Consider one study performed by Grant as a graduate student. He visited a call-center on campus where callers solicited donations from alumni for the purpose of building a scholarship fund. The job usually had a low satisfaction rate, since 93% of calls ended in something other than a donation (and often enough, some form of verbal abuse instead). Motivation among the staff was low, and so was productivity.
For his experiment, Grant brought in a student who'd benefited greatly from a scholarship funded by call-center donations. The student spoke to the callers for ten minutes, telling them all how much the money had changed his life. A month after hearing the story, "...the workers were spending 142 percent more time on the phone and bringing in 171 percent more revenue, even though they were using the same script. In a subsequent study, the revenues soared by more than 400 percent."
Curiously, the callers themselves would never pin-point the testimonial as the reason their productivity had gone up so much. Yet repeated trials of the same experiment suggest that at some level, knowing the work they did benefited someone else appears to have made them more motivated to solicit donations. Even when subconscious, the increased motivation of giving has a powerful effect.
Similar conclusions emerged from experiments with doctors. Signs posted in the bathroom which say washing hands saves patients' lives is more motivating than signs saying hand-washing keeps doctors healthy.
In his book, Grant divides people into three categories: givers, matchers, and takers. Dominus explains the distinction as such:
"Givers give without expectation of immediate gain; they never seem too busy to help, share credit actively and mentor generously. Matchers go through life with a master chit list in mind, giving when they can see how they will get something of equal value back and to people who they think can help them. And takers seek to come out ahead in every exchange; they manage up and are defensive about their turf."
Of "givers," Grant believes there are two kinds: those who give everything and burn out, and those whose motivation to give drives them to become a leader. As Dominus writes:
"Much of Grant’s book sets out to establish the difference between the givers who are exploited and those who end up as models of achievement. The most successful givers, Grant explains, are those who rate high in concern for others but also in self-interest. And they are strategic in their giving — they give to other givers and matchers, so that their work has the maximum desired effect; they are cautious about giving to takers; they give in ways that reinforce their social ties; and they consolidate their giving into chunks, so that the impact is intense enough to be gratifying."
The profile is an interesting read, and lends credence to the popular notion that "it is better to give than to receive." What we see though, is that the picture is more complicated than that. Giving motivates us, yet at the extreme can break us too; it can make us feel good, or drive us bananas. I'm not sure what the takeaway from this story should be, but I think it's a helpful counter to a prevailing notion that giving is for suckers, and our well-being is determined by maximizing profit and only looking out for number 1; that giving is not just a charity, but a source or positive feeling and deep motivation. One study cited by Grant found that people who give show greater mental toughness in a physical hand-grip test, outlasting the non-givers by 10 seconds (35 and 25 seconds respectively). Is it any wonder how athletes who "take one for the team" are often capable for far more than usual? Something worth pondering maybe.
"Pleasure is spread through the earth
In stray gifts to be claimed by whoever shall find."
-William Wordsworth
No comments:
Post a Comment