The Illusion of Impact: Part 3
Why Good Intentions Aren't Enough for Social Change
Part 3 of our series examining the psychology behind many nonprofit workers
In part 1, we explored how the drive for spiritual fulfillment (what I've termed "relaxtionary consciousness") and achievement-subject culture shape big parts of the nonprofit sector. We examined in part 2 the contrast between revolutionary consciousness (seeking to restructure society), reactionary consciousness (fighting to hold onto what one has), and relaxtionary consciousness.
Today, I want to address a difficult truth: the relaxtionary consciousness that drives many nonprofit workers is falling short of achieving meaningful social change.
Did It Work?
During my years within nonprofits, I managed many campaigns that produced impressive numbers: hundreds of thousands of pieces of "grassroots product" (pledges, petitions, etc.), thousands of media hits, and thousands of co-signers and partner groups engaged. But looking back, I question how much of this work created genuine change.
One campaign I worked on focused on persuading city governments to stop purchasing an environmentally harmful but ubiquitous basic good. The organization framed this as the first step in a multi-year, international strategy. We conducted public education, gathered pledges, and secured commitments from several mayors.
Thirteen years later, the conversation that the organization hoped to spark hasn't materialized. Most people who see these purchases as problematic cite an entirely different problem from the one this nonprofit hoped to solve. Despite meeting all our tactical goals, the strategic objective remains unfulfilled. And this is just one example of many.
Out making change in 2009.
The Comfort-Seeking Problem
Why do these campaigns fall short? The answer lies in who designs and implements them. Most nonprofit campaigns are created by employees seeking personal spiritual fulfillment: people with "relaxtionary consciousness."
Relaxtionary consciousness emerges when someone's basic survival needs are met and they begin focusing on spiritual needs. For many progressive activists, political campaigning meets these spiritual needs, which is why they choose it as a profession.
The problem is that relaxtionary consciousness usually wilts when confronted with reactionary consciousness. People fighting to hold onto what they have (reactionary consciousness) bring a different level of tenacity and commitment to their struggles. The stakes are higher for them. Those seeking spiritual fulfillment often cannot withstand this opposition and retreat to easier sources of fulfillment.
I was there!
Designing for Feeling Good, Not Impact
This dynamic shapes how campaigns are designed. Nonprofit leaders create campaign plans that maximize spiritual fulfillment and minimize conflict. Instead of forcing relaxtionary consciousness to engage in real struggle with reactionary consciousness, they develop tactics that feel good but may not create change.
Consider the ubiquitous pledge. In one campaign, I sought hundreds of thousands of signatures from people making a pledge about climate change. But how many signatories actually followed through? I have no idea. And what happened with those signatures? Sometimes, they gathered dust in a storage room. Other times, they were handed off via a USB drive to some Senator's flunky and never looked at again.
Most professional activists privately acknowledge the limited value of such tactics. Pledges might raise awareness or help build contact lists, but their direct impact on policymaking is minimal, in my judgment. Yet we continue to prioritize these activities because they're measurable, visible, and spiritually fulfilling for practitioners while requiring minimal conflict or confrontation with those who don't agree with us.
Meeting with Congressperson Walz in 2007
The Metrics Trap
As achievement-subjects, we desire accomplishment alongside spiritual fulfillment. This drives us toward tactics with easily countable results. The more quantifiable an activity is, the better it feels to hit a big number.
This partly explains the rise of digital activism. Online campaigns offer immediate gratification through metrics like clicks, shares, and signatures that create a sense of achievement without requiring difficulty.
My personal heuristic for evaluating a tactic's effectiveness is simple: the more people post self-satisfied photos of themselves doing it on social media, the less real change I suspect it creates.
The Fundraising Paradox
This dynamic extends to fundraising. I've run fundraising canvasses and consulted with organizations that do, too. Using environmental causes as an example to make a broader point: in almost every case, campaigns about existential issues like climate change consistently underperformed compared to simpler campaigns about saving wildlife.
Why? Because climate change is big and scary. Potential donors know that a small monthly contribution won't on its own solve a global crisis requiring societal transformation. The interaction brings unease rather than spiritual fulfillment.
Meanwhile, saving the otters or bees or lions sounds nice, and a small donation makes people feel noble. "Take my money and go so I can feel good about giving it!" is the unspoken transaction.
The Growing Asymmetry
Over the past decade, American politics has experienced dramatic shifts, from the rise of various political movements to polarizing elections. Throughout these changes, I've witnessed an increasing emphasis on spiritually fulfilling tactics within progressive organizations, while the gap between daily activities and desired outcomes has widened.
The asymmetry between the relaxtionary consciousness segment of the left and the reactionary consciousness right has grown larger. While one side seeks spiritual fulfillment through activism that feels good, the other fights with tenacity to protect what they have. This fundamental mismatch helps explain why progressive movements often struggle despite significant resources and public support.
Thanks for reading! This post is public so feel free to share it.
Moving Forward
I believe many professional progressives need a reinvention. We must recognize that our desire for spiritual fulfillment and measurable achievement has led us to prioritize activities that help us feel good rather than create the most change.
This isn't about abandoning our values or working less diligently. It's about honestly assessing whether our tactics match our goals. Are we designing campaigns that can withstand opposition and create lasting change, or are we simply going through motions that provide personal satisfaction?
The path forward requires uncomfortable honesty about our motivations and a willingness to engage in the difficult, messy work of real change, even when it doesn't provide immediate spiritual fulfillment.
In our next newsletter, I'll venture some ideas for organizations to move beyond the relaxtionary consciousness trap and design campaigns with greater potential for impact.
What has been your experience with activism that feels good versus activism that creates change? Share your thoughts by commenting or replying to this newsletter.