Discover Your Public Service Identity
February 22, 2010
Brewer, Selden, and Facer, in a shockingly under-discussed academic article published in 2000, contributed to theories of public-service motivation by identifying four individual orientations. It helps to think of them as four different do-good personality types: samaritans, communitarians, patriots, and humanitarians.
If you’re a samaritan, then civic duty and public service are central to your identity. Samaritans feel good as a result of giving to others. They empathize with the underprivileged, and expect those that they help to exert effort on their own behalf. They are deeply compassionate and caring.
If you’re a communitarian, then you are dedicated to giving back to society, and especially your community. Communitarians and samaritans are most likely to help others, even when they are not paid to do so. Unlike samaritans, however, communitarians feel no special connection to the disadvantaged, and aim to give back to the community as a whole. Communitarians have high standards of public officials, and believe that the greater good means elevating entire groups of people who are in need.
If you’re a patriot, then you are fiercely loyal, and you stick to what you see needs to be done. Patriots would risk significant personal loss in the name of what they believe to be the greater good, and are drawn to problems that are much bigger than themselves. Patriots risk self-sacrifice for their beliefs and feel a strong sense of duty to the public and to themselves.
If you’re a humanitarian, then social justice is central to motivating you and you tend to think about the big picture. Humanitarians are focused more on what they consider to be fair and right. They are very responsible, and making a difference in greater society is important to them. Humanitarians have a knack for building connections and inspiring others, but are not as likely to work without compensation as a Samaritan or a Communitarian.
.
For fun– and justified by the fact that the Myer-Briggs Personality Test was actually created by an ordinary housewife who was trying to understand her son-in-law– I’ve put together an unscientific personality test to help you identify your public-service motivation identity according to Brewer, Selden and Facer. This test assumes that you are motivated by ideals of public service. If you are taking this test and none of these answers apply to you, chances are you do not run strongly on public service motivation.
Count how many S, C, P, and Hs with which you identify:
1) If you were a superhero, you’d consider yourself to be the guardian of:
A) the community (C)
B) the greater good (P)
C) social justice (H)
D) the underprivileged (S)
2) You are most driven by the thought of making positive changes for:
A) all of mankind (H)
B) the nation as a whole (P)
C) entire communities (C)
D) other individuals (S)
3. Would you continue to serve citizens if you were not compensated?
A) Absolutely. I know that even one person can make a difference– and I’m going to do it. (S)
B) Yes. Giving back is very important to me. (C)
C) Maybe. To work without payment, I’d have to be 100% dedicated to the cause. (P)
D) Probably not. It takes a lot of resources to contribute in the way that I want to. I also need to make sure my basic needs are met in order to be most innovative. (H)
4) Which of these projects sounds most interesting to you:
A) developing a network of contacts to seek assistance for a variety of social causes. These contacts will help spearhead a food pantry, winter coat distribution, and a school bus safety check. (H)
B) after losing a loved one to a brutal murder, you’d start a nonprofit to provide emotional support and advocacy for victims of crime. Your service would help make changes in laws that have give victims a stronger presence in the legal process. (P)
C) personally making shoes for the homeless and getting your friends to help, too. Together you can help out over 1200 homeless men and women! (S)
D) Turning around a community that is in shambles. You’ll work to establish after school and off-site tutoring, culture, and sports initiatives and work with the state to establish the county’s first special programs for at risk students. (C)
5) Which of these public servants do you most admire?
A) Mother Teresa (S)
B) Martin Luther King Jr (P)
C) Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey (H)
D) Abraham Lincoln (C)
Mostly S- You’re a samaritan.
Mostly C- You’re a communitarian.
Mostly P- You’re a patriot.
Mostly H- You’re a humanitarian.
.
Please feel free to share your public service identity in the comments section. It would be interesting to get a sense of which is the most/least common orientation among contemporary leaders. (I am a communitarian).
.
Note: The information in this post relies heavily on information from these three academic articles.
Decline of the MBA, Increase in Social Good?
January 5, 2010
In November, The Economist wrote an article predicting the decline of the MBA in 2010. It calls the MBA a mythical cupid attracting the nation’s best and brightest to a less than respectable academic discipline. “The decline of the MBA will cut off the supply of bullshit at its source,” the article reads.
The recession is pin-pointed as the catalyst for this change, as MBA graduates emerge with few opportunities and “nowhere exciting to go” for the second year running. After 2009, the banking rep is not all that it used to be– and five of the top ten best-performing American CEOs in 2009 didn’t have MBAs at all (including number one: Steve Jobs).
Harsh as these assessments may be, the decline of the MBA just makes sense. After all, the world continues to move. For about 20 years in American history, it was good to be a farmer. Then, it was good to work in the automotive industry. Then (and perhaps ending now), it was good to have an MBA. We’re all dreaming bigger, and even this progression outlines the American desire to climb the economic ladder.
So, I’ve been thinking: What if this decline is a good thing? What if it’s one of the best things for social change? I’m not a hater of the MBA. On the contrary, I’ve considered getting one and my own degree is in management. Nonetheless, here are five positive changes that may result as the status of the MBA declines:
.
1) We’ll need heightened creativity and community engagement in order to succeed.
We’ve learned that you don’t need an MBA to be successful in business. Our nation’s most successful entrepreneurs are known for thinking outside of the box, not for following a hierarchical system. If the MBA is no longer the passport to success, we’ll let our creative juices flow until the next thing arises. Great things could happen. But, as we watch Pepsi step back from fancy Super Bowl commericals in order to engage and support the community, and as the onset of the social media revolution has us building communities online, signs point to a possible continuing increase in community engagement.
.
2) There will be a re-vamp of the MBA program that may result in an emphasis in social good.
Business schools, like all schools, want to attract students in order to make money and continue growing their programs. If less people are becoming interested in an MBA, the programs will have to evolve in order to meet the changing needs of society (this is much like what is going on right now in museum studies graduate programs). MBA programs may incorporate more classes in law, policy, or social work– whatever it is that is trending and may make them successful. The result? More well-rounded (or perhaps more specialized) MBA candidates. The academic approach involved in the MBA will change– and if they follow current trends in corporate social responsibility and Gen Y’s desire to make a difference, these programs may focus increasingly on social good.
.
3) More left-brained thinkers will go into socially beneficial occupations.
As the Economist article states, there’s been a glamour associated with majoring in economics or business, and in obtaining an MBA. But with that glamour diminished, left-brained folks may not have such a clear path to success. In short, we may have more left-brained thinkers using their talents to cure cancer rather than trying to make Mr. Moneybags an extra couple thousand dollars on the trading floor (social vs. individual benefit). Also, we could really use more math and science teachers.
.
4) There will be attention given to other sectors.
Studies have shown that where Generation X dreamed of working for big businesses, members of Generation Y are flocking to Teach for America, the PeaceCorps, and jobs in the public sector. In fact, Generation Y is thought to distrust big businesses and they have been called a generation of civil servants. This fact, combined with the decrease in glamor associated with the MBA, may shift national focus to the many important jobs to be done in the public and nonprofit sectors.
.
5) A different bottom line may arise (or qualitative outputs will be more easily understood).
I’m not even going to hint that money doesn’t make the world go ’round in many ways but, if there’s an increasing focus on the public sector, there’ll be an increasing focus on program evaluation– and money may not be the most obvious bottom line for the average American. The public and private sector are struggling with regard to measuring social impact, and they are feeling the pressure to measure social benefit in some quantitative way. If there’s a shift toward social good, they’ll be more understanding of public and nonprofit sectors, and this public understanding will allow nonprofits to function more efficiently (it may be socially acceptable to pay nonprofit CEOs competitive salaries without high administration costs preventing them from obtaining grants). In short, the decline of the MBA will change the landscape of the private sector, and the landscape may become more leveled with public and nonprofit sectors. What we know of business– chasing money above all else and using it as the primary bottom line– may be challenged.
*Photo credits: Salvatore Vuono
Weighing Outputs: Measuring Social Impact in Museums and Nonprofits
November 18, 2009
Photo from hollis333.wordpress.com
Since writing my last post, I’ve done a bit more thinking about our most recent prompt within the Nonprofit Millennial Bloggers Alliance: How do you measure social impact? Check out some of the responses so far. Don’t forget to follow us on twitter and add your 2 cents by using the tag #NMBA.
Evidence-based policy is not the only thing compelling museums and community centers to come up with some sort of accurate measure of social impact. Donors want to know where their money is going. How is the museum elevating the community? What is the impact of museum programs and exhibits?
…But how do you measure the unmeasurable? Perhaps a certain interactive exhibit at a science center inspired the spark that will fuel a young girl to become a paleoanthropologist in 15 years. How do we measure that– and how do we even know if that spark took place at all?
It makes sense that we have a tendency to focus primarily on outputs (clients served or number of programs performed) rather than outcomes (desired goals) in museum environments. According to Hill and Lynn in Public Management: a Three-Dimentional Approach,
“Outputs may be the only type of measure available, as outcomes may not be available until well after management decisions have been made. The question, then, is to what extent output measures actually correspond to outcome measures?”
Measuring solely outputs in museum environments (especially in regard to community engagement), provides an immediate advantage and a long-term disadvantage in attracting donors. Let’s examine, for example, the fact that the typical output measurement tends to be how many people participate in a program or community engagement event (let’s say that’s 50 people). Our desired outcome is a sparked interest in a certain subject matter (let’s say that 10 years after their visit, 5 people still remember the program and have taken classes in the subject matter, engaged friends in the subject, or passed along the lessons they learned during the program to their children).
Output reporting advantage: The museum may report to donors that 50 people participated in the program. That is 50 potential sparks. The amount reported here is not the amount of people who retained the lessons learned in the program (which we won’t know until years later), but rather the maximum amount of people who could have been sparked by the subject matter during the program.
Output reporting disadvantage: While reporting the output (50 people) may look impressive to higher-level management and potential donors at the time of an annual report, the knowledge of the true outcome of the program (that it altered the lives of 5 individuals in a positive way) is more impressive than the fact that 50 people merely participated. Moreover, the outcome could grow past the amount of original participants if those sparked share their knowledge and with others.
Though output reporting provides an immediate advantage that often proves inaccurate several years down the road (for better or worse), we often have no other choice but to measure outputs because outcomes are not available to us immediately. As more and more museums, nonprofits, and community centers are encouraged to measure social impact through outputs, the old saying still rings true: quality is greater than quantity. It’s possible that outcomes may far exceed (even impressive) outputs.
Social Change is Sector Agnostic- and Gen-Yers Know It
October 31, 2009
photo from http://glenkirk.blogspot.com
Consider this situation: an elderly family member asks for your help in choosing between two nursing homes. Both appear to be equal in quality and service, but one is for-profit and the other is nonprofit. Which nursing home do you pick?
You may draw on a few assumptions based on what you know about corporations and organizations, and weigh them with your priorities. For instance, maybe you’d choose the for-profit home because it may go the extra mile to make residents happy to keep a competitive edge in the market. On the other hand, maybe you’ll consider the nonprofit home, concluding that better care will be provided by front-line individuals choosing to work in the nonprofit sector. But can you really be sure of any of these sector-based assumptions?
Professor James Ferris posed this question during a recent Nonprofit Policy and Management class within the University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning, and Development, and our class reached the inevitable conclusion:
Sometimes our choices are sector agnostic; we just want to go with the corporation or organization that can best get the job done.
87% of Americans between the ages of 18-39 believe that one person can help change the world- and these folks (mostly Gen Y-ers) sense the artificial divide between sectors. According to the New Sector Alliance—which was founded in 2002 to create solutions to community challenges through cross-sector partnerships– the rise of sector agnostic methods places new demands on institutions across sectors to modify their strategies. Why? Because the next generation of leaders themselves are increasingly sector agnostic.
501(c)(3) status is not required in order to instigate social change, and as social enterprises and social entrepreneurship increase, the values and practices of public, private, and nonprofit sectors meld together, strengthening alliances and just plain getting the job done.
The American Dream has been highly connected to the successes in the private sector and so has entrpreneurship, but a 1999 survey shows that where Gen X college seniors dreamed of working for Microsoft and Cisco, Gen Y college seniors prefer work within the State Department, Teach for America, and the Peace Corps. Is this a problem for a country built on the entrepreneurial spirit? Apparently not. Increasing numbers of Gen Yers are going for social change with fresh ideas, proving that a preference toward big government does not mean less entrepreneurship.
This article has some great statistics on Gen Y’s entrepreneurial spirit:
- Half of all new college graduates now believe that self-employment is more secure than a full-time job.
- Today, 80% of the colleges and universities in the U.S. now offer courses on entrepreneurship.
- 60% of Gen Y business owners consider themselves to be serial entrepreneurs, according to Inc. magazine.
- 18- to 24-year-olds are starting companies at a faster rate than 35- to 44-year-olds.
- And 70% of today’s high schoolers intend start their own companies, according to a Gallup poll.
These statistics, combined with Gen Y’s perceived altruism and their desire to develop a sense of where they fit within a global context, outline their interest- also- in the public sector. The combination of Gen Y’s key traits, which connect strongly and equally to both the public and private sector, possibly point toward a growing sector agnosticism.
Gen Yers interested in social change may become leaders who opt for solutions that represent a mix in for-profit and nonprofit practices, such as social entrepreneurship, instigating nonprofit commercial activity, and creating social enterprises. One thing’s for sure: the focus will be on getting the job done- regardless of sector.
How Personal Branding is Hurting Nonprofit Organizations
September 3, 2009
Photo from trendbouwers.nl
At first thought, personal branding and the strength of nonprofit organizations appear to have little to do with one another, if anything. However, the Nonprofit Time’s recent article, “Americans Cut Volunteer Time, Focus on Priorities” may hint indirectly at the existence of an inverse relationship between self-focused activities (personal branding is what comes to my mind) and volunteering in nonprofit organizations– at least for the time being.
The article indicates that, compared to last year, 72 percent of Americans report having cut back the time they spend volunteering and have focused their efforts on activities that fulfill more “inward” personal needs; activities that support themselves and their own families more than the community at large.
How is it possible that the number of volunteers may have decreased? Throughout the Summer, weren’t we all inundated with blog entries aimed toward the recently unemployed, encouraging them to volunteer to continue utilizing their skill sets? There were even articles at the start of the recession touting an increase in volunteers. Moreover, the idea of volunteering during a recession to make contacts and stay on top of your field seems to just make sense.
Though they could both be seen as vehicles for self-marketing during a rough time in the economy, volunteering is the “outward” method (promoting yourself through aid to the community) and personal branding is the “inward” method.
I cannot imagine that people are sitting at home thinking, “I’m going to create a personal brand instead of volunteering this year!” At least I hope that the connection is not that strong. But I do think it’s interesting that, at a time when self-branding is so important, the “outward” method of doing so has decreased. As a side, I’d be interested to learn how much personal branding has increased in the last year. How much of that may be due to the recession– and for the same reasons that might have ignited an increase in volunteerism?
Does our need to “focus on priorities” right now really necessitate a decrease in civic engagement as the Nonprofit Times article suggests? Perhaps this is all about self-marketing, and personal branding just beat out volunteering as a self-marketing tool during the recession. This does not, however, account for the potential decrease in volunteers since this time last year.
It’s clear, though, that social networks are not the bad guy here. The study found that Millennials who use online social networks are more likely than non-users to volunteer, give food and money, and attend public meetings. Though it’s stated that the survey did not conclude that social networks alone promote more civic engagement, there’s certainly a fondness for the computer-savvy generation indicated in the article when David Smith states that, “what [Millennials willing to aid the community and having the highest volunteer rates] shows is that the youngest amongst us are truly this next greatest civic generation. They are coming to age in a very difficult time economically and globally.”
As a strong supporter of the power of personal branding, and an admittedly stronger supporter of civic engagement, I cannot help but wonder: would volunteering continue to increase during the recession (in large part due to it’s self-marketing power) if personal branding did not take off?
Finding and Hiring Generation Y Nonprofit Leaders
July 20, 2009
Here’s an interesting tidbit: According to a 2006 study by The Bridgespan Group, the nonprofit industry will need to attract and develop an estimated 640,000 new senior managers over the next decade in order to fill the upcoming leadership deficit in nonprofit organizations. That’s is 2.4 times the number of senior managers currently employed in nonprofit organizations! As a result, the ongoing dialogues about how to attract and retain the best Generation Y leaders are in full force within nonprofit organizations and institutions.
At the same time, I cannot help but notice the buzz about unemployment rates and getting hired that has consumed conversation by young professionals on my social networks. Recession permitting, this supply and demand may fair well for folks interested in nonprofit work: there’s a need to hire and begin training young leaders, and there’s also a need for young leaders to be hired right now.
What effect will the upcoming nonprofit leadership deficit have on the priorities of current nonprofit hiring managers looking for Gen Y leaders? Will standards lower in the near future because we need a large number of young leaders? Will standards rise because of the great potential that may be offered within the industry? I wonder if the qualifications distinguishing Gen Y nonprofit leaders, in particular, from other members of the generation will change.
I am not a hiring manager, and I haven’t had my hand in more than picking department interns in a nonprofit organization. Now that I’ve clarified this fact, here are a few resume-weeding behaviors that I would exercise, if I were a hiring manager, to aid in identifying effective Gen Y nonprofit leaders:
.
1. Operation: Find the Jack of All Trades (by starting with the resume)
Versatility and a passion for an organization’s mission are key attributes in every successful nonprofit leader that I’ve met. With the limited resources common to most nonprofit organizations, it takes a Jack of all trades to be a true leader. While a focused background in sales my be ideal for someone applying to a corporate sales job, an employee in a nonprofit organization with a position in development may be called upon to lead efforts in event planning, membership sales, and other donor-related projects. The “that’s not my job” mentality doesn’t carry over in nonprofit organizations; everyone works together to promote the organization’s mission. They must be creative and capable leaders specializing in a little bit of everything– and a qualified applicant’s resume should reflect this. To the detriment of hiring managers, however, versatility and (especially) passion are very easy to fake in a cover letter. Someone can easily say that they are dedicated to a thought or idea, but those who are truly dedicated will have that dedication threaded through their past experiences. You don’t really need a cover letter to identify key qualities; they should shine through on a resume. In fact, if I were a nonprofit hiring manager, I wouldn’t want to see a cover letter at all (unless perhaps it looked like this). That having been said, cover letters are still very important to employers so please include one… at least until this post sweeps the nation and singlehandedly alters the world of nonprofit hiring practices.
.
2. Value education or someone who says, “I like this field so much that I choose to learn about it in my free time”
“Well- educated” is a trait that has been strongly identified with members of Generation Y, and the leaders that I’ve come across are exactly that way (link tip from this blog). I don’t want to at all imply that higher education makes a person better fit for a job, taking priority over work experience. What I do mean to say is that a candidate’s educational background is important. For one, a young person’s alma mater most likely had a tremendous impact on the way that a young employee thinks (perhaps I am biased because I feel so strongly influenced my own alma mater). In regard to education related to the field, a candidate following their industry outside of normal working hours displays a genuine interest in their industry. The willingness to sit down outside of one’s job and learn a thing or two about the industry in a formal learning environment by attending conferences, seminars, or by pursuing a professional certification or a master’s degree, demonstrates a powerful willingness to learn and– as a bonus– helps shed that silly “lazy, selfish, and demanding” rep that we’ve been getting lately.
A strong undergraduate education contributes to versatility, and I found myself summoning tidbits from my college courses nearly every day at work. In a single day at Pacific Science Center, I would be called upon to discuss the threat of science illiteracy with visitors, create a bond with a donor over a mutual love for The Great Gatsby (hey, whatever works), and figure out how to orchestrate an interactive and scientifically-sound States of Matter Triathlon for kids (true story).
.
3. Uncover personal interests that can contribute to the organization
It’s said that Generation Y, more so than other generations, gains self-worth in ways not necessarily related to their jobs. Generation Y also has a reputation for appreciating a healthy work-life balance. This could mean that hobbies, talents, and abilities pertaining to things outside of the workplace are generally important to this generation. Asking about outside interests may uncover qualities that candidates can bring to the organization. Better yet, perhaps members of generation Y should be straightforward about our tech savvy smarts and the unconventional skills that we can offer our employer. In a past post, I mentioned that I’ve had the opportunity to utilize the unique talents of coworkers in order to contribute to the betterment of my organization. I think outside interests– or rather, an interest in something outside of work– is a critical attribute in a creative leader with a fresh perspective. I think nonprofit hiring managers should look for personal interests that will contribute to the talents of the collective group, and open doors for resourcefulness within the organization.
I’d love to hear your thoughts about how you think the leadership deficit, combined with the number of Gen Y-ers looking for jobs, will effect the go-to qualities valued by nonprofit hiring managers. Making this list also brought up questions for me about the different qualifications for a good nonprofit leader verses the makings of an effective leader in the private sector.
On Nudge, by Thaler and Sunstein
July 12, 2009
Photo from www.nudges.org
I came across Nudge; Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness in the bookstore at The University of Chicago under a large sign reading, “University Affiliated Authors.” Ian was immediately drawn to it and kept telling me that it was the perfect book for my interests. He does not share my passion for public administration, and though he and I did love the constant references to our favorite locations and the practices of our alma mater, Nudge is a book that everyone can enjoy.
I absolutely recommend this book for anyone interested in public administration, public policy, government, human behavior, and collective human welfare.
The back of the book states, “Nudge is a book about choices– how we make them and how we’re led to make better ones.” That may sound dull or ambiguous to some, but this is the kind of book that you simply cannot read while you’re around another person, because it is filled with interesting and often surprising research that makes you want to turn to somebody immediately and say, “I bet you didn’t know…”
“Authors Richard H. Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein offer a new perspective on how to prevent the countless bad mistakes we make in our lives– including ill-advised personal investments, consumption of unhealthy foods, neglect of our natural resources, and other numerous bad decisions regarding health care, our families, and education. Citing decades of cutting-edge behavioral science research, they demonstrate that sensible “choice architecture” can successfully nudge people toward the best decision without restricting tier freedom of choice. Terrifically straightforward, informative, and often very entertaining, this book is a must read for anyone with an interest in our individual and collective well-being.”
At large, the book is about choices (as mentioned), but it is also about libertarian paternalism. It asks big questions about how choice architects (those people who choose where food is placed in the cafeteria, or the default settings for our retirement plans, or whose name should appear first on a presidential ballot) should go about making the choices that they make and how they effect our collective behavior. Thaler and Sunstein remind us that there are several small and large “nudges” that companies and the government can give to people to help them make wiser choices. As we know from experience though, not all choice architects have the one’s well-being in mind. For instance, it is often the case that once you sign up to receive a free magazine, you are kept on the mailing list long after the promotion is over, and you find yourself paying for these issues later. Until you have the energy to call the magazine and request to be taken off of the list, you’ll be paying for these magazines. Due to pure inertia, several individuals stay on these lists for much longer than they’d intended- if they had intended to pay for the magazine subscription at all!
Here are five sneak-peak studies and thoughts relating to nudges, from Nudge. All of these ideas are directly from the book, and the research behind them is cited there. These are intended to be quick tidbits to whet your appetite for this perspective-changing book. For more information on these points, read the book or check out the Nudge website.
1. There is a stretch of Lake Shore Drive in Chicago, where the road makes a series of S-turns. Many drivers ignored the reduced speed limit during this stretch of the road, and were in danger of wiping out on the curves. In order to battle this problem, the City of Chicago used a small visual nudge: “at the beginning of the dangerous curve, drivers encounter a sign painted on the road warning of a lower speed limit, and then a series of white stripes painted onto the road… When the stripes first appear, they are evenly spaced, but as drivers reach the most dangerous portion of the curve, the stripes get closer together, giving the sensation that driving speed is increasing. One’s natural instinct is to slow down” (39). There’s even a great aerial shot of Lake Shore Drive in the book, depicting these unevenly-spaced white lines. These white lines are nudges.
2. Thaler and Sunstein make the distinction between two types of thinking in human beings: the Automatic System (immediate, instinctive doer) and the Reflective System (deliberate, self-conscious planner). To illustrate the difference between the two systems, Thaler and Sunstein show you 3 seemingly-simple math questions that you’ll, most likely, answer incorrectly due to your Automatic System taking over; our brains take the short-cut and believe to have the correct answer without taking the time to utilize our Reflective System. The authors comment on our relationships with our own Automatic and Reflective systems. For instance, it is often our Automatic System that gives into temptation and decides to eat a cookie just hours after after our Reflective System aided us in constructing a healthier diet. Nudges are sometimes aimed to help make healthy decisions more automatic.
3. Nudge sites several behavioral research studies that illustrate our incredible tendency to follow the herd, and brings up questions about how to positively influence that heard. Here’s one of the many examples that I found interesting: It’s no secret that our eating habits are influenced by those around us. “On average, those who eat with one other person eat about 35 percent more then they do when they are alone; members of a group of four eat about 75 percent more; those in groups of seven or more eat 96 percent more” (64).
4. Here’s an example of a positive nudge used to decrease energy use in San Marcos, California: residents in three hundred households were informed of their energy use in relation to other houses in the neighborhood. “Households that consumed more than the norm received an unhappy ‘emoticon’, whereas those that consumed less than the norm received a happy emoticon” (70). The largest energy consumers showed a much bigger decrease in consumption when they received the negative visual emoticon than energy users who were only told of their high energy usage. But the fact remains that when their household usage (with or without emoticons) was reported to them in the context of comparing them to their neighbors’ energy usage, the individual household decreased its energy consumption.
5. Wording of options– and wording in general– are other avenues for utilizing nudges. There are several examples of this in the book, but this one is straightforward: In regard to charities, “people will give more if the options are $100, $250, $1,000, and $5,000 than if the options are $50, $75, $100, and $150” (24).
These rather straight-forward insights into nudging don’t even begin to approach the bigger issues tackled in the book, such as mortgages, health care, loans, marriage and education. As I mentioned, libertarian paternalism plays a large role in the book; nudges can be used to help people make better choices, but it does not force people into anything. Individuals at all times maintain their freedom and do not need to– say, slow down on Lake Shore Drive– but, for those tuned in to the radio and their Automatic Systems, some aid is offered to avoid a potentially-dangerous situation.
