Do it with Joy

Occasionally, when there’s no soap box on which I want to climb; no proselytizing that needs to spew forth,  it just feels right to share some interesting facts which caught my attention.

Embed from Getty Images

New research results published in the Journal of Economic Psychology reveal the dollar value of working for a nonprofit.  Using the British Household Panel Survey, containing almost 12,800 employees of for-profit organizations and just under 1000 employees of nonprofits, the researchers found that nonprofit employees were, simply put, happier than a similar person working for a for-profit:  happier with their jobs, their daily activities and their lives overall.  In fact, they were so much happier that for-profit employees would need to earn an additional $40,000/year to attain such an equivalent level of happiness.  This happiness differential exists regardless of employees’ degree of happiness—or lack thereof—at the time they started their jobs.  So, while I get that happiness doesn’t pay the mortgage/rent or put food on the table, let’s not underestimate the value to ourselves, friends and families of being happy.  And let’s not misuse these findings as ammunition for keeping employee compensation low.

Perhaps this has something to do with another set of research results that found that the faces of leaders of for-profits and nonprofits tell different stories about the personalities of the faces’ owners.  In one study, folks were shown head shots of the leaders of the highest revenue generating nonprofits and asked to rate them on a variety of attributes, from dominance and likability to trustworthiness and facial maturity.  Those who lead the more financially successful nonprofits ranked high on warmth (likability and trustworthiness), while those who lead the less financially successful nonprofits ranked higher on power (dominance and facial maturity).  In another study, when asked to score the head shots of CEOs of for-profit businesses, participants rated them high on the power scale and thought they looked more successful than nonprofit CEOs.  But clearly the message here isn’t that warmth and likability cannot lead to success while dominance and aggression do, but rather these attributes may be more or less valuable depending upon the arenas in which they are operating.

And now we arrive at the world of neurofundraising, which is actually fundraising taking over neuroeconomics, neurochemistry, neuromarketing, etc.  Of late, nonprofits have had the challenge of telling both a powerful story that reveals the power and success of their work, as well as having the hard numbers to back up the claims of success.  Too many nonprofits think the tough part is collecting the hard numbers when, perhaps, they ought to be paying more attention to their stories.

According to scientist Paul Zak, who has studied the impact of stories on the brain, there are two key components to an effective story:  it must capture and hold attention and it must “transport” the listener into the story.  It is the neurochemical oxytocin that is responsible for the double outcome of empathy and transportation.  His ongoing research has shown that processing oxytocin, people are more “trustworthy, generous, charitable, and compassionate.”  In one experiment, Zak gave some participants synthetic oxytocin (which, when administered through the nose starts working on the brain in an hour) and some a placebo.  Participants then watched 16 public service spots for various nonprofits and measured the impact of the ads by participants’ willingness to give.  Those given the synthetic oxytocin gave 56% more to 57% more charities.  Clearly, some of the ads were much more transportative and engaging than others.  [Check out Freytag’s Pyramid (exposition/rising action/climax/falling action/denouement) of a compelling story so you, too, can get your audience’s oxytocin working.]

While I don’t know if my oxytocin influenced this story, I do know that I am not making a political statement.  I don’t know what whether to wish for this or not, but this just may be the year where the paucity of philanthropic giving depresses me even more than it already does.

In the 2012 Presidential election, only 53.6% of those eligible to vote in the United States actually did; that same year, 59.7% of the eligible electorate gave to charities.  I can spin this as “almost two thirds” or “not even two thirds” gave to charity; or, I can spin this as more Americans are philanthropic than interested in exercising one their most important responsibilities and a key source of envy in non-democratic countries:  voting.  No matter how I look at this, it is pathetic:  folks don’t vote and they don’t support charitable endeavors.

Given what I’ve been hearing from friends and colleagues, not to mention the media, this election year doesn’t appear to be the one to galvanize a large turnout and, thus, doesn’t threaten the gap nor risk that more people will vote than support the good work nonprofits do.  But nothing seems on track, either, to increase giving beyond the “not even two thirds of Americans,” so the gap between the two will simply expand.  Thus, still fewer people will care to elect the next president than give to charity.  That may be a political statement!