The article focuses on monetary philanthropy and to a lesser extent volunteer philanthropy.
I suggest there is another type not explored. Increasingly I observe that young people (including those who have trouble finding employment in the for profit sector) are turning to NFPs and charitable organizations as a career path and, in the process generally “giving” by accepting less than market rate remuneration for their work. This may look more like desperation than charity - but I contend that the differential is, or should be, accounted for, if not in the GNP then in the GWP (gross wellbeing product)
The point is well-taken about the overall focus on monetary philanthropy, although I discussed volunteering, religious engagement, political action, and voting within the fifth myth. Nevertheless, I agree that additional attention to these other forms of philanthropy is important and needed.
With regard to the second point, this is an intriguing idea: that working for less pay is a form of giving, which is more common among younger generations. While I have not studied this topic directly in my own research, I think it is a valuable topic that deserves further attention. Here is what I have seen so far on this topic: there are mixed results.
In terms of peer-reviewed publications, Johnson and Ng (2015) have a wonderfully titled article: “Money Talks or Millennials Walk: The Effect of Compensation on Nonprofit Millennial Workers Sector-Switching Intentions.” As the title foreshadows, they find that Millennials are generally attracted to the purpose-driven aspects of nonprofit work. Yet, they also find that Millennials with more advanced education and in managerial roles express intentions to switch sectors because of low pay.
Additionally, in studying the public-service motivations across generations in Australia, Taylor (2012) finds that the level of desire to work in service is not statistically significant different across generations of Millennials (GenY), Gen X, Baby Boomers, and Matures. However, I find it interesting that among Millennials with a high public-service motivation, there was a stronger motivation for working independently than those who were less interested in public service work.
Expanding to other sources of data, there are a few reports that inform this idea as well. For example, the Deloitte Millennial Survey (ProInspire 2015) found that sense of purpose was rated as a key factor in selecting employers by 60% of Millennials, which the authors state is making “Millennials ripe for jobs in the nonprofit sector” (p. 10).
Yet, the Engaging the Nonprofit Workforce report (Opportunity Knocks 2011) finds some contradictory evidence. Namely, older nonprofit employees are found to be more engaged with their charitable organizations and less burnt out with nonprofit work than are younger nonprofit employees. However, this study has the same complication that I addressed in the article: age and generation are entangled. Thus, it is equally plausible that nonprofit workers gain greater engagement with service work over time, as it is that there are any generational differences between these workers.
In summary, I think you are on to an interesting idea here. We simply need more data, and especially longitudinal data that can better tease apart life-stage and age from generational cohort, to better understand.
References
Johnson, Jasmine McGinnis and Eddy S. Ng. 2015. “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.
Taylor, Jeannette. 2012. “Public Service Motivation and Work Preferences of the Millennials in Australia.” In Eddy Ng, Sean T. Lyons, Linda Schweitzer (eds.), Managing the New Workforce: International Perspectives on the Millennial Generation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 20-41.
A myth can be understood as described in this article, as misconception rather than deceit. This is appropriate because the article is very helpful for eliminating misconceptions about why and how funding is provided by foundations and individuals.
The authors also suggest that, “Myths persist because of their cultural usefulness. We use them heuristically to save time in communicating, affirming that we are thinking along the same lines with others. They are not superstitions but tools we use to make sense as we work together.”
This raises some basic questions: whose myths and useful for what purposes? Answers to these questions can reveal other myths about philanthropy which are often better understood as intentional deceit than misconception. For example, the myth that philanthropy is significant source of support for increasing racial and gender equity and social and economic justice.
To the contrary, large scale philanthropy is a significant source of support for the existing power relations which create growing inequities because much of philanthropy is the direct financial beneficiary of these power relations and inequities. Philanthropy and volunteerism also can be viewed as diversions from the necessity of maintaining and revitalizing our democratic intuitions and a public sector able to address racial and gender equity and social and economic justice with legislation, public policy, and public funding at the scale required.
I agree with the final paragraph in this comment. Cannot recall where I read the following: “philanthropy can be deemed elective taxation for the rich”; in support of their preferred causes and self aggrandizement, as opposed to the common good.
At least a footnote about venture philanthropy would make the article less maddening. Are the authors unaware of the privatization of K-12 by Walton heirs and Gates, masquerading as philanthropy (especially in Indiana)?
Speaking of religion, Bellwether, part of the Gates’ billion dollar ed. “vision”, recommends that the changes sought, can more easily be achieved if there is reach out to churches. Bellwether was founded by the founder/co-founder of other Gates-funded ed organizations, New Schools Venture Fund, Pahara Institute (the superintendent of a Catholic school system became a Fellow in 2018) and,TFA which critics describe as anti-union. The charter school goal- “...brands on a large scale”.
Professors at public universities should do better for democracy.
Yup, selective taxation by the rich, promoting their self-serving philosophies and diluting the “public good” ethos of the democratic social contract, not to mention empowering the strangling/divisive effect of mixing religion into the public, secular state.
COMMENTS
BY Betsy Cornwell
ON August 29, 2019 03:41 PM
The article focuses on monetary philanthropy and to a lesser extent volunteer philanthropy.
I suggest there is another type not explored. Increasingly I observe that young people (including those who have trouble finding employment in the for profit sector) are turning to NFPs and charitable organizations as a career path and, in the process generally “giving” by accepting less than market rate remuneration for their work. This may look more like desperation than charity - but I contend that the differential is, or should be, accounted for, if not in the GNP then in the GWP (gross wellbeing product)
BY Patricia Snell Herzog
ON September 4, 2019 03:43 PM
Thank you for this insightful comment, Betsy.
The point is well-taken about the overall focus on monetary philanthropy, although I discussed volunteering, religious engagement, political action, and voting within the fifth myth. Nevertheless, I agree that additional attention to these other forms of philanthropy is important and needed.
With regard to the second point, this is an intriguing idea: that working for less pay is a form of giving, which is more common among younger generations. While I have not studied this topic directly in my own research, I think it is a valuable topic that deserves further attention. Here is what I have seen so far on this topic: there are mixed results.
In terms of peer-reviewed publications, Johnson and Ng (2015) have a wonderfully titled article: “Money Talks or Millennials Walk: The Effect of Compensation on Nonprofit Millennial Workers Sector-Switching Intentions.” As the title foreshadows, they find that Millennials are generally attracted to the purpose-driven aspects of nonprofit work. Yet, they also find that Millennials with more advanced education and in managerial roles express intentions to switch sectors because of low pay.
Additionally, in studying the public-service motivations across generations in Australia, Taylor (2012) finds that the level of desire to work in service is not statistically significant different across generations of Millennials (GenY), Gen X, Baby Boomers, and Matures. However, I find it interesting that among Millennials with a high public-service motivation, there was a stronger motivation for working independently than those who were less interested in public service work.
Expanding to other sources of data, there are a few reports that inform this idea as well. For example, the Deloitte Millennial Survey (ProInspire 2015) found that sense of purpose was rated as a key factor in selecting employers by 60% of Millennials, which the authors state is making “Millennials ripe for jobs in the nonprofit sector” (p. 10).
Yet, the Engaging the Nonprofit Workforce report (Opportunity Knocks 2011) finds some contradictory evidence. Namely, older nonprofit employees are found to be more engaged with their charitable organizations and less burnt out with nonprofit work than are younger nonprofit employees. However, this study has the same complication that I addressed in the article: age and generation are entangled. Thus, it is equally plausible that nonprofit workers gain greater engagement with service work over time, as it is that there are any generational differences between these workers.
In summary, I think you are on to an interesting idea here. We simply need more data, and especially longitudinal data that can better tease apart life-stage and age from generational cohort, to better understand.
References
Johnson, Jasmine McGinnis and Eddy S. Ng. 2015. “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.
Opportunity Knocks. 2011. “Engaging the Nonprofit Workforce:
Mission, Management, and Emotion.” Report of the OpportunityKnocks.org. Retrieved from: https://www.gcn.org/sites/default/files/ctools/OK_Engaging_the_Nonprofit_Workforce_Report.pdf
ProInspire. 2015. “A Force for Impact: Millennials in the Nonprofit Sector.” Report of ProInspire.org. Retrieved from: https://www.proinspire.org/millennials-2015/
Taylor, Jeannette. 2012. “Public Service Motivation and Work Preferences of the Millennials in Australia.” In Eddy Ng, Sean T. Lyons, Linda Schweitzer (eds.), Managing the New Workforce: International Perspectives on the Millennial Generation. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing. pp. 20-41.
BY Arthur T. Himmelman
ON September 7, 2019 11:47 AM
A myth can be understood as described in this article, as misconception rather than deceit. This is appropriate because the article is very helpful for eliminating misconceptions about why and how funding is provided by foundations and individuals.
The authors also suggest that, “Myths persist because of their cultural usefulness. We use them heuristically to save time in communicating, affirming that we are thinking along the same lines with others. They are not superstitions but tools we use to make sense as we work together.”
This raises some basic questions: whose myths and useful for what purposes? Answers to these questions can reveal other myths about philanthropy which are often better understood as intentional deceit than misconception. For example, the myth that philanthropy is significant source of support for increasing racial and gender equity and social and economic justice.
To the contrary, large scale philanthropy is a significant source of support for the existing power relations which create growing inequities because much of philanthropy is the direct financial beneficiary of these power relations and inequities. Philanthropy and volunteerism also can be viewed as diversions from the necessity of maintaining and revitalizing our democratic intuitions and a public sector able to address racial and gender equity and social and economic justice with legislation, public policy, and public funding at the scale required.
BY Betsy Cornwell
ON September 9, 2019 07:47 AM
I agree with the final paragraph in this comment. Cannot recall where I read the following: “philanthropy can be deemed elective taxation for the rich”; in support of their preferred causes and self aggrandizement, as opposed to the common good.
BY Linda
ON September 10, 2019 10:44 AM
At least a footnote about venture philanthropy would make the article less maddening. Are the authors unaware of the privatization of K-12 by Walton heirs and Gates, masquerading as philanthropy (especially in Indiana)?
Speaking of religion, Bellwether, part of the Gates’ billion dollar ed. “vision”, recommends that the changes sought, can more easily be achieved if there is reach out to churches. Bellwether was founded by the founder/co-founder of other Gates-funded ed organizations, New Schools Venture Fund, Pahara Institute (the superintendent of a Catholic school system became a Fellow in 2018) and,TFA which critics describe as anti-union. The charter school goal- “...brands on a large scale”.
Professors at public universities should do better for democracy.
BY Betsy Cornwell
ON September 10, 2019 08:35 PM
Yup, selective taxation by the rich, promoting their self-serving philosophies and diluting the “public good” ethos of the democratic social contract, not to mention empowering the strangling/divisive effect of mixing religion into the public, secular state.