Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-72crv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-11T04:22:25.444Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Mirror, Mirror: Congruence of Intersectional Identity and Volunteering in Membership Associations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 March 2026

Khaldoun AbouAssi*
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration and Policy, American University, USA
Shahrin Upoma
Affiliation:
Hubert H. Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota, USA
Corbin Walls
Affiliation:
Department of Public Administration and Policy, American University, USA
*
Corresponding author: Khaldoun AbouAssi; Email: abouassi@american.edu
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines how intersectional identity congruence between leaders and members of associations shapes volunteering behaviors and outcomes. Drawing on the American Society of Association Executives’ Decision to Volunteer survey and using the intersection of gender and race identities, we find that board–member congruence is associated with more time volunteered, whereas executive director–member congruence shows limited association. Strikingly, intersectional congruence with boards is associated with lower volunteer satisfaction. Applying an intersectional framework to leadership–member representation reveals the complex implications of the multiplicity of identities across and within individuals.

Information

Type
Research Paper
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2026. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of International Society for Third-Sector Research
Figure 0

Table 1. Descriptive statistics

Figure 1

Table 2. Volunteer engagement

Figure 2

Table 3. Volunteering time

Figure 3

Table 4. Breadth of volunteering

Figure 4

Table 5. Volunteer satisfaction

Figure 5

Table C1. Hosmer–Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test

Figure 6

Table D1. Comparison of ordered logit and ordered probit models (key variables only)

Figure 7

Table F1. Comparison of ordered logit and ordered probit models (key variables only)