, 2005). While recruiting talent is essential for every organization (Maier et al., 2022), it is notably difficult for nonprofits (Guo et al., 2011; Huvanandana, 2023). As evidenced by a European study revealing that only 5% of Portuguese graduates opted for nonprofit jobs (Santinha et al., 2021), these organizations face stiff competition from for-profit and public sectors (Ng & McGinnis Johnson, 2020;Walk et al., 2021). It also confirms the global “war for talent”in the nonprofit sector (Meaney & Keller, 2017). Although the debate regarding the term “talent”in human resource literature is ongoing (Lewis & Heckman, 2006; Yildiz & Esmer, 2023), we adopt the broad definition by Michaels et al. (2001, p. 111). They explain that talent can be defined as individuals' combination of “a sharp strategic mind, leadership ability, emotional maturity, communication skills, the ability to attract and inspire other talented people, entrepreneurial instincts, fundamental skills and the ability to deliver results.” Effective talent recruitment in nonprofits involves aligning mission-oriented human resource management (HRM) practices with employee needs, considering both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational factors (Abzug, 2017; Baluch & Ridder, 2021; Barhate & Dirani, 2021). Existing research acknowledges the role of high public service or nonprofit service motivation (Park & Word, 2012) as an intrinsic factor that positively impacts individuals' work in a nonprofit (Einolf, 2022; Kim & Torneo, 2021; Ng & McGinnis Johnson, 2020; Ritz et al., 2022; Word & Park, 2015). Moreover, external motivation is influenced by factors such as compensation (McGinnis Johnson & Ng, 2016; Walk et al., 2021) and job stability (Ballart & Rico, 2018). Our study expands upon Word and Sowa's (2017) proposition of investigating two underresearched job motivators in nonprofit literature: (1) new ways of working and (2) leadership development opportunities. New ways of working, such as flexible schedules and remote work, are increasingly considered to be a vital component for balancing life and work by (prospective) employees, a trend further accentuated by the COVID-19 pandemic (Ahamad et al., 2022; Gerards et al., 2018). In terms of the latter, a study by Bain and Company (2022, p. 2) notes that talent feels it necessary “to rethink the balance between life and work.”In our study, we address this point and propose that the demand for flexible work arrangements will continue to be an important factor for talented recruits, including those employed in the nonprofit sector. Career development opportunities have also emerged as a decisive factor for younger workers when choosing an employer (Deloitte, 2022). HRM nonprofit research stresses this as well Gazley (2016, p. 96), for example, highlights that the opportunity to advance in one's career is one of the “principal organizational factors that support nonprofit staff recruitment.”We agree with this statement and assume that offering leadership development as a career advancement opportunity can effectively attract talent. To date, empirical research on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities as major job motivators in nonprofit talent recruitment is scarce. However, this study addresses both motivators by means of an online experiment. Specifically, we manipulate fictitious, yet realistic, vignettes of a nonprofit job advertisement to answer the following research question: Is offering (1)new ways of working and (2)leadership development opportunities effective in improving nonprofit talent recruitment? 462 GEIB and BOENIGK Our study fills the research gap related to new ways of working and leadership development opportunitiesaskeyjobmotivatorsinnonprofitrecruitment, while aiming to determine the effectiveness of these offerings in attracting talent to nonprofits. Our contributions include enhancing the understanding of job-related motivational factors in nonprofit management literature and introducing an experimental design to assess these specific motivators in nonprofit recruitment. Our findings will aid nonprofit human resource managers in devising successful talent acquisition strategies. 2|THEORETICAL BACKGROUND AND HYPOTHESES Figure 1displays our conceptual framework. It presents two related components: (1) Jobmotivational factors and (2) intention to apply. The former incorporates two subcomponents, namely new ways of working and leadership development opportunities. The framework emphasizes a positive influence of these two subcomponents on the intention to apply for a job in the nonprofit sector. It theoretically embeds this in a recruitment setting, which is shaped by the war for talent among the nonprofit, public, and for-profit sectors. Our conceptualization draws on self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004). The theory is, at its core, concerned with human motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). It conceives motivation's degree of regulation as a continuum between controlled (external) and self-determined (intrinsic) motivation, next to two intermediate types (Manganelli et al., 2018). The theory's predecessors argue that to foster an individual's intrinsic motivation toward a specific action, it is crucial to satisfy three basic needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy refers to being given the opportunity for self-direction; competence involves the experience of utilizing and developing skills and expertise; lastly, relatedness is about having meaningful relationships with others (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020; Vansteenkiste et al., 2023). According to Ryan and Deci (2000, p. 68), the three needs are “essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propensities for growth and integration, as well as constructive social development and personal well-being.” FIGURE 1 Conceptual framework. GEIB and BOENIGK 463 Following Zhao et al. (2023), self-determination theory is suitable, in that it describes vocation-related dynamics. Scholars observe, for example, that when the need for autonomy and competence are addressed by employers, intrinsic motivation to work increases (Marescaux et al., 2012; Pak et al., 2019). Moreover, satisfying employees' basic needs is positively related to employees' job attitudes and performance (Van den Broeck et al., 2016). Building on the above, this study's framework (Figure 1) stresses two basic needs in a work-recruitment setting. It also links the basic need of autonomy to new ways of working, and competence to leadership development opportunities. In the following two subsections, both conceptual connections and their integration into the framework are explained in detail. We then present the derived hypotheses (H1, H2). 2.1 |New ways of working HRM researchers and practitioners have extensively discussed new ways of working (Peters et al., 2014). However, a shared understanding of what practices are related to the term lacks consensus. In this study, we refer to Gerards et al.'s (2018) five-facet approach and consider facets of new ways of working as follows: the first facet entails that employees are relatively free to decide where and when to work to best deliver results. The second facet underscores employees' ability to work the way that best suits them to perform their organizational tasks. The third facet accentuates employees' access to organizational information and social work relations via personal devices (tablets, smartphones, computers). The fourth facet emphasizes the idea of employers encouraging the reconciliation of employees' work and private lives. Finally, the fifth facet underscores the need to create physical spaces that are available to personnel at all times. We propose that these facets affect autonomy, a basic need identified by self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2004; Ryan & Deci, 2017), defined as “a sense of choice and selfendorsement of one's actions”(Rigby & Ryan, 2018, p. 138). Previous HRM studies highlight the positive influence of autonomy on employees' motivation and engagement (Deci et al., 2017; Gerards et al., 2018; Manganelli et al., 2018). In this study, however, we propose that nonprofit organizations signaling autonomy by offering new ways of working will increase individuals' intent to apply for nonprofit jobs. We refer to scholars such as Schmoll and Süß (2019), who referred to self-determination theory and uncovered how temporal and spatial job flexibility signals influence positive attitudes toward an employer. This is also consistent with the work of Smit and Lawson (2023), and Thompson et al. (2015). Our argument also draws from literature emphasizing job-related motivational signals in fostering positive attitudes toward an employer (Ahamad et al., 2022; Asseburg et al., 2020; Linos, 2018; Sievert et al., 2022). As Asseburg et al. (2020, p. 42) illustrate: “[e]mployers use job advertisements to send signals about the vacancy to create favorable attitudes on the part of job seekers, who use the received signals […] and, at best, form initial intentions to apply.” Despite the knowledge of signals' radiant power in job advertisements (early recruitment stage), its empirical validation for the nonprofit sector is scarce. However, in this study, we employ a signal to show the possibility for new ways of working for nonprofit talent recruitment. We anticipate that it will attract talent by increasing their desire to apply for jobs. Our corresponding and first hypothesis is: H1. Signaling new ways of working in nonprofit job advertisements lead to a higher intention to apply. 464 GEIB and BOENIGK 2.2 |Leadership development opportunities HRM research has started associating the job-related motivational factor of career advancement opportunities with the satisfaction of the need for competence (Landry et al., 2017; Rigby & Ryan, 2018). As Rigby and Ryan (2018, p. 139) point out, in work contexts, “[c]ompetence is our basic need […] to grow.”The need for competence is also touched upon in nonprofit employment discourse. For instance, Gazley (2016) suggests that nonprofit recruits value career advancement opportunities. Using graduate panel data, Kang et al. (2015) also show that low satisfaction with career opportunities can negatively affect nonprofit employee retention. Lee and Wilkins (2011) reveal that managers seeking career advancement tend to avoid nonprofit sector jobs, indicating that nonprofits may underinvest in (top) employees. Moreover, Manganelli et al. (2018, p. 235) argue that the need for competence can be addressed by allowing employees to “develop a variety of skills.” Based on these initial studies, we conclude that offering a leadership development program as an explicit career development opportunity is a promising HRM strategy, not only for employee retention, but also for talent recruitment. Best-practice examples for leadership development programs, according to Day (2000), include “360-degree feedback, executive coaching, mentoring, networking, job assignments, and action learning”(Mahapatra & Dash, 2022, p. 3). This study focuses on the recruitment success brought on by advertising leadership development opportunities, and our expectation that it will increase talent's intention to apply for a nonprofit job. Our second hypothesis is: H2. Signaling leadership development opportunities in nonprofit job advertisements lead to a higher intention to apply. 2.3 |Controls Echoing previous studies, our framework includes several individual-level control variables in the conceptualization. We control for gender, age, field of study, looking for a job, motivation to lead, Person–Organization fit (P–O fit), and sector preference. We reflect these controls because they could affect potential applicants' appreciation of human resource recruitment practices, manifested in their intention to apply for a job: 2.3.1 | Gender Scholars such as Chung (2019) or Shockley and Allen (2007) show that opportunities offering new ways of working can be especially appealing to women, as it enables them to grow in their career as well as contribute to family and home life, especially when they become mothers. 2.3.2 | Age Early on, Salthouse and Maurer (1996) highlighted that signaling leadership development opportunities may be less effective for older applicants, who are closer to the end of their career. GEIB and BOENIGK 465 2.3.3 | Field of study We argue that potential applicants' academic discipline represents their vocational interests and thus shapes their employment considerations. This could alter their intentions to apply for a sector-specific job (Pedersen, 2013). 2.3.4 | Looking for a job The framework effects could be influenced by whether potential applicants are looking for a (new) job. As Sievert et al. (2022) suggest, actual job searchers may be prone to be generally interested more in job offers, which could impact their attitudes and behavior. 2.3.5 | Motivation to lead Chan and Drasgow (2001) stressed that motivation to lead influences individuals' preference to assume leadership responsibilities. As our study utilizes signals in a job advertisement for a position with managerial duties (see Appendix 1), we account for its influence on the intention to apply. 2.3.6 | P–O fit P–O fit (Kristof-Brown et al., 2005) assesses individual and employer congruence in terms of values, goals, and attributes. Research indicates that it can affect potential applicants' intention to apply (Andela & van der Doef, 2019). For scholars like Wei et al. (2016), employer impressions can drive job seekers' identification. In theory, these impressions can exist independently of specific signals and affect perceived P–O fit. 2.3.7 | Nonprofit sector preference Our study deals with a sector-specific (nonprofit) job advertisement. Referring to scholars such as Ko and Jun (2015) or Cordes and Vogel (2023), potential applicants' (nonprofit) sector preference can also be associated with their intention to apply. 3|METHODS 3.1 |Research design, data collection, and procedure We conducted a survey experiment in Germany on job applicants and employed a betweensubjects online design (n=389). In the experiment, participants were randomly assigned to one of three stimulus conditions (two treatments and one control condition) for a job advertisement to become a nonprofit manager in the fictitious Foundation of German Accident Aid (Stiftung Deutsche Unfallhilfe). We manipulated this advertisement so that it contained (a) new 466 GEIB and BOENIGK ways of working and (b) leadership development opportunities in only one of the two treatment conditions. Everything else was held equal, and the stimulus in the control condition did not include either new ways of working or leadership development opportunities. Appendix 1provides an overview of our three conditions. All participants ultimately stated whether they intended to apply for the job. Figure 2outlines our experimental procedure. Data collection took place in Germany during September and October, 2022. We recruited the participants through the online panel provider, Bilendi. In our German-language experiment, participants first read instructions and consented to data usage. We assured them that there will be complete data anonymity. They then completed a questionnaire assessing their motivation to lead (Felfe et al., 2012), their (nonprofit) sector preferences, and their salary expectations. Participants were then randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions. Those in the first group read a nonprofit job advertisement emphasizing new ways of working, the second group saw the same advertisement, but with leadership development opportunities, and the third group saw the advertisement without either aspect. We then gauged participants' intent to apply for the advertised job, reminding them it was a hypothetical scenario. Lastly, they provided sociodemographic and other details, such as their field of study and whether they were currently looking for a job. To prevent misunderstandings, we clarified that the job advertisement and organization were fictitious and directed participants to a real nonprofit job platform (www.nachhaltigejobs.de) and an initiative for potential job opportunities with an integrated leadership program (www.onpurpose.org). 3.2 |Pretest In the pretest, we conducted a trial with 150 students. After analyzing the results, we were confident that our experiment would work as intended, with slight modifications. For instance, to FIGURE 2 Experimental procedure. GEIB and BOENIGK 467 make the items clearer to the participants, we added example organizations (such as associations, public companies, and so on; see Appendix 2) to the respective statements on sector preferences. 3.3 |Measures To measure the constructs, we relied on operationalizations from previous studies and used validated psychometric instruments whenever applicable. If necessary, we translated English items into German (some scales had German versions available). We slightly modified the wording of the items for the practical use of our questionnaire. We then back-translated them into English to ensure their reliability and content accuracy (Mullen, 1995). Appendix 2presents a quality report of our main measures, and Appendix 3describes the supplementary measures. 3.4 |Dependent variable 3.4.1 | Intention to apply Job application intentions can be gauged in different ways, such as yes–no questions (Swider et al., 2015) or Likert scales (Gomes & Neves, 2011; Sievert et al., 2022; Silva & Dias, 2022; Wang, 2013). We opted for a Likert scale—as per Gomes and Neves (2011)—for this study, due to two reasons: It distinguishes intention from action and prevents data loss from dichotomization (Cohen, 1983; MacCallum et al., 2002). On a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from 1 (totally disagree)to5(totally agree), we included three items. Participants were asked to rate their agreement with statements, including, “If I were looking for a job, I would most likely apply for this job”or “If I were looking for a job, I could very well imagine myself working in this job.” Mean scores were calculated for analysis (for all latent constructs). According to George and Mallery's rule of thumb (2019, p. 240), our measurement falls within the range of “excellent” internal consistency; with a Cronbach's alpha value of 0.94 for the single-construct of intention to apply. 3.5 |Independent variable The experimental manipulation, our independent variable, was embedded in a job advertisement for a fictitious social service nonprofit—chosen because of the prominence of this field in Germany. Appendix 2shows the text for our treatment conditions. 3.6 |Participants We sourced participants for our study from the Bilendi online platform. The provider financially incentivized participants for their participation. To recruit the participants, we set the following two fundamental sample requirements: All the participants had to be working in Germany and they had to be between 20 and 45 years old. We chose this to reach out to talented potential employees on the German labor market. Initially, 450 potential participants 468 GEIB and BOENIGK degree, our Model III's results even indicate not to rely on potential recruits' interest in working in the sector, per se, when placing a job advertisement; not least considering the intrasectoral aspect of competition for talented workforce. Recruitment success could instead be even more contingent on signaling alignment of values and displaying employee-oriented policies (Cable & Edwards, 2004; Liu & Xie, 2023), supporting the finding of the appeal of new ways of working. It should be noted that our study exposed partial loading issues of intention to apply and P–O fit (see Appendix 6). This could be because P–O fit can be identified as one precondition of attitudes and behavior (Celani & Singh, 2011; Hoffman & Woehr, 2006; Verquer et al., 2003). As such, it differs conceptually from the intention to apply construct, as demonstrated empirically by HTMT ratios (0.85). The latter confirmed that both were statistically discriminant. Highlighting our results regarding participants' general preferences for new ways of working and leadership development opportunities (Appendix 3), these imply that granting new ways of working is especially appealing to women. This is in line with former research. For example, scholars continuously emphasize that most domestic tasks are still maintained by women (Atkinson & Hall, 2009; Lott, 2020). As studies, too, point out that women tend to request more work schedule control than men (Chung, 2019), a commonly shared assumption among researchers is that flexible work arrangement policies do support women, particularly those with greater family responsibilities (Shockley & Allen, 2007). This is not to say that traditional gender compositions at work may not be reforming recently (Kumar et al., 2023). In addition, our findings across groups point toward leadership development opportunities being more compelling to participants who studied business administration, social sciences, or both. To sum up our key (experimental) results, we conclude that indeed the basic need for autonomy (self-determination theory) (Deci & Ryan, 2004) can be triggered and satisfied by signaling new ways of working facets in the early nonprofit recruitment phase (Schmoll & Süß, 2019). Building on this, we next provide three implications for nonprofit HRM practice: 1. Developing and implementing new ways of working. Based on our experimental results, we recommend that nonprofit HRM professionals acknowledge the current and future needs of employees (as well as volunteers) regarding new ways of working. New ways of working mean attracting more potential talented applicants for the respective organization. Moreover, the literature indicates that flexible working can be positively associated with nonprofit/public service motivation (Caillier, 2016). For nonprofit managers and leaders, this increases the likelihood of building up and deploying human capital in targeted manners (such as project managers, team lead vacancies, and so on). As no “one size fits all”solution exists, professionals should, first, conduct needs analyses. Employee surveys on flexible work arrangement needs are a good place to start. Nonprofit management practitioners could use the research items by Gerards et al. (2018)asa guide and, for example, ask employees if it is important for them to be able to (1) determine their working hours, (2) decide where they work (office, home office, workcation, and so on), (3) access work-related information via their own computer and mobile, (4) access their workplace at all times, or (5) adapt their workload to their current situation (such as regarding family responsibilities, health issues, advanced age, and so on.). However, nonprofit leaders should also assess which needs are feasible for the operation of the organization. In addition, leaders should evaluate their existing offers in annual reviews with employees. GEIB and BOENIGK 475 2. Highlighting new ways of working in job descriptions. Nonprofits should prominently feature implemented new ways of working in job descriptions, as potential employees scrutinize these thoroughly (Kuenzi et al., 2021). However, nonprofits should avoid over-promising, as “reality shocks”can diminish service motivation and commitment, and increase turnover (Dean et al., 1984; Hur & Bae, 2021; Miller-Mor-Attias & Vigoda-Gadot, 2022; Schott et al., 2019). 3. Offering leadership development opportunities where they are effective by evidence. We recommend that nonprofit managers avoid offering everything possible when posting jobs to attract talent. This helps save organizational costs. In this regard, our experimental data does not hint evidence on whether advertising leadership development programs in the early recruitment phase (posting job ads) is effective. Since career development offers, such as leadership development, however, are found to be important for employees (Kang et al., 2015), their influence could be apparent in, for example, later nonprofit recruiting (such as job interviews, salary negotiations, and so on) or retention stages (such as being part of individual career development plans). 6|LIMITATIONS, FUTURE RESEARCH, AND CONCLUSION First, our scenario-based experiment can only be compared to real job searches to a certain extent. Only a portion of our participants were actively looking for a job, which is a common limitation in studies that use similar approaches (Sievert et al., 2022). Moreover, the job advertisement and application situation were fictitious, which might have influenced participants' responses (Levitt & List, 2007). To address these issues, field experiments in which potential applicants view real job advertisements should be performed, to observe actual application behavior. Second, although scholars indicate a positive link between P–O fit and application intentions (such as Wei et al., 2016), we must interpret our corresponding control results with some caution. This is because a factor analysis exposed factors with loading issues in some cases (see Appendix 6). However, consulting HTMT ratios (<0.85) demonstrates that, P–O fit and intention to apply are not only theoretically, but also statistically discriminant constructs. Third, our results are not representative of vocational talent in Germany; rather, they represent a current snapshot that requires further external validation. In addition to enhancing its generalizability more comprehensively, future research should explore which new ways of working and leadership development opportunities are effective in certain nonprofit fields of work, and with recruitment groups such as volunteers. In terms of the former, a comparative study (such as health subsector vs. cultural subsector) may be a starting point. Regarding the latter, one can assume that volunteers set different conditions than full-time employees, which could even mean including and testing additional job-motivational factors. Fourth, the data collection for this study took place in cooperation with an external panel service provider. As the participants were recruited from the provider's contact pool and their participation was monetarily incentivized, data quality is moderate. To obtain even more reliable data on talent, accessing alternative sources is necessary. For instance, scientists should aim to tap into talent pools through scholarship foundations and generate a sample of upand-coming young professionals for the job market. 476 GEIB and BOENIGK Finally, our study focuses exclusively on nonprofit recruitment processes. To fully assess the motivational potential of new ways of working and leadership development opportunities, related studies on employee retention, linked to perceived organizational support literature (Knapp et al., 2017; Rhoades & Eisenberger, 2002), could provide a more comprehensive view. 7|CONCLUSION This study examined the effects of offering new ways of working and leadership development opportunities during the early recruitment stage—specifically in a nonprofit job advertisement setting. It theoretically expanded on potential job-related motivational factors in nonprofits. Building on self-determination theory, we conducted an online vignette experiment with potential job talents in Germany. The results revealed that only new ways of working significantly increased individuals' intention to apply for the advertised nonprofit job. Despite the limitations of this study, the findings highlight that nonprofit managers and recruiters should enable and offer flexible working options to attract more talented workers to the sector. The hope is that this can help to keep the nonprofit sector competitive. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT The authors declare no conflict of interest. DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. ORCID Nils Geib https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2122-5677 Silke Boenigk https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5214-2452 REFERENCES Abzug, R. (2017). Recruitment and selection for nonprofit organizations. In K. A. Word & J. E. Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 87–100). Routledge. Acheampong, N. A. A. (2021). Reward preferences of the youngest generation: Attracting, recruiting, and retaining generation Z into public sector organizations. Compensation & Benefits Review,53(2), 75–97. Ahamad, F., Saini, G. K., & Jawahar, I. M. (2022). Interactive influence of work-life balance benefits, employee recommendation, and job attributes on employer attractiveness and job pursuit intentions: Two experiments. Asian Business & Management,22(4), 1215–1242. Andela, M., & van der Doef, M. (2019). A comprehensive assessment of the person-environment fit dimensions and their relationships with work-related outcomes. Journal of Career Development,46(5), 567–582. Anheier, H. K. (2014). Nonprofit organizations: Theory, management, policy. Routledge. Asseburg, J., Hattke, J., Hensel, D., Homberg, F., & Vogel, R. (2020). The tacit dimension of public sector attraction in multi-incentive settings. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,30(1), 41–59. Atkinson, C., & Hall, L. (2009). The role of gender in varying forms of flexible working. Gender, Work and Organization,16(6), 650–666. GEIB and BOENIGK 477 Bain & Company. (2022). The working future: More human, not less. It's time to change how we think about work. https://www.bain.com/insights/the-working-future-more-human-not-less-future-of-work-report/ Ballart, X., & Rico, G. (2018). Public or nonprofit? Career preferences and dimensions of public service motivation. Public Administration,96(2), 404–420. Baluch, A. M., & Ridder, H.-G. (2021). Mapping the research landscape of strategic human resource management in nonprofit organizations: A systematic review and avenues for future research. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,50(3), 598–625. Barhate, B., & Dirani, K. M. (2021). Career aspirations of generation Z: A systematic literature review. European Journal of Training and Development,46(1), 139–157. Brown, W. A., & Yoshioka, C. F. (2003). Mission attachment and satisfaction as factors in employee retention. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,14(1), 5–18. Cable, D. M., & Edwards, J. R. (2004). Complementary and supplementary fit: A theoretical and empirical integration. Journal of Applied Psychology,89(5), 822–834. Caillier, J. G. (2016). Do teleworkers possess higher levels of public service motivation? Public Organization Review,16(4), 461–476. Carpenter, H. L. (2017). Talent management. In K. A. Word & J. E. Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 122–141). Routledge. Celani, A., & Singh, P. (2011). Signaling theory and applicant attraction outcomes. Personnel Review,40(2), 222–238. Chan, K. Y., & Drasgow, F. (2001). Toward a theory of individual differences and leadership: Understanding the motivation to lead. Journal of Applied Psychology,86(3), 481–498. Chung, H. (2019). “Women's work penalty”in access to flexible working arrangements across Europe. European Journal of Industrial Relations,25(1), 23–40. Cohen, J. (1983). The cost of dichotomization. Applied Psychological Measurement,7(3), 249–253. Cordes, J., & Vogel, R. (2023). Comparing employer attractiveness of public sector organizations to nonprofit and private sector organizations: An experimental study in Germany and the US. Review of Public Personnel Administration,43(2), 260–287. Day, D. V. (2000). Leadership development: A review in context. Leadership Quarterly,11(4), 581–613. De Vries, H., Tummers, L., & Bekkers, V. (2019). The benefits of teleworking in the public sector: Reality or rhetoric? Review of Public Personnel Administration,39(4), 570–593. Dean, R. A., Ferris, K. R., & Konstans, C. (1984). Reality shock: What happens when a new job doesn't match expectations. Management Research News,7(4), 27–31. Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior,4(1), 19–43. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press. Deloitte. (2022). Striving for balance, advocating for change: The Deloitte global 2022 gen Z & millennial survey. https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-shared/docs/deloitte-2022-genz-millennial-survey.pdf Demerouti, E., Derks, D., Brummelhuis, L. L. T., & Bakker, A. B. (2014). New ways of working: Impact on working conditions, work-family balance, and well-being. In C. Korunka & P. Hoonakker (Eds.), The impact of ICT on quality of working life (pp. 123–141). Springer. Einolf, C. J. (2022). The career paths of executive directors: Founders, fillers, planners, and risers. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,33(2), 229–248. Elprana, G., Felfe, J., Stiehl, S., & Gatzka, M. (2015). Exploring the sex difference in affective motivation to lead. Journal of Personnel Psychology,14(3), 142–152. Felfe, J., Elprana, G., Gatzka, M. B., & Stawiski, S. A. (2012). Hamburg motivation to lead inventory. [FÜMO hamburger Führungsmotivationsinventar]. Hogrefe. Gazley, B. (2016). The nonprofit sector labor force. In R. C. Kearney & J. D. Coggburn (Eds.), Public human resource management: Problems and prospects (pp. 90–103). Sage Publications Ltd. Geib, N., & Boenigk, S. (2022). Improving nonprofit succession management for leadership continuity: A shared leadership approach. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,33(1), 59–88. George, D., & Mallery, P. (2019). IBM SPSS statistics 26 step by step: A simple guide and reference (14th ed.). Routledge. 478 GEIB and BOENIGK Gerards, R., de Grip, A., & Baudewijns, C. (2018). Do new ways of working increase work engagement? Personnel Review,47(2), 517–534. Gomes, D., & Neves, J. (2011). Organizational attractiveness and prospective applicants' intentions to apply. Personnel Review,40(6), 684–699. Guillot-Soulez, C., & Soulez, S. (2014). On the heterogeneity of generation Y job preferences. Employee Relations, 36(4), 319–332. Guo, C., Brown, W. A., Ashcraft, R. F., Yoshioka, C. F., & Dong, H. K. D. (2011). Strategic human resources management in nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration,31(3), 248–269. Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,68(3), 389–399. Hur, H., & Bae, K. B. (2021). Does discrepancy between job choice motivation and satisfaction and education-job mismatch affect turnover intention of nonprofit employees? Public Organization Review,21(3), 1–17. Huvanandana, G. (2023). Talent management practices in California nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration, Public Affairs, and Management,21(1), 79–98. Kang, C., Huh, S., Cho, S., & Auh, E. Y. (2015). Turnover and retention in nonprofit employment: The Korean college graduates' experience. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,44(4), 641–664. Kiffin-Petersen, S., & Cordery, J. (2003). Trust, individualism, and job characteristics as predictors of employee preference for teamwork. International Journal of Human Resource Management,14(1), 93–116. Kim, S. E., & Lee, J. W. (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. Kim, Y. (2017). Succession planning and management in nonprofit organizations. In K. A. Word & J. E. Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 101–121). Routledge. Kim, Y., & Torneo, A. (2021). The roles of strategic human resource management and person–environment fit on nonprofit public service motivation. Public Integrity,23(1), 33–51. Knapp, J. R., Smith, B. R., & Sprinkle, T. A. (2017). Is it the job or the support? Examining structural and relational predictors of job satisfaction and turnover intention for nonprofit employees. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,46(3), 652–671. Ko, K., & Jun, K. N. (2015). A comparative analysis of job motivation and career preference of Asian undergraduate students. Public Personnel Management,44(2), 192–213. Kristof-Brown, A. L., Zimmerman, R. D., & Johnson, E. C. (2005). Consequences of individuals' fit at work: A meta-analysis of person-job, person-organization, person-group, and person-supervisor fit. Personnel Psychology,58(2), 281–342. Kuenzi, K., Stewart, A. J., & Walk, M. (2021). COVID-19 as a nonprofit workplace crisis: Seeking insights from the nonprofit workers' perspective. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,31(4), 821–832. Kuenzi, K., Stewart, A. J., & Walk, M. (2024). Pause but not panic: Exploring COVID-19 as a critical incident for nonprofit workers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 44(2), 353–376. Kumar, S., Sarkar, S., & Chahar, B. (2023). A systematic review of work-life integration and role of flexible work arrangements. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,31(3), 710–736. Kwan, C. K., Ling, H. W. H., Shum, M. H. Y., & Wong, K. T. W. (2024). Challenges encountered by nonprofit employees during the COVID-19 crisis: A mirror reflecting nonprofit leaders' performance. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,34(3), 729–743. Landry, A. T., Schweyer, A., & Whillans, A. (2017). Winning the war for talent: Modern motivational methods for attracting and retaining employees. Compensation & Benefits Review,49(4), 230–246. Lee, Y. J., & Wilkins, V. M. (2011). More similarities or more differences? Comparing public and non-profit managers' job motivations. Public Administration Review,71(1), 45–56. Levitt, S. D., & List, J. A. (2007). What do laboratory experiments measuring social preferences reveal about the real world? Journal of Economic Perspectives,21(2), 153–174. Lewis, R. E., & Heckman, R. J. (2006). Talent management: A critical review. Human Resource Management Review,16(2), 139–154. Linos, E. (2018). More than public service: A field experiment on job advertisements and diversity in the police. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory,28(1), 67–85. GEIB and BOENIGK 479 Liu, X., & Xie, C. P. (2023). How person-organization fit impacts work performance: Evidence from researchers in ten countries during the COVID-19. Sustainability,15(13), 9866. Lott, Y. (2020). Does flexibility help employees switch off from work? Flexible working-time arrangements and cognitive work-to-home spillover for women and men in Germany. Social Indicators Research,151(2), 471–494. MacCallum, R. C., Zhang, S., Preacher, K. J., & Rucker, D. D. (2002). On the practice of dichotomization of quantitative variables. Psychological Methods,7(1), 19–40. Mahapatra, G. P., & Dash, S. (2022). Talent development in a changing world of work. IIMB Management Review, 34(1), 83–91. Maier, L., Baccarella, C. V., Wagner, T. F., Meinel, M., Eismann, T., & Voigt, K.-I. (2022). Saw the office, want the job: The effect of creative workspace design on organizational attractiveness. Journal of Environmental Psychology,80, 101773. Manganelli, L., Thibault-Landry, A., Forest, J., & Carpentier, J. (2018). Self-determination theory can help you generate performance and well-being in the workplace: A review of the literature. Advances in Developing Human Resources,20(2), 227–240. Marescaux, E., De Winne, S., & Sels, L. (2012). HR practices and HRM outcomes: The role of basic need satisfaction. Personnel Review,42(1), 4–27. McGinnis Johnson, J. M., & Ng, E. S. (2016). Money talks or millennials walk: The effect of compensation on nonprofit millennial workers sector-switching intentions. Review of Public Personnel Administration,36(3), 283–305. McKnight, P. E., & Najab, J. (2010). Mann-Whitney U test. In I. B. Weiner & W. E. Craighead (Eds.), The corsini encyclopedia of psychology (p. 1). John Wiley & Sons, Inc. McPhail, R., Wen, X. C., Chan, R. M., & Wilkinson, A. (2024). Post-COVID remote working and its impact on people, productivity, and the planet: An exploratory scoping review. The International Journal of Human Resource Management,35(1), 154–182. Meaney, M., & Keller, S. (2017). Leading organizations: Ten timeless truths. Bloomsbury Business. Michaels, E., Handfield-Jones, H., & Axelrod, B. (2001). The war for talent. Harvard Business Press. Miller-Mor-Attias, R., & Vigoda-Gadot, E. (2022). Evolving motivation in public service: A three-phase longitudinal examination of public service motivation, work values, and academic studies among Israeli students. Public Administration Review,82(2), 210–224. Mullen, M. R. (1995). Diagnosing measurement equivalence in cross-national research. Journal of International Business Studies,26(3), 573–596. Nachar, N. (2008). The Mann-Whitney U: A test for assessing whether two independent samples come from the same distribution. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology,4(1), 13–20. Nelder, J. A., & Wedderburn, R. W. (1972). Generalized linear models. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General),135(3), 370–384. Ng, E. S., & McGinnis Johnson, J. (2020). Game of loans: The relationship between education debt, social responsibility concerns, and making a career choice in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly,49(2), 292–315. Pak, K., Kooij, D. T. A. M., De Lange, A. H., & Van Veldhoven, M. J. P. M. (2019). Human resource management and the ability, motivation and opportunity to continue working: A review of quantitative studies. Human Resource Management Review,29(3), 336–352. Park, S. M., & Word, J. (2012). Driven to service: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for public and nonprofit managers. Public Personnel Management,41(4), 705–734. Pedersen, M. J. (2013). Public service motivation and attraction to public versus private sector employment: Academic field of study as moderator? International Public Management Journal,16(3), 357–385. Pepelko, K. M. (2020). Untangling turnover: Why development directors leave and what nonprofit organizations can do about it. SPNHA Review,16(1), 68–85. Peters, P., Poutsma, E., Van der Heijden, B. I. J. M., Bakker, A. B., & de Bruijn, T. (2014). Enjoying new ways to work: An HRM-process approach to study flow. Human Resource Management,53(March), 271–290. Rhoades, L., & Eisenberger, R. (2002). Perceived organizational support: A review of the literature. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(4), 698–714. 480 GEIB and BOENIGK Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). Self-determination theory in human resource development: New directions and practical considerations. Advances in Developing Human Resources,20(2), 133–147. Ritz, A., Weißmüller, K. S., & Meynhardt, T. (2022). Public value at cross points: A comparative study on employer attractiveness of public, private, and nonprofit organizations. Review of Public Personnel Administration,43(3), 528–556. Roback, P., & Legler, J. (2021). Beyond multiple linear regression: Applied generalized linear models and multilevel models in R. Chapman and Hall/CRC. Rothwell, W. J. (2005). Effective succession planning: Ensuring leadership continuity and building talent from within. AMACOM. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist,55(1), 68–78. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications. Saks, A. M., & Ashforth, B. E. (2002). Is job search related to employment quality? It all depends on the fit. Journal of Applied Psychology,87(4), 646–654. Salthouse, T. A., & Maurer, T. J. (1996). Aging and work. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging (pp. 353–364). Academic Press. Santinha, G., Carvalho, T., Forte, T., Fernandes, A., & Tavares, J. (2021). Profiling public sector choice: Perceptions and motivational determinants at the pre-entry level. Sustainability,13(3), 1272. Schmoll, R., & Süß, S. (2019). Working anywhere. Anytime: An experimental investigation of workplace flexibility's influence on organizational attraction. Management Revue,30(1), 40–62. Schott, C., Steen, T., & Van Kleef, D. D. (2019). Reality shock and public service motivation: A longitudinal, qualitative study among Dutch veterinary inspectors. International Journal of Public Administration,42(6), 468–481. Schubert, P., Kuhn, D., & Tahmaz, B. (2023). ZiviZ-survey 2023. ZiviZ im Stifterverband. Schuh, S. C., Hernandez Bark, A. S., Van Quaquebeke, N., Hossiep, R., Frieg, P., & Van Dick, R. (2013). Gender differences in leadership role occupancy: The mediating role of power motivation. Journal of Business Ethics, 120(3), 363–379. Shockley, K. M., & Allen, T. D. (2007). When flexibility helps: Another look at the availability of flexible work arrangements and work-family conflict. Journal of Vocational Behavior,71(3), 479–493. Sievert, M., Vogel, D., & Feeney, M. K. (2022). Formalization and administrative burden as obstacles to employee recruitment: Consequences for the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration,42(1), 3–30. Silva, A. J., & Dias, H. (2022). The relationship between employer branding, corporate reputation and intention to apply to a job offer. International Journal of Organizational Analysis,31(8), 1–16. Smit, B. W., & Lawson, K. M. (2023). Growth mindsets increase flexible work arrangement attractiveness: A policy-capturing study. Personnel Review,52(1), 342–362. Suh, J. (2018). Human capital inflow in nonprofits: Entry-level employees' sector shift. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,28(4), 471–489. Swider, B. W., Zimmerman, R. D., & Barrick, M. R. (2015). Searching for the right fit: Development of applicant person-organization fit perceptions during the recruitment process. Journal of Applied Psychology,100(3), 880–893. Thompson, R. J., Payne, S. C., & Taylor, A. B. (2015). Applicant attraction to flexible work arrangements: Separating the influence of flextime and flexplace. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,88(4), 726–749. Van den Broeck, A., Ferris, D. L., Chang, C. H., & Rosen, C. C. (2016). A review of self-determination theory's basic psychological needs at work. Journal of Management,42(5), 1195–1229. Van der Wal, Z. (2021). Future challenges related to changing public service provision: HRM implications of balancing old and new public servant characteristics. In B. Steijn & E. Knies (Eds.), Research handbook on HRM in the public sector (pp. 376–390). Edward Elgar Publishing. Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion,44,1–31. GEIB and BOENIGK 481 Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Ryan, R. M. (2023). Basic psychological needs theory: A conceptual and empirical review of key criteria. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 84– 123). Oxford University Press. Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior,63(3), 473–489. Walk, M., Stewart, A., & Kuenzi, K. (2021). Should I stay or should I go? Investigating nonprofit sector commitment among nonprofit education alumni. Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership,11(4), 1–24. Wang, R. T. (2013). Modeling corporate social performance and job pursuit intention: Mediating mechanisms of corporate reputation and job advancement prospects. Journal of Business Ethics,117(3), 569–582. Wei, Y. C., Chang, C. C., Lin, L. Y., & Liang, S. C. (2016). A fit perspective approach in linking corporate image and intention-to-apply. Journal of Business Research,69(6), 2220–2225. Wieland, A., Durach, C. F., Kembro, J., & Treiblmaier, H. (2017). Statistical and judgmental criteria for scale purification. Supply Chain Management: An International Journal,22(4), 321–328. 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. Word, J., & Park, S. M. (2015). The new public service? Empirical research on job choice motivation in the nonprofit sector. Personnel Review,44(1), 91–118. Word, J. K., & Sowa, J. E. (2017). Conclusion: Toward a research agenda for nonprofit human resource management. In K. A. Word & J. E. Sowa (Eds.), The nonprofit human resource management handbook (pp. 359– 369). Routledge. Wörtler, B., Van Yperen, N. W., & Barelds, D. P. (2021). Do blended working arrangements enhance organizational attractiveness and organizational citizenship behaviour intentions? An individual difference perspective. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology,30(4), 581–599. Yildiz, R. O., & Esmer, S. (2023). Talent management strategies and functions: A systematic review. Industrial and Commercial Training,55(1), 93–111. Zhao, H., Chen, Y., & Liu, W. (2023). Socially responsible human resource management and employee moral voice: Based on the self-determination theory. Journal of Business Ethics,183(3), 929–946. AUTHOR BIOGRAPHIES Nils Geib is a PhD Candidate and Research Assistant at Universität Hamburg. His research interests are in the areas of organizational professionalization, especially nonprofit HRM and leadership. Silke Boenigk is a Professor for Nonprofit Management at Universität Hamburg. Her research interests are in the areas of charitable giving, nonprofit relationship management, and fundraising. How to cite this article: Geib, N., & Boenigk, S. (2024). Nonprofit talent recruitment: An online experiment on new ways of working and leadership development opportunities. Nonprofit Management and Leadership,35(2), 461–490. https://doi.org/10. 1002/nml.21626 482 GEIB and BOENIGK APPENDIX 1: FICTIVE JOB ADVERTISEMENTS Group 1: New ways of working condition Group 2: Leadership development opportunities condition Group 3: Control condition GEIB and BOENIGK 483 APPENDIX 2: MEASUREMENT QUALITY REPORT Variable Mean (SD) Cronbach's alpha Dependent variable Intention to apply (Gomes & Neves, 2011) a 0.944 If I were looking for a job, I would most likely apply for this job. 2.9 (1.26) If I were looking for a job, applying for this job would be very appealing to me. 2.9 (1.25) If I were looking for a job, I could very well imagine myself working in this job. 3.0 (1.25) Independent variable (experimental conditions) Condition 1 (new ways of working) We offer you modern new ways of working! We offer you unique new ways of working in which you can flexibly and individually design your work. This includes self-determined working hours, a close fit between your workload and phase of life, work-life balance, the ability to retrieve all work-related content via your own computer/tablet/smartphone, and the option to work from home. Condition 2 (leadership development opportunities) We offer you a modern leadership program! We offer you a unique leadership program in which you can train for higher management positions. This includes practical (team) exercises on leadership situations, coaching by management and board members, mentoring support and 360-degree feedback, good networking opportunities with peers, and a leadership certificate. Control variables Gender You are…? (Please select female, male, or non-binary.) Age How old are you? (Specify in digits in the blank field.) 32.1 (4.88) Field of study Are you currently studying in or have a degree in any of the following fields? (Please select social sciences, business administration, or both as an interdisciplinary program.) Looking for a job (job search status) Are you currently looking for jobs? (Please select yes or no.) Motivation to lead (Elprana et al., 2015) a 0.940 I do enjoy performing executive functions. 3.4 (1.10) I like to take over a leading role. 3.3 (1.16) I like taking over the leadership function better than working in a supporting role for others. 3.0 (1.17) When I can give guidance to others, I am in my element. 3.2 (1.13) I like to assume responsibility for others. 3.4 (1.13) I normally want to lead the group in which I am working. 3.1 (1.14) 484 GEIB and BOENIGK