College students as catalysts for social change: a case study

Altruism

It’s the type of leadership that we talk about all the time…It doesn’t matter who gets the credit. It’s about what we can we accomplish…That’s what actually matters, right? Like what actually gets done.

Harold, a former advisor, observed this altruistic leadership in Nickers,

There is nothing about Nickers that is about himself, in terms of his manner. Its sort of all about helping other people get where they want to go, and he really put himself in the background in that sense. And that is a real gift--to anticipate by knowing exactly when to follow, and when to do the work to help. To be able to move forward, so he really led by following.

When Pete first came to college, he imagined he would be “making my way up the corporate ladder and making a good living doing it.” In research from Levin and Cureton (1998), “Students overwhelmingly wanted to be very well off financially, but simultaneously a whopping 95% of undergraduates also said it was important to them to do good and help others” (p. 138). Three of the four founders chose the “do good” option--they are making $20,000 a year, have made a three year commitment to SLP, and have to raise the funds themselves. In contrast the average first year business school graduate from their University makes $48,532. Roy says:

We will take a paycheck that is much less than a lot of people our age, with our skills and our experiences…not that it is measured by money, but it is measured by impact and service…we are saying we’re going to work towards that; and if some people can find value in that, that’s great.

Ashley, a bus core leader, made the following observation of the intrinsic motivation the group gets in inspiration rather than financial reward,

They just get it--they understand leadership, they understand serving others, and I think that, to all of them is more than any pay check…I think it’s the stories they hear from people, the confidence that people say they get from this organization that they helped start, the value and acceptance people feel in the organization.

Deciding not to join the other three founders in working for SLP was a struggle for Nickers, who discusses this in terms of his choice to work another job:

I can get a check through another organization where I can still work for SLP, and I will be able to support myself through this other check. But SLP won’t have to pay myself. So then, well-- it is a win-win relationship on that side. Being a financial guy of course, I was looking at, OK, well are we really able to afford four individuals? Probably we could if we really wanted to, but at the same time how much harder…do we want to work on that, do we want to push ourselves?

Not only does Nickers volunteer time to SLP but he also financially supports the group, as one of the largest individual donors. He says one of the reasons he took his current position was that it offered one of the best employee donation matches of any he had considered. In reviewing Facebook’s social cause site, Nickers is also the number one recruiter for getting others to join in financially supporting SLP.

Another example of altruistic behavior is the creation of a non-profit major at the business school. Pete had a passion for sharing the benefit of his personal experience with a self-designed minor in non-profit. He wanted to create the possibility for students to take the non-profit as a major so he worked with another SLP member to develop the non-profit major. Pete explains the process:

Eric built the proposal, so we started writing stuff down…putting a program together, like developing, like curriculum pieces, and designing the major to the proposal…We worked with a couple of people-- probably met with about 25 to 30 people…Then they voted on it…54 to 1, they passed it…and now it’s actually in place.

One of the Vice Presidents of the University commented about the non-profit major and the students’ success in getting the major adopted:

That is unheard of, absolutely unheard of…and that was the kind of thing that faculty by themselves couldn’t have done, because there is such indifference in the school about some of these things…There would be some faculty member who would be working with a group of students thinking this is a great idea but the politics of the place would never allow it to go through. But with the students like this…they [the students] weren’t in the political arena, they just brought it through as the idea and they did really great work.

The students were able to challenge the mental model about a non-profit not belonging in a business school and work across political lines. Pete didn’t take credit for this accomplishment and was just excited about being able to contribute something for “the good of others.”

The concept of sacrifice is inherent in living an altruistic life that is ‘other’ focused. During the summer retreat observation, the group talked about the sacrifices and risks of founding the group and in continuing to be involved. Mackenzie offered what this meant for her personally:

I do believe that there has been personal relationship sacrifices. Very few friends, I think, should have to go through some of the conversations we go through as we are, like, trying to develop our strategic plan for this organization…Time-wise these are the two men that I enjoyed seeing so much growing up in college, but…if I spent 10 hours a day with them I’m not going to go home and call them. I doubt anyone in the world desires to have confrontational conversations with close friends that you respect. I highly doubt that you want to confront someone you don’t like, if anyone, so they are difficult but again that kind of goes along with the risk and sacrifice. We risk every time our friendships, but what’s the greater good of it all?

In terms of other sacrifices in forming SLP she goes on to say:

Tangibly--obviously there is time…I didn’t study abroad, I didn’t do this, I didn’t do that…When I actually look back I missed out on a lot of things… a lot of times, especially in college growing up and with closer girlfriends. It had nothing to do with those bigger events and everything to do with that one time when they were like, ‘Hey, just sit down for a few minutes’ and I’m like, ‘No, I gotta go to a meeting, no I have a phone call.’ But in addition to that, we engross all of our friends in this organization, so we’re risking friendships.

This “engrossing” of friendships as alluded to by Mackenzie is a sacrifice that the founders also seem to face in terms of significant intimate relationships. This ties into a second acronym that SLP came to mean for them: Single Lonely Person. When asked further about this, the founders became quite uncomfortable, but issues of relationships and dating came up repeatedly during observations and interviews.

One of the people I interviewed about this issue commented:

I think their significant relationships don’t have the romantic aspect to them… they definitely get you know the really, really good friendships. But I just think even right now, as much as they’d all, I’m sure, love a relationship--and they all talk about them all the time--they don’t have time for it. Just because they are so dedicated and focused they know what they want and it is kind of like their time to build their career…and not live at the office all of the time.

Nickers mentioned that this “single phenomenon” wasn’t just limited to the founders; it also seemed to apply to the other leadership within SLP.

I know there was a poll of us [SLP], for some of the people, a lot of the chapter cores or bus cores are single for the most part. And I am not sure if it is something with the time side of it…or if it is the relationship side, whether the relationships are just that good, where they don’t need anyone--a significant other of that sort.

The single phenomenon might have developed because of the depth of relationships forged among the group and those more platonic relationships meet the needs of the individuals as Nickers alludes to. The age cohort of SLP also is in the midst of what Chickering and Reisser (1993) call the vector of developing mature interpersonal relationships.

Another significant reason for this relationship challenge could be the hours the founders commit to their positions. When asked about how many hours a week, answers included: “It is probably around 55-65 or so hours per week. During October and November it was probably more (70-80). This spring will probably be a different story, because things will start to get real busy in February”; “I have no idea how many hours a week I work. I don’t really think about it”; and “I always tell people between 60-90. But, when there is programming, it is my whole day!” In reviewing the job description for a new position that will be hired soon the job description listed 50-70 hours per week as a normal expectation for working with SLP. The extraordinary number of hours committed to the organization is a sacrifice of time and subsequently other activities outside of SLP, such as dating relationships.

Along with the time commitment is the dedication to putting SLP first. Mackenzie talks about her current priorities:

The existence of the organization…that is the most important thing. And I mean that goes along with the whole Single Lonely Person thing, any guy I would date would have to know that if SLP calls, SLP gets priority. And that’s not really easy for a lot of people…

In sharing a choice she had to make between a personal event and SLP Mackenzie says: “SLP always wins out for us--over, and over, and over again. But when is it appropriate for SLP to not win out?” Of the four founders Nickers is the only founder who works outside of SLP and the only one who is in a dating relationship. As he states, “I am out of the Single Lonely Person club.”

I was at church a couple weeks ago and they were doing the annual stewardship talk and…it almost felt like they were guilting people into giving…They make it your responsibility to give, but they could have so much more energy and excitement about it. And it could be people then might want to give then, instead of feeling like they have to.

Instead, the founders attributed their giving more to attendance at a professional fundraising school they attended called the Association of Fundraising Professionals, a commitment to support others, and being inspired by those that supported SLP.

Pete goes on to say:

Giving should be fun, you know, and raising money should be fun because people should feel good about it. So I see it in a very positive light where I think a lot of people misunderstand it completely and completely miss the boat…Very few people actually see it as a fun thing to do.

When asked who they will support financially Roy said: “Student council, Youth Frontiers, mission trips--um I think I am going to make a donation to Bethel to their Vespers program-- it’s a Sunday night worship program that I went to for a long time--my church.” Pete talked about sending money to “Feed My Starving Children” and other small donations and then said:

Most of it will go to SLP…at least half of it will…I’ll probably give to my high school, my student council or Leo Club…and that will be a more significant gift …but SLP is definitely going to get most of my money.

Mackenzie makes a similar statement about supporting SLP, “Pretty much all of my time, money, resources will be contributed to either SLP or the Greek community, primarily my own sorority. Yup, everything I have goes to those two.”

This might be the business major in me, but when you invest into something you have ownership over it and you are saying that this is something that will last longer than today…Not only are you supporting the organization but support its sustainability…but I’m saying I believe in it. I vouch for this product so I would want to give and I guess in that is almost a level of thanks too.

Personal goals are infused within the organization and overlap due to strong personal convictions of the founders. Part of this can be seen in the 12 x 12 campaign which Roy and a college student named Lucas started. Lucas explained the concept:

It is a $12 commitment over a twelve month span to SLP. One of our fellow SLP describes it as just one less Starbucks coffee a week. It can really contribute to our organization and change their perception of youth and philanthropy.

When the 12 X 12 program was presented to the chapter and bus core leaders at their summer meeting, they unanimously committed to the program. Lucas explains why he believes students give to SLP, “To me that expresses trust…that people believe in the organization, that people know where their money’s going, and trust that this is going to help impact the lives of other people.”

SLP believes so strongly in this concept of philanthropy that they invested in sending three additional students to the professional fundraising training so they can help infuse this into the organization. This knowledge should serve them well because the national philanthropic community is discussing an impending ten trillion dollar intergenerational transfer of wealth in the next few years (Pierce & Johnson, 1997, p. 34). Ostrander (2007) documents the growth of donor control and the increase in venture and entrepreneurial philanthropy where “donors are closely involved in highly directive ways in the organizations they support” (p. 358). SLP is a direct beneficiary of this entrepreneurial giving as the grant they received from Social Venture Partners (SVP) falls into this category. Along with $25,000 in funds, SVP also commits personal time of some very high ranking professionals to support SLP. In what Ostrander (2007) calls “donor-controlled philanthropy” the “donor actively and intentionally determines what he or she is most interested in supporting and then sets out to create a new philanthropic project or to influence a new direction for some existing project” (p. 359).

I observed one very strong illustration of SLP inspiring philanthropy in youth while “shadowing” Pete for the day. Tyrane, a student from the charter school where SLP is located, came by and said he was raising money to feed people for Thanksgiving for Union Gospel Mission and it would cost $1.88 per person. He had met the founders at a service project they had all done together. Mackenzie gave money and then coached him “You should ask Pete to match what you might raise.” Pete asked him what he thought he would raise and he said $100 and that he had raised $35 so far. Pete said he would match up to $100 of the money he raised. Tyrane, a young African-American man who recently moved from New Jersey, said he was involved in Interact, the youth version of Rotary. Roy and Pete invited him to go to a future Rotary meeting with them. Tyrane came back proudly the next day with a battered manila envelope containing $127 he had raised. Pete said, “I think it is cool! What you are doing, it is awesome.” He then gave him a hug and a handshake.

Mackenzie took a picture of the two and said she was going to include it in the next newsletter. They asked Tyrane what he wanted to do with his life. Tyrane said, “I want to be a psychologist. I haven’t yet chosen which school. I need help with money and filling out the applications. I wasn’t going to come to school today, but I remembered that I had to come and see you.” Pete responded, “If that is what it takes to get you here, come every day. I won’t have a check for you everyday, but you can come here.” Mackenzie added, “You can do your homework here and we can help you with applications and stuff.” Tyrane said, “Put my name on every project you have going on. That felt good.” “Yeah,” Pete said, “120 people are going to eat because of you.” The founders took time to inspire a young person to do something that made him feel good. They also took time to find out about him as a person, what his dreams are and offer support.