How do we get the 'haves' to give more of their 'havings'?

I keep thinking about the widening wealth gap.

As one does, late at night, when the stars are spinning around and sleep is elusive.

The Federal Reserve reports that today’s top 1% in the US holds $55 trillion of US wealth. More than double the amount it had a decade ago and more than the entire bottom 90% combined.

The haves have way more than they used to.

And yet, as Jeffrey Bradach presents in the Stanford Social Innovation Review – my new favorite read btw – the proportion of wealth being given away by the ultrawealthy has stayed exactly the same over the last ten years.

The haves aren’t giving more to the have nots.

What this means for nonprofits - whose bottom line depends on the generosity of others – is….well..NOT GOOD.

And I fear the outlook may even look worse when taken in hand with the rate of inflation, drastic government funding cuts, and new tax laws that appear, on the surface, to disincentivize much charitable giving.

(Yes, this is what I think about when I can’t sleep. Is that weird?)

Well, really what I think about is how to solve this problem.

How can we get the haves to give more of their havings to the have nots?

Yes, yes, dismantle capitalism.

But in the meantime, what can we do to move the needle, even just a few percentage points (which would actually mean hundreds of millions of dollars, if we want to get disgusting about it).

Cause those Sarah McLachlan soundtrack appeals aren’t cutting it anymore.

Are there any motivational levers that could work to change ten years of the same behavior?  

In my moments of insomnia, my mind circles around this question because as a social worker, a lot of what social workers do, at the micro and macro levels, is motivate change to occur.

And because I work in the nonprofit space, I think about how we get these seemingly immovable systems to change. 

A mentor once told me, people want change, but they don’t want to be changed.

I have since learned this is an adage from MIT professor and systems theorist Peter Senge.

But gosh, I have found this to be true time and time again, with individuals, organizations, corporations, government systems… on and on.

Change doesn’t occur because we tell someone they need to change.

Otherwise we could say, “hey, you should give more money away, cause you know, it’s the right thing to do.”

Change is driven by internal forces and autonomous choice.

 

The key is in encouraging the motivational levers that drive change to happen.

And while it may feel impossible to get ten-year-old behavior to change, examples from recent history show that monumental tidal changes can occur after years of stagnation.

***

Example 1. Same-Sex Marriage: 

At the beginning of the millennium, the US witnessed a drastic attitude shift about same-sex marriage.  In 2003, 58% of those surveyed by the Pew Research Center opposed it. By 2013, 49% supported it. When asked to elaborate about why their minds changed, a third reported it was “because they know someone – a friend, family member or other acquaintance – who is homosexual.”

Motivational lever: the proximity principle.

The proximity principle argues that long held beliefs can be dismantled as an individual grows close to an issue.

***

Example 2. Project Homekey:

During the COVID pandemic, and driven by the concern of community spread, California managed to house over 14,000 unhoused individuals in a little over three months with nearly 300 hotels signed on to help. A feat that has since failed to be replicated. Such a movement was spawned from the appeal that to house the most vulnerable would help keep spread down and emergency rooms free.

Motivational lever: enlightened self-interest

Enlightened self-interest is the awareness that to help others, ultimately serves one's own needs and is to one's own benefit.

***

Example 3. Investment in racial justice:

Following the murder of George Floyd, many multimillion-dollar companies pledged $66 billion to address racial inequality, Indeed reported a 56.3% increase in DEI job postings, and 40% of the Fortune 1000 companies made statements in support of racial justice. If we ignore for a moment how quickly most of these moves were walked back, this was an enormous public shift. Much of the response was attributed to the concern that companies were risking irreparable reputational damage if they stayed silent.

Motivational lever: reputational risk.

Reputational risk is the concern that negative public perception will lead to long-term financial loss. At the individual level, it is the equivalent of personal shame.

***

In all three examples, these levers happened with little intentionality, but they happened. And in the happening, they changed long-standing behavior, which indicates that if intentionally activated they could have real impact.

A concerted, deliberate, rallying campaign towards any one of these levers, could possibly move the needle.

I'm not saying it would be easy. I’m not saying they are the only ones that can be used. I’m not even arguing that we shouldn’t have to be using these in the first place.

But at least it’s food for thought, if you find yourself wide awake at night, with the stars spinning around.