Professional Identity and the Determinants of Fundraisers’ Charitable Behavior

Abstract

This survey-based study (n = 1,663) addressed charitable behaviors of fundraisers—key arbiters of others’ donations. Our research question was as follows: Are fundraisers’ charitable behaviors related to their professional identity? We found several anticipated differences in giving and volunteering behaviors (and their social determinants) in comparison with the general public and the influence of some fundraising-specific variables. Nearly all the fundraisers gave time and money and were more like one another than the public. On average, they gave more money and donated a higher salary share than the typical household. They volunteered at a higher rate and, excluding outliers, more hours than the average American. We contend that fundraiser charitable behavior and professional identity are interwoven. The professional norms regarding personal philanthropy may also be influenced through the self-selection of the inherently philanthropic into fundraising. Future research should examine formation of fundraiser professional identity and its outcomes more broadly.

Keywords

fundraising fundraisers professional identity determinants of philanthropy volunteerism

Introduction

Fundraising is a common and growing nonprofit occupation with 148,000 individuals at work in the field (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016-2017; Nonprofit HR, 2016). It is fair to say that fundraisers are essential members of the nonprofit workforce, responsible for building philanthropic support through annual giving, major giving, and planned giving strategies—and for administering the identification, cultivation, solicitation, and stewardship components of the fundraising cycle (Aldrich, 2016). They mediate the relationships between donors and nonprofit organizations and as such are an important, if little understood, element in the gift-giving process (Breeze, 2017). Despite the many examinations of the antecedents of charitable behavior (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011a, 2011b; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Proper & Caboni, 2014; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012), the fundraiser’s role in the process is often excluded from analyses—to the disadvantage of theory and practice alike (Breeze, 2017; Shaker & Nathan, 2017).

As nonprofit employees, fundraisers are expected to be committed to organizational missions and to serve the public good (Aldrich, 2016; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Rosso, 2016). It is said that fundraisers must be donors themselves in order to advocate honestly and effectively for philanthropy. Indeed, the Association of Fundraising Professionals’ (AFP, 1964) code of ethical standards lists personal giving as an indicator of fundraisers’ commitment to philanthropy. If fundraising is “the gentle art of teaching the joy of giving” (Rosso, 2016, p. 5), fundraisers should also be well versed in this act personally as an expression of who they are professionally. But are they? To find out, we examined the giving and volunteering behaviors of fundraisers through the lens of professional identity—the set of characteristics, experiences, values, and motives by which individuals understand themselves as workers in specialized occupations (Benveniste, 1987; Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Our research question was as follows: Are fundraisers’ charitable behaviors related to their professional identity? We hypothesized that fundraisers would give and volunteer differently than the general public and that there would be variation from the established social determinants of charitable behavior. We expected aspects of fundraisers’ professional experience to be salient in predicting their philanthropic activities.

To test these hypotheses and to address the general void in the literature, we surveyed fundraisers (n = 1,663), asking them to respond to a variety of questions about their career and educational journeys, personal and occupational demographics, perceptions of the field, and responsibilities and behaviors. We analyzed social determinants of giving at the micro-level (e.g., individual demographics and professionalizing experiences) and meso-level (e.g., employment demographics and occupational perceptions) (Barman, 2017). We confirmed a number of hypotheses at both levels, discovering differences from the general public and the influence of some fundraising-specific variables. We found that nearly all the fundraisers gave and the vast majority volunteered—generously so—making them more philanthropic than the typical American. We contend that fundraiser charitable behavior and professional identity are interwoven and that there are professional norms regarding personal philanthropy. These norms and the fundraisers’ professional identity may be influenced through the self-selection of the inherently philanthropic into fundraising. Several unexpected findings suggest limitations to our approach, making it clear that more research is required regarding the formation of the fundraisers’ professional identity and its outcomes, including philanthropic ones.

Review of Literature and Theory

Professional Identity and Fundraisers

Like other workers, fundraisers form a professional identity through which they make sense of their position and perspective within the fundraising occupation (Benveniste, 1987; Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Professional identities are socially constructed and are affected by relational influences in the current workplace, past workplaces, and the larger occupational environment (Arthur, 2008; Hall, 2002). An identity is constituted from the meanings developed from self-perceptions and others’ perceptions of a person (Gecas & Burke, 1995). Social identity encompasses relevant group classifications formed through belonging in a human aggregate (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Professional identities are thought to be formed in various ways including as a response in times of career transition (Ibarra, 1999; Nicholson, 1984), via activities such as reflection or self-evaluation that may affect perceptions (Cooper & Olson, 1996), and through personal and work experiences that shape individuals’ self-knowing (Schein, 1978; Tickle, 2000). As people determine their work identities through negotiation with themselves and others, they are socialized to fit with their work environment and occupational expectations (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Hall, 1987; Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Professional identity, therefore, is not a static condition but rather a “relational phenomenon” that changes over time (Beijaard et al., 2004). Individuals’ life experiences clarify priorities and self-knowledge and can influence professional identity (Schein, 1978; Trede et al., 2012). Individuals’ professional social identities, in turn, influence how they make decisions, interact with others, and communicate, among other work-oriented behaviors (Ashforth & Mael, 1989).

Some have studied professional identity using qualitative methods such as narrative analysis (Levin & Shaker, 2011; Slay & Smith, 2011) and story analysis (Barge & Hackett, 2003). Others have used quantitative, survey methods to examine behavioral outcomes, for example, between professional identity and burnout/intention to leave the occupation (Gaziel, 1995), and mixed methods, for example, to study the connection between personal and professional self-concepts and to discover understandings of professional values and meanings (Fagermoen, 1997). An approach in the research on professional identity is to establish the characteristics of a particular occupation’s identity (i.e., Beijaard et al., 2004). Researchers have explored the professional identity of teachers, academics, medical students, nurses, lawyers, and journalists (i.e., Deuze, 2005; Pratt et al., 2006; Trede et al., 2012). Notably, the studies use a broad range of undergirding frameworks rather than a single theory, suggesting that the concept of professional identity and its components, causes, and outcomes, is ripe for further exploration (Trede et al., 2012). Despite researchers’ findings regarding the diverse sources of professional identity, some studies focus on professional identity development as almost exclusively internally devised and individually shaped (Trede et al., 2012). In contrast, one study compared nonprofit and for-profit managers; it suggested that the former followed a “situated model of nonprofit management” in which managers drew simultaneously on their nonprofit cultural identities and their professional identities as managers (Barge & Hackett, 2003), indicating the importance of broader “management” conceptions for these nonprofit employees. Ultimately, the researchers concluded that nonprofit management behavior was an outcome of combined personal, professional, and cultural identities—suggesting individuals’ experiences in a variety of contexts influenced workplace-oriented actions.

Research on the professional and occupational identities of fundraisers is limited, often centered within higher education and focused on individual characteristics as manifest in the workplace (Shaker & Nathan, 2017). The personal traits and skills of successful fundraisers are the focus of the preponderance of studies (Breeze, 2017), with select exceptions. Meisenbach (2008) used communication theory to study how fundraisers negotiated their occupational identities (n = 18), providing an example of how professional identity is fluid and situation-specific. Meisenbach’s fundraisers used multiple discursive frames (financial, relational, educational, mission, coordination, and magical framing) to make sense of their identities and tensions arose among the modes of understanding. Caboni (2010) examined the normative aspect of professional identity in higher education fundraising through a questionnaire (n = 295) with actions arranged in value-based categories (e.g., honesty, integrity, and duty), finding a number of admonitory norms and inviolable norms.

Fundraisers use these norms as bellwethers as they complete their central charge: connecting donors (and potential donors) with charitable causes and building support for nonprofit organizations (Worth, 2016). Although this seems a noble pursuit, the fundraising occupational landscape is plagued by debate over whether fundraising should be accorded professional status, burdened with poor perceptions, and stuck with reputational stereotypes as being sales-like (in a negative way; Aldrich, 2016; Bloland, 2002; Bloland & Tempel, 2004; Breeze, 2017; Carbone, 1986; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Meisenbach & Jones, 2003; Tempel & Beem, 2002; Thelin & Trollinger, 2014; Worth, 2016). Nonprofit organizations, fundraisers, and professional associations seek to counter a damaging narrative that treats fundraising as a business enterprise rather than a social exchange constructed on values and moral commitment (Harrah-Conforth & Borsos, 1991; Worth, 2016). The business-centric view dominates the public milieu and perpetuates the perspective that fundraising lacks legitimacy and professional standards (Breeze & Jollymore, 2017). Fundraising associations and proponents, however, contend the values-based perspective on the fundraising process better aligns with philanthropic purposes and goals (Rosso, 2016). As is expected of other professionals, fundraisers should be guided by an “ethic of public service” (Sullivan, 2005, p. 4) in their professional and personal lives. One expression of a commitment to public service (or the public good) is philanthropic attitudes and behavior. Studying the “social determinants” or drivers of giving and volunteering among fundraisers in particular could provide new insights into their occupational inclinations.

Social Determinants of Giving and Study Hypotheses

In this study, we used a common sociological strategy for exploring social determinants of giving and grouped our dependent variables of interest as micro-level and meso-level factors (Barman, 2017). Micro-level factors explain individual philanthropic behaviors/acts through characteristics, traits, and attributes of donors (Barman, 2017). Meso-level factors indicate that giving is influenced by individuals’ relational ties and experiences. We proposed that the professional identity theory could affect the manifestation of micro- and meso-level determinants of fundraisers’ giving and volunteering (see Figure 1). Given the large number of variables, we did not test for all interaction effects, but we did examine the interactions between giving and volunteering for our sample and compare it with the U.S. population. The next section is organized around hypotheses informed by philanthropic giving research, professional identity theory, and occupational knowledge.

Figure 1.

Proposed nomological net of fundraiser giving and volunteering.

Micro-level factors

In examining micro-level factors, we sorted our variables of interest by personal demographics and occupational experiences. Based on the notion that fundraisers’ charitable behaviors may be a manifestation of professional identity, we expected to see less differentiation among fundraisers than the general public stemming from demographics and more differentiation due to occupation-specific, professionalizing experiences.

Personal demographics

The well-established literature of micro-level determinants of philanthropic behaviors includes our variables of interest: gender, race, age, and education (Barman, 2017; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Perhaps because of the importance of values in philanthropic decision-making, women appear to be more charitably inclined than men, though men have been found to give more in some studies (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Women are also significantly more likely to volunteer (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Taniguchi, 2006). In prior research about fundraisers, men were found to give a larger income share than women, and women volunteered more than men (Duronio & Tempel, 1997). Today, fundraising is a female-dominated field (although men are prevalent in the highest positions) that hinges on tasks and a values-based identity often associated with “women’s work” (AFP, 2016; Dale, 2017). As such, men who choose fundraising may be more inclined to be donors and women may be inclined to give more because generous behavior is expected (Breeze, 2017). This suggests that male and female fundraisers may behave similarly to one another but differently than male and female donors in general.

Hypothesis 1a (H1a): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of gender.

The majority of U.S. fundraisers are Caucasian (AFP, 2016). In charitable giving research, Caucasians are more likely to give than other racial groups (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Yet, when other factors are controlled (i.e., income and education) this effect disappears in several studies (Rooney et al., 2005; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012), making it difficult to draw conclusions about the effect of race on philanthropy. Caucasians also volunteer at a rate higher than other ethnic groups (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016). One foundational study found that African American employees spent more time grappling with the development of their professional identity (throughout their careers) than did their Caucasian peers (Dickens & Dickens, 1982). This may result in differences in affirmed behaviors among professionals (Slay & Smith, 2011), but too little is known to make a directional prediction. We, therefore, did not expect race to be a differentiating factor in fundraiser giving.

Hypothesis 1b (H1b): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of race/ethnicity.

Differences in age and generational cohorts are typical in philanthropic behavioral studies (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b). According to most research, as individuals age, giving increases in likelihood until the time of retirement; other studies have also found that people also give more money as they age (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b). A number of studies concluded that retirees are more likely to volunteer than individuals who work full-time (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Taniguchi, 2012); those in middle age with demanding family requirements volunteer less (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Professional identity formation occurs throughout one’s employment experience (Beijaard et al., 2004); therefore, we predicted fundraising giving will be unaffected by age.

Hypothesis 1c (H1c): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of age.

The literature of philanthropic giving is unambiguous in positively associating higher levels of educational attainment with higher probabilities of giving and of giving larger amounts (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b). Likewise, a number of studies concluded that more educated people are more likely to volunteer (Musick & Wilson, 2008). Fundraisers may align with these well-supported findings. However, there are few academic degree programs that include fundraising courses or components, which would contribute explicitly to these individuals’ professional identity formation. Thus, our expectation was that unlike the public, fundraisers’ giving and volunteering will not relate to their educational level.

Hypothesis 1d (H1d): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of educational level.

Professionalizing experiences

In Duronio and Tempel’s (1997) study, 96% of the respondents gave to charitable purposes and 82% volunteered; these percentages were notably higher than among the general public (72% donated and 51% volunteered). The female fundraisers contributed between 3.0% and 6.1% of income, the male fundraisers gave 3.8% to 7.2%, both contributed more than the general public (2.2% of income). The women volunteered 17.5 hr monthly and the men volunteered 16.4 hr, less than the average American who volunteered 18 hr monthly (Duronio & Tempel, 1997). Today, we know that participation in the paid labor market is generally associated with less volunteering (Taniguchi, 2012), echoing the findings about fundraisers. Volunteering and giving are sometimes positively associated, although at times the differences disappear when controls are applied (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). One study found that volunteering more hours per month was associated with giving a higher proportion of one’s income (Schervish & Havens, 1997).

Experts on the fundraising occupation agree that ethical practice requires commitment to philanthropy’s “moral values” (Aldrich, 2016; Breeze, 2017; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Rosso, 2016; Worth, 2016) and as professionals (or aspiring professionals) need to serve the public (Sullivan, 2005). One’s professional identity is influenced by, among other things, the stated norms of a field or work group and one’s alignment with those expectations (Mitchell & Boyle, 2015). This implies that fundraisers will have strong occupational motivations to give and volunteer to accompany their personal motives, distinguishing them from the general public. Moreover, fundraising has become more cohesive as an occupation over the past 20 years (Aldrich, 2016) leading us to expect them to give and volunteer as much, if not more, than in the 1997 study.

Hypothesis 2a (H2a): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be greater than the general public.

Hypothesis 2b (H2b): Fundraisers’ giving and volunteering behaviors will be positively associated with one another.

Professional identity forms as people gain perspective about their core preferences, abilities, and beliefs (Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Therefore, additional years of occupational experience should lead to a stronger sense of professional identity and adoption of an occupation’s core principles, which in turn would contribute to philanthropic behaviors.

Hypothesis 2c (H2c): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will increase with years in the field.

Fundraisers with formal training in the field are taught a values-oriented perspective on their profession and to be donors themselves (Rosso, 2016). The types of educational support individuals receive in their careers may affect their professional identity development (Dobrow & Higgins, 2005). We expected fundraising-specific education and experiences to be significant because they reinforce fundraisers’ professional identity (Ibarra, 1999).

Hypothesis 2d (H2d): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will increase with more forms of fundraising support/training.

Meso-level factors

A number of studies examine social determinants of giving that are relational, most commonly as outcomes of relationships with organizational fundraisers or interactions with nonprofit organizations as a whole (Barman, 2017; Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b). Following the lead of workplace giving researchers (Shaker et al., 2017), we interpreted the meso-level domain to include aspects of individuals’ employment relationships, that is, the relationship of fundraisers with their workplaces and their embeddedness in the ecology of fundraising. We anticipated that charitable behaviors related to employment demographics would be less varied among the fundraisers than would be those related to their perceptions of the field.

Employment demographics

Salary is an outcome of a worker’s employment responsibilities. Individuals who earn more are not necessarily more likely donors. Still, the vast array of U.S. research has found that those with higher salaries give more (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). The proportion of income given, however, may go down as salaries go up (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Higher salaries typically accompany higher position rank within organizations. According to economic theories of volunteering, the opportunity cost for volunteering is lowest for workers who wish to gain new skills that will later enhance their salary (Taniguchi, 2012). Those individuals with the highest salaries face the highest opportunity cost and are less likely to volunteer (Govekar & Govekar, 2002; Schiff, 1990). In this case, helping behavior (such as volunteering) is tied to fundraisers’ professional identity (Breeze, 2017). Professional identity is important for achieving employment successes, which are objective and subjective alike (Hall, 2002; Ibarra, 1999). It is possible that the better-paid, higher ranked, more “successful” fundraisers might exhibit more generosity. We anticipated, however, that this effect would be diminished because of expectations that fundraisers be charitable due to socialized professional identity, regardless of compensation and status.

Hypothesis 3a (H3a): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of salary.

Hypothesis 3b (H3b): Fundraisers’ charitable behaviors will be consistent regardless of bonuses.

Hypothesis 3c (H3c): Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of position rank.

Occupational perceptions

In addition to exploring the outcomes of fundraisers’ employment relationships, we were interested in meso-level factors associated with fundraising occupation perceptions. Duronio and Tempel (1997) found that negative public perceptions about fundraising were a critical issue. Many study participants had themselves held negative views, but their perceptions improved over time. For several decades, the fundraising field has sought to improve its image by professionalizing through associations, certifications, public relations efforts, education, and ethical standards (Aldrich, 2016). A key component has included internal efforts to reframe the profession and engender pride and collegiality. Fundraisers have also been particularly concerned with counteracting negativity while promoting trustworthiness and ethical practice (Breeze, 2017; Duronio & Tempel, 1997; Tempel & Beem, 2002).

As a type of social identity, professional identity may engender adherence and conformity to group values (Ashforth & Mael, 1989). This implies that those who are most strongly committed to professional norms (in this case, loyalty to both the field and the organization) and see the occupation in a positive light will be most inclined to give and volunteer and at higher levels than their peers. In a question about career orientations, Duronio and Tempel (1997) found that a small majority of respondents reported an equal commitment to the organization and fundraising (“professionals”), about one third were more committed to the organization (“boosters”), and less than one sixth were more committed to fundraising (“careerists”). They did not explore how this typology related to the fundraisers’ charitable activities but in their estimation, the first was the ideal expression of professional identity, whereas the second and third hampered the profession’s development. Our hypotheses assumed that fundraiser charitable giving would be greater among those who thought better of the field, wanted to disabuse others’ negative ideas, and who met Duronio and Tempel’s (1997) standard for having the greatest sense of professional identity.

Hypothesis 4a (H4a): Fundraisers with positive perceptions of fundraising will be more charitable.

Hypothesis 4b (H4b): Fundraisers who think others’ perceptions of fundraising are negative will be more charitable.

Hypothesis 4c (H4c): Fundraisers who express equal commitment to fundraising and their organizations will be more charitable.

Method

This study is part of a project replicating, updating, and extending Duronio and Tempel’s (1997) landmark work, which collected key demographic and experiential information about U.S. fundraisers from surveys (n = 1,748) and interviews (n = 82). Members of the AFP, Association of Healthcare Philanthropy, the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education, and alumni of one academic entity received a single email invitation to the online survey in late 2015. Nearly 36,000 invitations were sent, and 1,826 were completed, representing a 5% response rate. Of these, 1,663 U.S. fundraisers finished the survey and provided the data for this study. The survey was approved by the Institutional Review Board, branded with the university logo, and deployed using the Qualtrics platform. Part of the project’s aim was to track changes among fundraisers over time; thus, the survey questions were the same as those in the study by Duronio and Tempel (1997), which used a mailed questionnaire. The access agreements for the associations’ member lists precluded survey reminders, which negatively affected the response rate. Per Dillman (2011), at least three or four prompts are needed to ensure a larger response, but that approach was not possible in this case. This sample’s demographics were similar to that of the 2016 AFP Compensation and Benefits Report, but a nationally representative study of fundraisers has yet to be conducted. In this case, the study results are informative and suggestive, not generalizable.

To strengthen the data set, we reviewed our sample in comparison with the Current Population Survey (CPS) and weighted our data. Seven waves of the CPS (Flood et al., 2017) are available with “fundraiser” as a listed occupation (2011–2017). We combined these waves. Individuals with one of two occupations—“fundraiser,” occupation code 726, and “public relations and fundraising manager,” occupation code 60—were kept. Individuals who indicated they were not full-time, or whose salary indicated they were not professional fundraisers were excluded.

To compare our data on philanthropic behaviors with a nationally representative sample, we used the Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS), a module of the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID). For all but volunteering, the 2015 wave (which measured 2014 giving) was used; for volunteering, the 2011 wave (which measured 2010 volunteering) provided the most recent volunteering information. The number of hours that Americans volunteer is difficult to accurately document and measure and has not been collected consistently nor in every wave of the PPS, which complicates comparisons (Rooney et al., 2002, 2004). The PPS last asked about volunteering hours in 2005, and we used that data here (PSID, Public Use Dataset, 2018).

Measures

We used regression models (Stata 14.2 MP) that sought to explain giving and volunteering differences with the micro- and meso-level variables. Given that virtually all the fundraisers donated something to charity, we could not use Probit models to explain giving likelihood (Wooldridge, 2010). We planned to use Tobit models (Wooldridge, 2010) for estimating the marginal amounts donated, but given the extremely high donation rate, we utilized ordinary least squares (OLS). Normally, Tobit models are better for estimating amounts donated, because estimates are conditional on the person being a donor and OLS estimates are not. However, with so few nondonors, OLS made the most sense for the models of giving behaviors (dollars given and donations as a share of imputed salary). We used Probit models to measure the incremental effects of each of the variables on the likelihood of an individual fundraiser being a volunteer at all, and Tobit models to measure the marginal effects of the variables on the number of hours volunteered, holding everything else constant, conditional on having volunteered at all. For an explanation of the survey questions examined in each hypothesis and the coding/recoding see Table 1. We used dummy variables for individuals who responded “don’t know” to some questions to preserve as many observations as possible. Respondents who did not know some aspects were likely not exogenous to everything else, so we would have risked further self-selection of the sample by simply omitting them.

Table 1.

Survey Questions and Coding Strategy.

Question	Question summary	Original format	Modified format
How did you learn fundraising? (Check all that apply): Formal education (Bachelor’s or Master’s degrees), Certificate training (such as Certified Fund Raising Executive), Professional education such as conferences or workshops, Mentor, On the job, Self-taught, Other	Total number of ways learned fundraising	7 possible answers Checked = 1 Unchecked = 0	Sum of checks, 0–7
In each of the past 5 years, if you received a cash bonus in addition to your salary for fundraising, please indicate	Received a bonus ever	For each year 2010–2014: Yes = 1 No = 2	Any yes = 1 Otherwise, 0
Reasons for Bonus: Based on my remaining in my job for a specific period of time or until the completion of a project	Received a retention bonus ever	For each year 2010–2014: Yes = 1 Otherwise missing	Any yes = 1 Otherwise, 0
Please complete a chronology of your career in fundraising, starting with your current position. List each of your fundraising positions (including both full-time and part-time), choose the nonprofit subsector from the list, and enter the number of years you worked in each position	Years of fundraising experience	Number of years per position (numeric value)	Sum of years worked for all fundraising positions
Compared with other occupations that you could be working in right now, what is your opinion about being a fundraiser? Indicate the rating that reflects your opinion of the importance and status of fundraising	Opinion of fundraising compared with other occupations (−3 to 3 scale)	Likert-type scale: 3, 2, 1, 0, −1, −2, −3	Likert-type scale: 3, 2, 1, 0, −1, −2, −3
Indicate the rating that reflects how you think people outside the field feel about fundraising	Perceptions of others’ about fundraising (−3 to 3 scale)	Likert-type scale: 3, 2, 1, 0, −1, −2, −3	Likert-type scale: 3, 2, 1,0, −1, −2, −3
Which of the following four statements best describes your present feelings? I feel more commitment to my organization than I do to working in fundraising. I feel equal commitment to my organization as I do to working in fundraising. I feel less commitment to my organization than I do to working in fundraising. I feel little or no commitment to my organization or to working in fundraising.	more commitment to the organization than to fundraising Equal commitment to organization as to fundraising	More = 1 Equal = 2 Less = 3 Little = 4	More = 1 Equal, Less, Little = 0

Our quantitative study measures and hypotheses are proxies based on understandings from the literature that: professional identity is a result of both life and employment characteristics and changes (H1a, H1b, H1c, H1d, H3a, H3b, and H3c; Ibarra, 1999; Nicholson, 1984; Schein, 1978; Tickle, 2000), forms over time, and is influenced by socializing experiences (H2c and H2d; Beijaard et al., 2004; Fine, 1996; Hall, 1987), including simply being part of a field with particular proscribed values (H2a and H2b; Fagermoen, 1997) and feeling positive about that association (H4a and H4c; Cooper & Olson, 1996) or seeking to defend its reputation (H4b). This approach is consistent with efforts to operationalize sources of professional identity to understand its outcomes.

Results

Table 2 shows the mean, median, and standard deviation for variables in the weighted sample (n = 1,663). More than one third of the sample were males (35.6%). The vast majority were Caucasian (79.6%) and those from communities of color were fairly evenly distributed (7.4% Hispanic/Latino, 7.8% Black, and 5.2% Other). The average age was 44.2 years with 13.3 years of fundraising experience. More than 95% of the respondents held an associate’s or higher degree. The incidence of giving was almost unity (98.5%) with a mean amount donated of US$2,359 averaging 3.2% of salary. Most fundraisers also volunteered (82.9%) for an average of 11.0 hr per year. They had learned fundraising in 3.2 ways on average.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics of Study Variables, N = 1,584.

Variable	M	Median	SD
Male	0.356016	0	0.478971
Race/Ethnicity
White Non-Hispanic	79.6%
Hispanic/Latinx	7.4%
Black	7.8%
Other	5.2%
Age	44.18171	44	13.14084
Education
No college degree	4.3%
Associate’s/Bachelor’s degree	47.5%
Master’s	42.5%
Professional degree	5.7%
Giving incidence	0.984662	1	0.122933
Log giving amount	6.088856	6.685861	2.442086
Giving amount (US$)	2,359.437	800	8,333.139
Giving as a percent of salary	3.22079	1.2	10.03562
Volunteering incidence	0.828625	1	0.376956
Volunteering amount (hr)	10.98107	7	17.3822
Total number of forms of fundraising support/training	3.214933	3	1.376424
Years of fundraising experience	13.34341	11	9.475945
Log salary (imputed)	11.13234	11.15627	0.579324
Salary (imputed) (US$)	79,487.11	70,000	42,831.87
Received a bonus ever	0.298617	0	0.457796
Log bonus amount (w/zeros)	0.639355	0	2.12774
Bonus amount (w/zeros)	543.1004	0	7,630.947
Received a retention bonus ever	0.029462	0	0.169152
Current position
Coordinator/Other	10.7%
Fundraising Officer	23.5%
Director/Manager	52.8%
President/Vice President	13.0%
Opinion of fundraising compared with other occupations (−3 to 3 scale)	2.050203	2	1.113493
Perceptions of others’ opinions about fundraising (−3 to 3 scale)	0.032054	0	1.388667
Equal commitment to the organization as to fundraising	0.512378	1	0.500005
More commitment to the organization than to fundraising	0.262788	0	0.440287

Note. Results are weighted by income, race, and gender.

The imputed salary average for the fundraisers was US$79,487, which is slightly above the mean (US$76,500) in the 2014 PSID and CPS (US$78,302). Most respondents were in positions of Director/Manager (52.8%) or higher (President/Vice President = 13.0%). Although fundraisers thought highly of their profession (M = 2.05 on a scale from −3 to +3), their assessment of the perceptions of others of the field was much lower—effectively neutral (0.03). On average, fundraisers were about as equally committed to their organization as to fundraising (51.2%), and only 26.3% reported being more committed to their organization than to fundraising.

Micro-Level Dynamics

Demographic characteristics

Hypothesis 1a: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of gender

As shown in Table 3, using various regression models with the log of giving (plus US$1) as the dependent variable, we found that male and female fundraisers were not significantly different in the amounts they donated, holding all other variables constant (ceteris paribus [CP]); however, men gave 1.75 percentage points more of their income than women, but that difference is only marginally significant (p < .1). Men were no more likely than women to volunteer at all, but men who volunteered at all, volunteered 5.7 hr per year more than women, CP (p < .05).

Table 3.

Regression Models of Hypotheses.

Dependent variable	Log giving amount (+US$1)	Giving as a % of (imputed) salary	Volunteering incidence	Volunteering hours
Regression type	OLS coefficients	OLS coefficients	Probit MEs	Tobit coefficients
Micro-level dynamics
Hypothesis 1a
Male	0.254 (0.162)	1.749* (0.898)	0.0292 (0.0232)	5.660** (2.234)
Hypothesis 1b
Race/ethnicity (White omitted)
Hispanic/Latinx	−0.400 (0.357)	−1.091** (0.471)	0.0427 (0.0464)	1.383 (2.118)
Black	−0.257 (0.351)	−0.195 (0.943)	0.0462 (0.0482)	0.243 (2.532)
Other	−0.351 (0.402)	4.096 (4.782)	0.0258 (0.0466)	0.911 (1.976)
Hypothesis 1c
Age	0.0961** (0.0466)	0.409** (0.182)	0.00176 (0.00128)	0.763 (0.734)
Age²	−0.00107** (0.000512)	−0.00318* (0.00191)		−0.00683 (0.00752)
Hypothesis 1d
Education level (AA/Bachelor’s omitted)
No college degree	−0.432 (0.496)	−1.034 (1.763)	0.0905** (0.0390)	1.194 (3.240)
Master’s	0.114 (0.157)	0.0446 (0.757)	0.0208 (0.0216)	−1.768 (1.626)
Professional (e.g., JD, MD, and PhD)	−0.467 (0.370)	−1.771 (1.125)	0.0261 (0.0598)	6.134 (4.655)
Hypothesis 2c
Years of experience in fundraising	−0.0200 (0.0127)	−0.0616* (0.0340)	0.000401 (0.00153)	0.200** (0.0967)
Hypothesis 2d
Total number of methods by which fundraising was learned	0.0787 (0.0536)	0.142 (0.155)	0.0216*** (0.00746)	0.563 (0.441)
Meso-level dynamics
Hypothesis 3a
Log imputed salary	0.450** (0.214)	−2.459** (1.040)	−0.0188 (0.0272)	−10.86** (5.439)
Hypothesis 3b
Received a bonus between 2010 and 2014?	0.0538 (0.185)	1.345 (1.352)	0.0194 (0.0262)	0.232 (1.105)
Log average bonus amount between 2010 and 2014	0.0429 (0.0362)	0.0170 (0.179)	0.00149 (0.00515)	0.292 (0.257)
Ever a retention bonus?	0.839*** (0.278)	0.206 (1.099)	−0.0132 (0.0653)	4.319 (4.706)
Hypothesis 3c
Current position (reduced to 4) (coordinator/Other omitted)
Fundraising officer	0.360 (0.298)	0.485 (0.705)	0.00276 (0.0467)	2.676 (2.439)
Director/Manager	0.397 (0.282)	0.413 (0.647)	0.0374 (0.0425)	2.909 (2.215)
President/Vice President	0.368 (0.377)	1.124 (1.120)	0.0856* (0.0462)	9.567 (6.475)
Hypothesis 4a
Own opinion of fundraising	−0.00206 (0.0671)	−0.299 (0.393)	0.0341*** (0.0101)	0.138 (0.936)
Hypothesis 4b
Perception of others’ opinions of fundraising	−0.0788 (0.0548)	−0.192 (0.318)	−0.0161* (0.00855)	−0.690* (0.417)
Hypothesis 4c
Equally committed to organization and fundraising	0.0725 (0.204)	0.489 (0.610)	0.0512 (0.0312)	3.329* (1.997)
More committed to organization than fundraising	−0.00711 (0.188)	0.336 (0.665)	0.0254 (0.0276)	1.447 (1.324)
Control variables
Subsector (all others omitted)
Education	0.264 (0.195)	−0.597 (0.826)	−0.0129 (0.0280)	0.362 (1.436)
Health	−0.118 (0.188)	−0.140 (0.599)	−0.0443* (0.0259)	−1.446 (1.155)
Log imputed organization budget	0.0328 (0.0707)	−0.0346 (0.218)	−0.0111 (0.00945)	−0.339 (0.434)
Dummy for don’t know budget	0.176 (1.188)	−2.277 (3.676)	−0.230 (0.158)	−9.591 (7.305)
Frontline fundraiser?	−0.111 (0.172)	−0.00308 (0.621)	0.00524 (0.0240)	−0.241 (1.669)
Constant	−1.689 (2.089)	19.09** (8.995)		102.7** (42.23)
Observations	1,536	1,536	1,584	1,575
R²	.063	.048

OLS = ordinary least squares.

Note. Robust standard errors in parentheses, weighted with income, race, and gender.

p < .1. **p < .05. ***p < .01.

Hypothesis 1b: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of race/ethnicity

There was only one significant difference in giving by race or ethnicity. Hispanic/Latinx individuals were not different from Caucasians with respect to how much they donated, whether they volunteered at all, or how many hours they volunteered. However, Hispanics/Latinx fundraisers donated 1.1 percentage points of their income less than Caucasians, CP (p < .05). Similarly, Blacks and “Others” (the remaining communities of color) were not significantly different from White fundraisers in any aspect of their philanthropy.

Hypothesis 1c: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of age

Age was positively and significantly related to the donations of money (p < .05) but not time. In our models, each additional year was associated with a significant increase in the amounts donated, CP, and a modest increase in giving as a share of income (0.41 percentage points), CP (p < .05). There were no significant relationships between age and the likelihood of volunteering at all or the number of hours per year volunteered. The square of the age variable was negative and significant, but exhibited quite small effects, for both the giving models (but not the volunteering models). This suggests that the positive effects of aging on dollars given (p < .05) and as a percentage of salary (p < .1) exhibit diminishing returns. Giving peaks at 44.9 years of age, and then starts gradually declining (see Figure 2). However, the relationship between the quadratic of age and giving as a share of salary is only marginally significant.

Figure 2.

Fundraisers’ estimated marginal effects of age only on amounts given (holding everything else constant).

Figure 2 plots out the marginal effects of age on amounts donated and shows that the estimated giving amount by age grew fairly quickly from more than US$325 in estimated donations per year at age 25 to more than US$525 in estimated donations per year at the peak in their mid-40s. Then, it dropped steadily back to the original amounts in early retirement years. The decline in giving continued as fundraisers aged.

Although the effects of aging on giving as a share of salary exhibited a similar pattern as overall giving, the peak occurred later in life, approaching or reaching retirement (maximum reached at 63.6 years; see Figure 3). Younger fundraisers donated quite small shares of their income (less than 1% during their mid-20s), but this grew on average to approximately 5.0% for fundraisers in their early/late 60s. Then, fundraisers’ giving as a share of income fell slowly—remaining above 3.5% into their 80s and never returning to the low initial rates.

Figure 3.

Fundraisers’ estimated giving as a percentage of salary by age (holding everything else constant).

The effect of age on the incidence of volunteering at all was not statistically significant. However, as shown in Figure 4, it is likely that the age effect was insignificant because the incidence of volunteering started out at a high percentage (more than 80%) at age 25 and grew gradually through retirement. No statistical or visual evidence suggests that the incidence of volunteering ever diminished with age for the fundraisers.

Figure 4.

Fundraisers’ estimated volunteering incidence by age (holding everything else constant).

Conversely in Figure 5, the hours volunteered annually tended to grow from approximately 4.5 per year at 25 years to a peak of nearly 11 hr as fundraisers approached their 60s (maximum = 57.8 years). The hours volunteered then declined slowly in the “retirement” phase, but remained above 5 hr. This relationship is not statistically significant, but the graph is suggestive of a consistent trend.

Figure 5.

Fundraisers’ estimated marginal efffects of age only on hours volunteered (holding everything else constant).

Hypothesis 1d: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of educational level

Generally, education did not have a significant effect on giving or volunteering. None of the education variables was associated with amounts given. With respect to volunteering incidence, the only significant relationship (p < .05) was that those without college degrees were about 9% more likely to volunteer than those with the associate’s/bachelor’s.

Occupational experiences

Hypothesis 2a: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be greater than the general public

As delineated in Table 4, in the PPS, 55.4% of the U.S. population donated in 2014 (PSID, 2018). Among fundraisers, it was 98.5%. The average amount donated by all U.S. households in 2014 was US$1,364 and among donors only, it was US$2,514. The analogous values for our sample were US$2,359 (all) and US$2,397 (donors only), respectively. When comparing the entire samples, the fundraisers were almost 80% more likely to give, gave 73% more dollars, and donated a much higher share of income—about 60% more (3.2% weighted in comparison with approximately 2% [U.S. data based on Giving USA—Giving USA Foundation, 2018—and Duffy et al., 2015]) than the overall U.S. population. When considering only those in each sample who donated, donors in the general public gave an average of 5% more than the fundraisers. Because almost all the fundraisers donated, we expect this was a result of diminishing returns. We also offer the caveat that our figures include fundraisers’ salaries and no other sources of income.

Table 4.

Philanthropy of Fundraisers Compared With All Americans.

Sample	Fundraisers^a	All^b
Hypothesis 2a
Giving variables
Giving incidence	98.5%	55.4%
Average amounts donated:
All households	US$2,359	US$1,364
Donor households	US$2,397	US$2,514
Giving as a share of salary	3.2%	~2%^c
Volunteering variables
Volunteering incidence	82.9%	26.7%
Hours volunteered	11.0	5.9^d
Hypothesis 2b
Correlation coefficients
Incidences of giving and volunteering	0.041 (p < .106)	0.3 (p < .0001)
Amounts donated and incidence of volunteering	0.057 (p < .025)	0.2 (p < .0001)

From this sample of fundraisers. ^bFrom the Philanthropy Panel Study (PPS) 2005, 2010 waves. All Americans unless indicated otherwise. ^cDuffy et al. (2015) calculated giving as a share of income by various income levels and overall. ^dThis average excludes extreme outliers (“super volunteers”) who reported volunteering more than 100 hr per year.

With respect to volunteerism, one third (33.7%) of the Americans volunteered in 2010 (PSID, 2018), and 82.9% of the fundraisers volunteered in our sample. Regarding volunteer hours, there was a split. Taken as a whole all PPS respondents volunteered more (41.1 hr in 2005) than the fundraisers (11.0 hr per year), but this average was driven in large part by very active volunteers in the comparison sample. Twenty individuals reported volunteering at a rate of more than 20 hr a week (1,000+ hr annually) and 200 people reported volunteering more than 100 hr each year, making the PPS distribution very top heavy (especially as compared with the fundraiser sample in which only six people volunteered more than 100 hr). Among those who volunteered more casually and less than 100 hr annually, the fundraising professional sample reported significantly more volunteerism (10.1 hr) than the general public (5.9 hr). Aside from the “super volunteer” outliers, fundraisers were more committed volunteers than the average American.

Hypothesis 2b: Fundraisers’ giving and volunteering behaviors will be positively associated with one another

The giving and volunteering variables tended to move together—albeit not tightly. As shown in Table 3, in the overall samples for the United States (PSID, 2018), the pairwise correlation for the incidences of giving and volunteering at all was .3 (p < .0001) but only .04 (but not significant, p > .1) for the sample of fundraisers. Similarly, when looking at the pairwise correlations in the amounts donated and the volunteering incidence for the U.S. population (PSID, 2018), the values moved together, too, but the correlation was weaker for the general population for this compared with the incidences (0.2; p < .0001), yet this relationship was stronger among the fundraisers (0.06; p < .025). The correlation coefficients for the fundraising professionals were smaller than expected, because virtually all fundraising professionals donated, and nearly all volunteered, the lack of variation in the data produced unexpectedly small correlation coefficients.

Hypothesis 2c: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will increase with years in the fundraising field

Perhaps surprisingly, years in the field did not have a material effect on the philanthropy of fundraisers (see Table 3). It did not significantly affect donation amounts or the likelihood of volunteering. It did have a very small significant effect on the hours of volunteering (a few minutes more per year). It was marginally significantly associated with a tiny (0.06% per year) decrease in the share of income fundraisers donated to charities (p < .1).

Hypothesis 2d: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will increase with more forms of fundraising support/training

The number of ways in which a respondent had learned about fundraising (e.g., mentor, academic programs, training and certificate programs, etc.) had little effect on the money they donated. They also did not donate a significantly higher share of their income. Fundraisers were 2.2 percentage points more likely to volunteer at all per additional method of fundraising support/training (p < .01), yet they did not volunteer significantly more hours.

Meso-Level Dynamics

Employment demographics

Hypothesis 3a: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of salary

The log of imputed salary suggests that for a 10% income increase, fundraisers gave approximately 4.5% more dollars to charities (p < .05). However, they give a somewhat smaller income share (a 10% increase in imputed salaries was associated with a 0.25 percentage point decrease in income share donated; p < .01). Although the income effects were insignificant on the likelihood of volunteering at all, a 10% increase in income was associated with a decrease of approximately 1.1 volunteer hours per year, CP (p < .05).

Table 5 provides a deeper dive into the income effects on the fundraisers’ philanthropy. Column 1 shows increasing amounts donated with each additional US$10,000 in income, CP. However, these increases occurred at a slower rate as fundraisers moved up the income ladder. Consistent with the declining marginal effects on giving of the marginal income effects, we see that the amounts donated as a share of income started relatively high at 6.8% for the lowest earning households and fell more rapidly at first, then continued to decline but at a slower rate (Column 2). Giving as a share of income reached its low point (2.8%) when income reached its maximum (US$100,000+). When comparing similar income groups for the overall U.S. population (using two different nationally representative samples), we found that our sample of fundraisers was more generous (giving divided by income) than the overall population at every income level (Duffy et al., 2015). The only exception may be for those earning less than US$10,000 in the overall population, but giving as a share of income at low-income levels conflates many issues (e.g., retirement income vs. wealth).

Table 5.

Marginal Effects of Salary on Philanthropy.

Salary	Changes in the marginal
Levels	Amounts donated	Shares of salary donated	Volunteering incidence	Volunteering amounts
Levels	(OLS model)	(OLS model)	(Probit model)	(Tobit model)
US$20,000	US$303.23	6.8%	86.5%	24.2
US$30,000	US$364.18	5.8%	85.8%	20.3
US$40,000	US$414.69	5.1%	85.3%	17.7
US$50,000	US$458.63	4.5%	84.9%	15.8
US$60,000	US$497.97	4.1%	84.5%	14.3
US$70,000	US$533.84	3.7%	84.2%	13.1
US$80,000	US$566.99	3.4%	84.0%	12.1
US$90,000	US$597.93	3.1%	83.7%	11.3
US$100,000	US$627.04	2.8%	83.5%	10.5
Observations			1,584	1,575

Note. Holding constant all other effects, weighted with income, race, and gender.

Table 5 shows that the incremental effects of income were inversely related to the propensity to volunteer and the number of hours volunteered. The variation among those who volunteered arranged by income cohorts is small (Column 3). The marginal effects of income on the number of hours volunteered per year also dropped (at a decreasing rate) from 24.2 hr for the lower income households to 10.5 hr for the highest income households (Column 4). Both these trends, when coalesced with the growth of giving with increased income, suggest that fundraisers exhibit a “substitution effect” trading off increased giving with decreased volunteering as their incomes rise.

Hypothesis 3b: Fundraisers’ charitable behaviors will be consistent regardless of bonuses

Fundraisers who received a bonus in the prior 5 years did not give more than those their peers (Table 2). They did not give a larger income share, were not more likely to volunteer at all, and did not volunteer more hours, CP. The average bonus amounts did not have a significant effect on giving or volunteering, CP. However, fundraisers, who had ever received a retention bonus, donated 132% more dollars to charities than those who had not, CP (p < .01).

Hypothesis 3c: Fundraisers’ charitable behavior will be consistent regardless of position rank

Increases in rank tended to have a small positive or no effect on philanthropy. Being a Fundraising officer or a Director/Manager was not significantly associated with the amounts donated, the shares of income donated, or volunteerism. Perhaps surprisingly, being a Vice President/President was not significantly different from the entry-level positions of coordinator/other with respect to any of the giving measures at even marginal levels of significance, but they were 8.6% more likely to volunteer than entry-level ranks; however, this only approached significance (p < .1).

Occupational perceptions

Hypothesis 4a: Fundraisers with positive perceptions of fundraising will be more charitable

Fundraisers with more positive perceptions were significantly more likely to volunteer (p < .01). This variable was constructed as a Likert-type scale from −3 to +3, so interpretation of the actual marginal effect was more difficult. The variable had no effect on donations, giving as a share of income, or volunteering hours.

Hypothesis 4b: Fundraisers who think others’ perceptions of fundraising are negative will be more charitable

Fundraisers, who were more concerned with the perception of others’ opinions of fundraising, did not donate significantly different from their peers. There were small negative effects on the likelihood of volunteering and volunteer hours, but these were only marginally significant (p < .1).

Hypothesis 4c: Fundraisers who express equal commitment to fundraising and their organizations will be more charitable

Significant relationships did not exist between the giving variables and whether the fundraisers expressed equal commitment to the organization and fundraising (or more commitment to fundraising, for that matter). There was a positive effect on volunteering hours. If they were equally committed to the organization and to fundraising, they volunteered 3.3 more hours than those more committed to fundraising but this was only marginally significant (p < .1). There was no significant difference in volunteering if they were more committed to fundraising or the organization.

Discussion

Professional identity theory is a way of examining how individuals understand themselves within their occupations (Benveniste, 1987; Ibarra, 1999; Schein, 1978). Workers make meanings based on their own understandings of their occupation and responsibilities and their perceptions of others’ understandings, as members of a group (Ashforth & Mael, 1989; Gecas & Burke, 1995). For this study on expressions of fundraisers’ professional identity, we used micro- and meso-level variables, divided into personal and professional identity-related categories, to test hypotheses about charitable behavior. We found the fundraisers to be quite homogeneous in their giving behaviors. They were more similar to one another than to the rest of the population. We quickly discovered that nearly all the fundraisers gave and that more than four fifths of them volunteered. The fundraisers were more philanthropic than the general population: they gave and volunteered at higher rates (98.5% vs 55.4% gave; 82.9% vs 26.7% volunteered), volunteered more (11.0 vs 5.9 hours), gave more money ($2,359 vs $1,364), and donated a higher share of their incomes. When comparing only donors, in the overall population to the donors among fundraisers, the overall population donors donated approximately 5% more than the fundraiser donors. However, this is likely attributable to a diminishing returns effect among the fundraisers given that 98.5% of them were donors, and some of them may have been in beginning jobs with lower salaries, whereas only 55.4% of the overall population gave at all. The fundraisers gave 3.2% of their salaries as compared to an approximate 2% share of salary among the general population. Regarding nuances in the volunteer data, the volunteer hours’ information was from an older PPS wave and it included a number of “super volunteers” who we excluded as outliers.

Several results differed from the typical for well-known micro- and meso-level determinants of giving and volunteering and there was an influence from key professionalizing factors, but not across the board. Based on these findings, we argue that fundraiser charitable behavior and professional identity are related and that there are norms for philanthropic behavior among fundraising professionals. We also suspect that charitably inclined individuals may self-select into fundraising and that this could be an important factor in the development of the field’s professional norms and identity. More research is warranted to fully understand the extent (and limitations) of the influence of fundraisers’ professional identity on their philanthropy (and other work-related behaviors).

At the micro-level, we discovered that male and female fundraisers both gave at exceedingly high (and comparable levels), but men gave a higher share of their incomes and volunteered more hours than females. In the general population, fewer men give than women, but they give more, and men are less likely to volunteer at all and volunteer fewer hours than women (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2016; Musick & Wilson, 2008; Taniguchi, 2006; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Race and ethnicity were mostly insignificant in fundraiser charitable behavior, consistent with complex findings from broader studies (Mesch et al., 2006; Rooney et al., 2005; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Similar to nearly all prior research, age was positive and significant in this study when it came to giving dollars and dollars donated as a share of their salary (Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Among the general public, people volunteer less at midlife (Musick & Wilson, 2008). For fundraisers, midlife and career was a peak time for volunteering. Educational level consistently predicts giving and volunteerism in the overall population (Bekkers & Wiepking, 2011b; Musick & Wilson, 2008), but was largely insignificant in this study. All told, professional identity may be the source of these somewhat unusual patterns with gender and education in fundraisers’ charitable behaviors.

At the meso-level, higher salaries and retention bonuses related to higher giving among fundraisers—similar to findings about U.S. charitable giving and compensation generally (Rooney et al., 2005; Wiepking & Bekkers, 2012). Other types of bonuses, however, did not matter. Fundraisers who earned less contributed a remarkably high proportion of their salaries while fundraisers, who earned higher earnings, gave a smaller share of their salary as it rose. Those with higher salaries volunteered fewer hours and those at a higher rank and were mostly no more likely to volunteer at all and did not volunteer more hours than entry-level fundraisers. Collectively, this suggests that as fundraisers earn more income they may see (implicitly or not) a tradeoff between time and money (i.e., a “substitution effect” according to economists). Fundraisers’ rank inside the organization had very little effect on their philanthropy. Career attainment may make charitable giving less important. Again in the case of these variables, fundraiser behaviors were somewhat outside the norm. Financial capacity overshadowed our propositions about professional identity but the fact that fundraisers of lower rank and status (and salary) were as committed (or more) to philanthropy as their established peers indicates the important norm of generosity across the profession.

Regarding the occupational experiences and perceptions at the micro- and meso-level, the variables were more likely to influence volunteering than giving. Those who learned to fundraise via multiple avenues were more likely to be volunteers but not to donate more. Those who had been fundraisers longer volunteered more hours, by a small margin, and the only significant effect for donations was a minuscule decline in the share of income donated. Perhaps fundraisers arrive in the field with strong charitable values in place and then are socialized into philanthropic behavior—especially giving—by their peers and mentors at the time they enter fundraising, and then these behaviors and values are reinforced by others. Individuals earlier in their careers may view their philanthropic behavior as more important to their professional identity than those who have served longer or who hold more prestigious titles or who make more money (noting that the salary share donated declined at higher salary levels). They may also feel greater need to prove their philanthropic commitment with dollars. Fundraisers with the most positive views about their occupation were more likely to volunteer but did not give or volunteer more. Ironically (or not!), concern with others’ opinions about fundraising led fundraisers to volunteer slightly less, though financial giving was not affected. Variations in one’s commitment to the organization and the profession were not significant, except that those who were equally committed to the organization and fundraising volunteered more hours. Several of these findings were unforeseen, a reminder of the different determinants of giving in comparison with volunteering. We came to believe that the fundraisers gave less out of an evolving sentiment about fundraising, and more out of a deeper sense of obligation and socialization into the profession.

In 1997, Duronio and Tempel concluded that personal commitment to philanthropy—aligned with AFP’s ethical standards—was among the field’s strengths. As it turns out, the fundraisers of today gave and volunteered at near identical rates to 25 years ago (Duronio & Tempel, 1997). Because of gaps in the original data, we could not make a defensible comparison regarding the amounts of time and money given. Noting this limitation, the similar and high incidence of giving and volunteering in the two studies suggests a consistency of norms among fundraisers across the last 25 years. In future applications of the survey, we will be better able to consider additional aspects of the phenomenon. In addition, qualitative research could be used to further understand and differentiate the factors affecting the decisions to give/volunteer and how much to give/volunteer. Knowing more about the fundraisers’ household total income and wealth, as well as how much they give to their own nonprofit versus other charities would also illuminate these results in interesting ways.

Four key limitations of our research should inform future work. First, we created our email sample from membership lists, so we lack a random sample. Second, as part of the agreements to use the email addresses, we could only send one survey invitation. These concerns could be addressed with a large, random sample with multiple survey requests. Third, there may be challenges with self-selection bias and social desirability bias among respondents in any survey, but a survey on philanthropy sent to fundraisers may be more skewed than normal—especially with only one survey solicitation. In surveys that relate to socially desirable activities, such as philanthropic behavior, a typical concern is the possibility of measurement error because participants may be inclined to over-report their involvement (Fowler, 2009). We acknowledge this possibility but cannot adjust for it. Fourth, we studied just one trait of professionalism (others include high levels of training and education, generally agreed upon body of knowledge, and standards for ethical and appropriate practice; Sullivan, 2005) and professional identity.

Additional research in this area could be even more important because of the ongoing discussion about whether fundraising is a profession (Aldrich, 2016; Bloland, 2002; Bloland & Tempel, 2004; Carbone, 1986; Tempel & Beem, 2002). The more clearly understood an occupation is, perhaps, the stronger the professional identity—and maybe the converse could be true as well. Indeed, future research regarding the profession and professional identity of fundraisers should be more broadly articulated and interwoven in thoughtful ways. For example, research might examine how fundraisers understand the intersection of their professional and personal lives, the norms of the profession and how they are articulated and applied, and the particular challenges posed by the occupation’s reputational difficulties. It would also be useful to learn more about how fundraisers and donors interface and relate to one another, including information about the role of shared values in these relationships.

Conclusion

Robert Payton (1988) explored whether philanthropy is a vocation and asked the guiding question of nonprofit workers: “Do you live for philanthropy, or do you live off philanthropy? (p. 71)” Payton was implicitly examining the motivations, purposes, and ethics (as well as the requirements and behaviors) of nonprofit professional identity, suggesting that the former philosophy is part of what sets nonprofit workers apart (but, to be fair, we note the right of nonprofit employees to earn a fair income). We took inspiration from Payton’s observations for this study, exploring one dimension of fundraisers’ behavior. Acknowledging that more research is needed, we found evidence that the fundraisers do live for philanthropy and that originates, in part, from their professional identity. We need to understand the roots of that identity more clearly. It may also be that individuals inclined toward prosocial behavior are more attracted to fundraising (and possibly nonprofit management) and it is upon this personal foundation that their professional identity rests most heavily. They may also be drawn to other helping professions such as social work, nursing, and education, for example. If the helping professions are similar to fundraisers when it comes to philanthropic behavior and work motivations and influences, perhaps we could infer that an extant concern for others also informs their professional identity.

Professional identity theorists note that occupational perspectives are formed in the context of private experiences as well as occupational conditions (Schein, 1978), suggesting that the personal–professional intersection needs to be considered in studies of employees’ identity. Likewise, research on nonprofit workers found that the personal, professional, and cultural characteristics blend to shape individuals’ workplace understandings (Barge & Hackett, 2003). That indeed may be the case with these fundraisers. Breeze (2017) found that a number of personal experiences over the lifespan were relevant in who fundraisers were professionally and in their success in the field. All told, it is evident that understanding fundraisers and how they interact with donors requires a broad-based approach. It requires recognition of the salience of fundraisers’ personal values, experiences, and preferences, the ways in which they interact with and understand their profession, and their relationships with those who they support and empower.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

The reviewers provided insightful comments and were essential in the completion of this article. Lilly Family School of Philanthropy (LFSP) doctoral candidate Pat Danahey Janin provided invaluable editorial and administrative support.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: A grant from the Lilly Endowment Inc. supported this project.

ORCID iD

Genevieve G. Shaker

Author Biographies

Genevieve G. Shaker, PhD, is an associate professor of philanthropic studies in the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. Her research focuses on fundraising and fundraisers, higher education advancement, philanthropy in the workplace, and higher education and the public good.

Patrick M. Rooney, PhD, is a professor of Economics and Philanthropic Studies and the executive associate dean for Academic Programs at the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy. He has published many academic and practitioner-focused papers on fundraising, the trends and determinants of philanthropy, as well as the effects of policy on giving.

Jonathan Bergdoll received his BS in Biomedical Engineering and Electrical Engineering from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology in 2008. In 2011, he received an MS in Bioengineering from Georgia Institute of Technology. He has been a member of the Lilly Family School of Philanthropy since 2012.

Sarah K. Nathan, PhD, is an associate director of The Fund Raising School, the professional training program of the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis. She serves on the research committee of the Association of Fundraising Professionals.

Eugene R. Tempel, EdD, is a founding dean emeritus of the IU Lilly Family School of Philanthropy at Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis and professor of Philanthropic Studies. He has authored columns, articles, and other publications, including serving as an editor or a co-editor of Achieving Excellence in Fundraising, editions II, III, and IV.

References

Aldrich

(2016). Fundraising as a profession. In Tempel

E. R.

Seiler

T. L.

Burlingame

D. B.

(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 427–433). Wiley.

Arthur

M. B.

(2008). Examining contemporary careers: A call for interdisciplinary inquiry. Human Relations, 61(2), 163–186.

Ashforth

B. E.

Mael

(1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.

Association of Fundraising Professionals. (1964). Code of ethical principles and standards of professional practice. https://afpglobal.org/ethicsmain/standards-guidelines

Association of Fundraising Professionals. (2016). The 2016 AFP compensation and benefits report. https://afpglobal.org

Barge

J. K.

Hackett

(2003). The intersection of cultural and professional identity in nonprofit management. Communication Research Reports, 20(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/08824090309388797

Barman

(2017). The social bases of philanthropy. Annual Review of Sociology, 43, 271–290. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-soc-060116-053524

Beijaard

Meijer

P. C.

Verloop

(2004). Reconsidering research on teachers’ professional identity. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(2), 107–128.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011a). A literature review of empirical studies of philanthropy: Eight mechanisms that drive charitable giving. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40(5), 924–973. https://doi.org/10.1177/0899764010380927

10.

Bekkers

Wiepking

(2011b). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving part one: Religion, education, age and socialisation. Voluntary Sector Review, 2(3), 337–365.

11.

Benveniste

(1987). Professionalizing the organization: Reducing bureaucracy to enhance effectiveness. Jossey-Bass.

12.

Bloland

H. G.

(2002). No longer emerging, fund raising is a profession. The CASE International Journal of Education Advancement, 3(1), 7–21.

13.

Bloland

H. G.

Tempel

E. R.

(2004). Measuring professionalism. New Directions for Philanthropic Fundraising, 2004(43), 5–20.

14.

Breeze

(2017). The new fundraisers: Who organises charitable giving in contemporary society. Policy Press.

15.

Breeze

Jollymore

(2017). Understanding solicitation: Beyond the binary variable of being asked or not being asked. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), Article e1607.

16.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016). Volunteering in the United States, 2015 [Economic News Release]. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/volun.nr0.htm

17.

Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2016-2017). Occupational outlook handbook, 2016-17 edition, fundraisers. U.S. Department of Labor. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/business-and-financial/fundraisers.htm

18.

Caboni

T. C.

(2010). The normative structure of college and university fundraising behaviors. The Journal of Higher Education, 81(3), 339–365.

19.

Carbone

R. F.

(1986). An agenda for research on fund raising. Exxon Education Foundation.

20.

Cooper

Olson

M. R.

(1996). The multiple “I’s” of teacher identity. In Komf

Bond

W. R.

Dworet

Boak

R. T.

(Eds.), Changing research and practice: Teachers’ professionalism, identities and knowledge (pp. 78–89). The Falmer Press.

21.

Dale

E. J.

(2017). Fundraising as women’s work? Examining the profession with a gender lens. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), Article e1605.

22.

Deuze

(2005). What is journalism? Professional identity and ideology of journalists reconsidered. Journalism, 6(4), 442–464.

23.

Dickens

J. B.

(1982). The black manager. Amacom.

24.

Dillman

D. A.

(2011). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method–2007 update with new Internet, visual, and mixed-mode guide. John Wiley.

25.

Dobrow

S. R.

Higgins

M. C.

(2005). Developmental networks and professional identity: A longitudinal study. Career Development International, 10(6/7), 567–583, 587.

26.

Duffy

Steinberg

Tian

(2015). Income, wealth, and generosity in the U.S. Philanthropy Panel Study [Unpublished manuscript]. Association for Research on Nonprofit Organizations and Voluntary Action.

27.

Duronio

M. A.

Tempel

E. R.

(1997). Fund raisers: Their careers, stories, concerns, and accomplishments. Jossey-Bass.

28.

Fagermoen

M. S.

(1997). Professional identity: Values embedded in meaningful nursing practice. Journal of Advanced Nursing, 25(3), 434–441. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2648.1997.1997025434.x

29.

Fine

G. A.

(1996). Justifying work: Occupational rhetorics as resources in restaurant kitchens. Administrative Science Quarterly, 41, 90–115.

30.

Flood

King

Ruggles

Warren

J. R.

(2017). Integrated public use microdata series. Current population survey: Version 5.0. 2011-2017. University of Minnesota. https://doi.org/10.18128/D030.V5.0

31.

Fowler

Jr. (2009). Survey research methods (4th ed.). SAGE.

32.

Gaziel

H. H.

(1995). Sabbatical leave, job burnout and turnover intentions among teachers. International Journal of Lifelong Education, 14(4), 331–338.

33.

Gecas

Burke

P. J.

(1995). Self and identity. In Cook

K. S.

Fine

G. A.

House

J. S.

(Eds.), Sociological perspectives on social psychology (pp. 336–338). Allyn & Bacon.

34.

Giving USA Foundation. (2018). Giving USA 2018. Giving USA Foundation and Indiana University Lilly Family School of Philanthropy.

35.

Govekar

P. L.

Govekar

M. A.

(2002). Using economic theory and research to better understand volunteer behavior. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 13(1), 33–48.

36.

Hall

D. T.

(1987). Careers and socialization. Journal of Management, 13(2), 301–321.

37.

Hall

D. T.

(2002). Careers in and out of organizations (Vol. 107). SAGE.

38.

Harrah-Conforth

Borsos

(1991). The evolution of professional fund raising: 1890-1990. In Burlingame

D. F.

Hulse

L. J.

(Eds.), Taking fundraising seriously: Advancing the profession and practice of raising money (pp. 18–36). Jossey-Bass.

39.

Ibarra

(1999). Provisional selves: Experimenting with image and identity in professional adaptation. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44, 764–791.

40.

Levin

J. S.

Shaker

G. G.

(2011). The hybrid and dualistic identity of full-time non-tenure-track faculty. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(11), 1461–1484. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764211409382

41.

Meisenbach

R. J.

(2008). Working with tensions: Materiality, discourse, and (dis)empowerment in occupational identity negotiation among higher education fund-raisers. Management Communication Quarterly, 22(2), 258–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318908323150

42.

Meisenbach

R. J.

Jones

(2003). Making money and making friends: Corporate ideology and friendship in university fund raising [Unpublished Paper presentation]. Annual Meeting of the International Communication Association, San Diego, CA, United States.

43.

Mesch

D. J.

Rooney

P. M.

Steinberg

K. S.

Denton

(2006). The effects of race, gender, and marital status on giving and volunteering in Indiana. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(4), 565–587.

44.

Mitchell

Boyle

(2015). Professional diversity, identity salience and team innovation: The moderating role of openmindedness norms. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 36(6), 873–894.

45.

Musick

M. A.

Wilson

(2008). Volunteers: A social profile. Indiana University Press.

46.

Nicholson

(1984). A theory of work role transitions. Administrative Science Quarterly, 29(2), 172–191.

47.

Nonprofit HR. (2016). Nonprofit employment practices survey results. https://www.nonprofithr.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/2016NEPSurvey-final.pdf

48.

Panel Study of Income Dynamics, Public Use Dataset. (2018). Produced and distributed by the survey research center. Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

49.

Payton

(1988). Philanthropy: Voluntary action for the public good. American Council on Education and Macmillan Publishing. http://www.paytonpapers.org/book/index.shtm

50.

Pratt

M. G.

Rockmann

K. W.

Kaufmann

J. B.

(2006). Constructing professional identity: The role of work and identity learning cycles in the customization of identity among medical residents. Academy of Management Journal, 49(2), 235–262.

51.

Proper

Caboni

T. C.

(2014). Institutional advancement: What we know. Palgrave Macmillan.

52.

Rooney

P. M.

Chin

Steinberg

K. S.

(2002). Measurement of volunteering: A methodological study using Indiana as a test case. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 31(4), 484–501.

53.

Rooney

P. M.

Mesch

D. J.

Chin

Steinberg

K. S.

(2005). The effects of race, gender, and survey methodologies on giving in the US. Economics Letters, 86(2), 173–180.

54.

Rooney

P. M.

Schervish

P. G.

Steinberg

K. S.

(2004). Methodology is destiny: The effects of survey prompts on reported levels of giving and volunteering. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 33(4), 628–654.

55.

Rosso

H. A.

(2016). A philosophy of fundraising. In Tempel

E. R.

Seiler

T. L

Burlingame

D. F.

(Eds.), Achieving excellence in fundraising (4th ed., pp. 6–10). John Wiley.

56.

Schein

E. H.

(1978). Career dynamics: Matching individual and organizational needs. Addison-Wesley.

57.

Schervish

P. G.

Havens

J. J.

(1997). Social participation and charitable giving: A multivariate analysis. Voluntas, 8(3), 235–260.

58.

Schiff

(1990). Charitable giving and government policy: An economic analysis. Greenwood Press.

59.

Shaker

G. G.

Christensen

R. K.

Bergdoll

J. J.

(2017). What works at work? Toward an integrative model examining workplace campaign strategies. Nonprofit Management and Leadership, 28(1), 25–46. https://doi.org/10.1002/nml.21270

60.

Shaker

G. G.

Nathan

S. K.

(2017). Understanding higher education fundraisers in the United States. International Journal of Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Marketing, 22(4), Article e1604.

61.

Slay

H. S.

Smith

D. A.

(2011). Professional identity construction: Using narrative to understand the negotiation of professional and stigmatized cultural identities. Human Relations, 64(1), 85–107.

62.

Sullivan

W. M.

(2005). Work and integrity: The crisis and promise of professionalism in America. Jossey-Bass/Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.

63.

Taniguchi

(2006). Men’s and women’s volunteering: Gender differences in the effects of employment and family characteristics. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 35(1), 83–101.

64.

Taniguchi

(2012). The determinants of formal and informal volunteering: Evidence from the American time use survey. International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 23(3), 920–939.

65.

Tempel

E. R.

Beem

(2002). The state of the profession. In Worth

M. J.

(Ed.), New strategies for educational fund raising (pp. 351–361). Praeger.

66.

Thelin

Trollinger

(2014). Philanthropy and American higher education. Palgrave Macmillan.

67.

Tickle

(2000). Teacher induction: The way ahead. Open University Press.

68.

Trede

Macklin

Bridges

(2012). Professional identity development: A review of the higher education literature. Studies in Higher Education, 37(3), 365–384.

69.

Wiepking

Bekkers

(2012). Who gives? A literature review of predictors of charitable giving. Part two: Gender, family composition and income. Voluntary Sector Review, 3(2), 217–245. https://doi.org/10.1332/204080512x649379

70.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. MIT Press.

71.

Worth

M. J.

(2016). Fundraising: Principles and practice. SAGE.