Motivator #1: Personal experience

Today I was reminded that personal experience may be the best motivator for change.

The reminder came in a forwarded email in which one of my generation who just returned from the developing world described her new perspective on coffee production. She had just visited a coffee plantation and spoke to the pickers and the owners who toiled to sell their coffee at US$1.60 a pound. In the email, it was clear that the experience at the plantation forced the writer to think critically about the costs of production, including the low wages and subsistence living conditions, and compare that to the costs of her local cuppa joe.

But, she did one better. She did not just THINK critically, but also ACTED critically when next purchasing a cup of coffee, and ACTED critically by sharing her views with friends.

And, apparently, they told two friends…and the principle of viral marketing took root.

Receiving this forwarded email underlines the reason why international volunteer sending agencies are of such great value for motivational change. The increased awareness that comes from visiting and working in a developing country (or any country, for that matter!) leads us to really internalize the needs of the people in that country. Indeed, voluntary activity anywhere leads us to better understand the challenges of our global society…and the need for us to change our actions to improve the society we all share.

Indeed, new experiences are the kind of stimulus that throws our habitual flywheel out of balance and forces us to compensate with some sort of personal change in behavior.

Aldous Huxley, in his 1932 "Texts and Pretexts", has summarized the link between experiencial learning and personal change better than I ever could:

Experience is not what happens to a man; it is what a man does with what happens to him.

Recommendation: charity mergers

Mission statements are gospel to their authors: they are the indivisible, fundamental and distinct expressions of a non-profit agency’s purpose.

It is no wonder, then, that most non-profit staff and leaders bristle at the very thought of joining forces with another agency. To work in partnership with another organization when missions overlap is one thing, but to actually combine philosophies, methodologies, donor support, and administrative structures into a single entity?

How horrifically corporate.

Initially it was hoped that the current financial collapse might somehow bypass the charitable sector. But bad things happen to good people.

The situation has clearly become more grave. Reports indicate that large scale philanthropy is on the decline, and even some foundations--with their shrinking endowments--are agreeing only to fund past commitments. Mal Warwick and Associates offers a perspective that direct mail donors were also less responsive in 2008, especially in new donor acquisition programs.

There are, admittedly, a few visionary donors and funders who know that the charitable sector MUST increase services in times of economic hardship. The MacArthur Foundation, for one, has indicated it will remain actively granting in 2009.

What is the charitable sector reponse? Some are reducing services, laying off staff, closing branch offices, and managing within their even leaner than usual means.

But, what about merging with a similar organization?

Even a casual review of the proliferation of charities in the last decades makes it all-too-clear: It is not that there isn’t enough money to support charitable causes, it is that there are too many charities doing similar work. It is dog eat dog between fundraising departments, and that competition costs money and time.

The beneficiaries are collateral damage in the escalating war for market share.

In the US, for example, one estimate indicates that before the economic downturn, 115 new non profits were started each day. In Canada, there are now more than 83,500 registered charitable entities.

1 charity for every 400 Canadians. Seems pretty extravagant.

Some might argue that more charities can offer more services, but common sense forces us to at least consider that there may be economies of scale if there were fewer, but larger, charities.

For example, there are 687 charities dealing with “Protection of Animals” in Canada, according to the Canadian Revenue Agency. By merging some of these worthy organizations, the infrastructure, staff, administration, and overhead costs could be reduced considerably.

Donors implicitly understand that giving larger amounts to fewer organizations means that less of their total annual charitable contributions will pay for overhead and fundraising expenses.

I assert that eventually donors will demand this change, especially as they get requests from organizations with similar mandates through the typical policies of list trading within the direct marketing prospecting world.

Heresy, you say?

Well, there have been success stories. VSO International and CUSO merged as of November 1, 2008 to become the largest volunteer sending agency in Canada. They had very different working environments, volunteer recruiting procedures, staff, and pedigrees; nonetheless, they have managed to merge to better serve our community. In their words:

A merged CUSO and VSO Canada can also learn from the best practices of the two agencies. We want to have greater development impact overseas, and better promote global citizenship at home.

The Bridgespan Group did a longitudinal study over 11 years to determine that in the US, about 1.5% of non-profit organizations merge each year (which is comparable to corporate figures of 1.7%). Most of these mergers affect the small charities.

There is even a term that is being coined to describe the vertical integration of direct service providers, advocacy organizations, coalitions, and government involved in a given field: social movement innovation

Donors and funders, I assert, are rational actors whose motivation to give is based in part on a desire to see their contributions affect the greatest change. The challenge, then, is for charities to seek more efficient ways to fundraise, and to spend less time on marketing to differentiate their “brand” from their closest competitors.

Perhaps most important, once the mission statements are reconciled, the beneficiaries of the charitable work will be served better. This would be a just change in focus.

After all, the beneficiaries--not the donors, and not the staff--are the purpose of charity.

Adult education: the basis of social improvement.

Is it any wonder that among the first acts of any dictator is to disable the education system?

Ignorance forces submission. Illiteracy breeds powerlessness.

The corollary, then, is that education is a necessary precondition to social improvement. On its face, this is hardly a shocking statement.

Most would agree, for example, that effective and sustainable change in a democracy relies on a literate and educated population.

Beyond literacy and numeracy, of course, lies the broader concept of learning: to improve one’s knowledge of art, culture, history, social concepts, science, professional skills, technology, communications, and other disciplines that actually help to propel our society.

And broader still is the concept of informal learning that, arguably, is even more instrumental in shaping our place in society. It is the people we meet, the papers we read voluntarily, the blogs we peruse, and the coffee house chats and lively discussions at the bar that shape our perspectives and—to a large extent—our actions.

According to Malcolm Knowles, education builds our ability to propel our social fabric forward.

The major problems of our age deal with human relations; the solutions can be found only in education…Our fate rests with the intelligence, skill, and good will of those who are now the citizen-rulers. The instrument by which their abilities as citizen-rulers can be improved is adult education.

In the 1950’s Knowles developed his theory that adults learn differently from children, and he referred to this approach as andragogy (as opposed to pedagogy), which I have summarized in my own words as follows:

Adults have more life experience and are more independent in making decisions affecting their own life. Moreover, an adult’s readiness to learn is based on their social roles, and typically there is a need to apply that learning immediately to a specific problem. Notably, the motivation to learn for adults is internal, and not forced upon them.

As social marketers this is valuable information, especially if we define adults as being individuals 18 or older. Campaigns to motivate behavioral change are often targeted to this group, and often rely on public education around an issue to precipitate action.

In order to be effective, then, these adult education efforts need to take into account that the motivation, approach and purpose of education is different for adults. As a target audience, an adult’s experience, current social role and individual concerns have to be considered in developing the approach and the message for any social campaign.

Social marketers cannot be didactic, forcing ideas upon an adult population.

The methods and messages have to be relevant, and have to compliment the experience and knowledge of the audience and must offer an immediate solution to a presented problem.

Community: a basic unit of social change

I was at a party recently where the guests were saying how much they enjoyed being part of their community.

Somebody asked why this particular neighbourhood had such a strong sense of community. Nobody was able to agree exactly why they felt a sense of community what factors built a sense of community. It was quickly noted that not everyone at the party was even from the same neighbourhood, yet they still shared the sense of community.

Some guests offered suggestions as to what allowed them to associate with a given community:

-geographic proximity (the neighborhood, the city, the province, the country…)
-a shared history (childhood, school, friends, travel..)
-similar professional experiences (same field or even same employer)
-equivalent levels (and/or type) of education (including common language)
-socio-economic class (ie salary or wealth)
-size of the population (ie smaller populations breed stronger communities)
-shared interests (social justice, cycling, reading…)
-children and family needs/activities (local parks/sports/schools/community centers)
-common threats (perceived or real)
-desire to be included, loved or needed. (the need for social capital)

As I listened to, and participated in, this lively discussion, I realized that outside of the individual or their family unit, each person’s community—as THEY define it—is a basic unit where opinions or experiences are shared. As such, I couldn’t help but reflect upon the idea that a community is a basic unit of social change.

In an attempt to find a definition, I turned to Wikipedia: “In biological terms, a community is a group of interacting organisms sharing an environment. In human communities, intent, belief, resources, preferences, needs, risks, and a number of other conditions may be present and common, affecting the identity of the participants and their degree of cohesiveness. “

In 1887, a German Sociologist Ferdinand Tönnies argued that community (Gemeinschaft) is a tight and cohesive social entity due to the presence of a unity of will. In the language of social change, a unity of will must surely translate into action on one or more issues.

In my mind, I developed a visual image of multi-layered series of circles. Each circle represents a community defined by one of the determinants listed above (or others). Where two circles overlap, there is a population who share a dual association. When three or more circles overlap, there is a stronger sense of association amongst the members of subset.

For example, if two people have children, went to the same university, and both want to abolish torture, there is likely to be a very strong social bond between these two individuals, even if they've never met. I propose that a social marketing message designed based upon the knowledge of the interests and behaviors of one of these individuals, is likely to be appropriate for the other.

Indeed, social marketers, rather than addressing individual behavior directly, could aim to seek to identify community groups who share similar opinions or experiences. Addressing them as a group to create a change in social behavior could employ the same effort as generating individual behavior change, with much greater effect.

James Julien

James Julien, the head of Public Outreach in Toronto and a successful fundraiser for several well known charities, passed away of a stroke while in Australia on February 20th at the young age of 38.

As a colleague who admired James for his vision to motivate people to give to international causes, I offer my condolences to his family, his colleagues at Public Outreach, and to the charitable sector for losing one of the pioneers of Face to Face fundraising in Canada.