More Giving More

One of the things Peter and I appreciated about Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success is that it delved into not only the benefits of giving, but also the common pitfalls. Givers can be prone to over-giving which leads to disillusionment, burnout, and fatigue. In the second half of his book, Adam Grant explores the ways in which we can give meaningfully and sustainably.

Giving can be so rewarding but more-so when done voluntarily. Voluntary giving leads to a greater sense of fulfillment, mastery, and autonomy. It creates a sense of duty and desire to give back which are more sustainable in the long term. Giving out of obligation is the opposite and therefore doesn’t tap into any of the emotional satisfaction vital to sustainable giving.

Selectivity in how and when a person gives is also a big factor in sustainability. Giving can provide purpose, value, happiness, and even improved work performance with better long-term outcomes. Giving leads to crescive reservoirs of happiness that takers and matchers cannot access as easily or effectively. However, selfless giving without any boundaries will lead to burnout and rapid depletion of this reservoir.

This voluntary giving is particularly powerful under moments of duress when we are confronted with a problem. We are presented with a choice of fight or flight. Instead of avoiding the problem, studies show that leaning into the problem by banding with teammates, serving as an outlet for stress, and working together creates a sense of community. It originally struck me as counterintuitive that when we are faced with stress, we should lean into the discomfort and find ways to give. In residency, we called this process “tend and befriend” — the ability to mitigate and overcome elements of burnout collectively as a cohort of medical trainees.

The pattern of giving is also important in creating a sense of agency and mastery while also supporting sustainability. Some people give a lot all at once whereas some people prefer to spread out their giving (think small and daily acts of kindness). Some studies suggest that giving in larger amounts but in lower frequency can leave a more lasting impression. This intermittent giving, as opposed to continuous giving, also creates systems wherein people can prioritize their own personal achievements while carving out time to help others. Of course, this is not to dissuade people from giving more often—there is good evidence to show that even 2 hours of volunteering per week can be greatly beneficial.

It is no surprise that giving has so many benefits, especially when it comes to a sense of individual and interpersonal fulfillment. For decades, altruism has been acknowledged as one of the highest forms of psychological defense, a way to overcome stress in one’s life. I’ve often found that my older patients who reflect deeply on their legacies as one of giving or contribution toward a better society fare better with regard to their mental health. Even on an individual scale, Peter and I often remedy any conflict or disagreement with giving (often acts of service).

Fortunately, giving can take so many forms: time, energy, and even material gifts. Peter enjoys helping in the form of planning, organizing, and problem-solving which takes considerable time and energy. A prime example of this is his efforts in organizing hangouts for his friends, building Notion interfaces for peers, and even taking on redundant tasks at work to help out other teams at his hospital. At the end of the day, successful and strategic giving will improve both parties’ lives.

Burnout while giving is a serious issue for the wholly selfless givers. Adam Grant dedicates a chapter on delineating subtypes of givers and takers which really resonated with us. In this chapter, he discusses the trait of agreeableness (often misperceived as nice or kind) and contrasts it to assertiveness (as having some semblance of boundary). This intersection creates several specified groups of people: agreeable takers (“fakers” who are wolves in sheep’s clothing), agreeable givers (”doormats” getting walked over), assertive takers (”assholes” nobody wants to work with), and assertive givers (”otherish” givers who are successful, smart, and have a spine).

“Otherish” giving involves helping others without sacrificing one’s own ambitions, goals, and success. But this type of giving often involves screening for sincerity from others and being intentional about doling out trust or help. In this way, givers can be more successful by being more discerning rather than being complete doormats. It can be very challenging to identify “fakers” as a person’s motivations may only be revealed with time.

“Otherish” givers, upon identifying takers, can withdraw or be more selective with their giving as to not be taken complete advantage of. Interestingly, this subset of givers also excel in that they do not feel sheepish in requesting fair compensation, a trait that may be chalked up to a matcher mindset.

Adam Grant points out that women, compared to similarly competent and giving men, are much less likely to request higher pay even when appropriate (whether due to being passive, too agreeable, or overburdened by societal expectations). Importantly, however, is that when they do request for higher pay, they get it at the same rates as similarly performing men. It just so happens that within our society, men request for higher pay much more often. The result? Takers can prey on this tendency and lowball women.

It stands to reason that following a balanced approach consisting of matching and giving will yield the best results. Adam Grant proposes matching 2/3’s of the time, while giving 1/3 of the time. He argues that positive feedback from giving can build the reservoir of positive emotion, which can then be utilized to say “no” when appropriate. This results in self-preservation without feeling terribly in the context of setting boundaries. He also emphasizes focusing on cognitive empathy (what others are thinking) rather than emotional empathy (how they are feeling). Feelings are often not driven by any logic whereas if you can tap into how the other is thinking, you can truly help them in ways they may not yet acknowledge. This is reminiscent of “tough love” which may be difficult to administer and yet so powerfully rewarding for the recipient.

It would be ideal to navigate our lives as a giver in all domains, but that’s not reality. I think for most people, there is a blend of taker, matcher, and giver tendencies depending on the situation. However, most individuals likely lean predominantly one way or the other, so the ultimate goal is to be more giver than taker in this world. The book lists out several patterns and techniques for developing more giver tendencies not just within ourselves but within our communities.

People tend to engage more in giving when they are surrounded by others publicly giving. Yes, this is essentially peer-pressure masquerading as social modeling. But with time and with continued giving, takers can slowly shift in their mindsets as they see the value they’ve created. Public accountability can slowly transform takers into givers through garnering community reputation versus penitence. And if takers can be slowly reformed, matchers are even more likely to undergo an identity shift as they see results in their giving.

Further, people are more motivated to give when they perceive their contributions as making a significant impact. But this led to one of the most engaging topics from the book: whether givers are pure in their intentions. After all, they are reaping significant gratification from giving. Are they giving for the sake of giving, or are they giving to feel good about themselves?

Altruism is often born of empathy, a form of introjection, which is an adoption of another’s feelings while maintaining a sense of separate identity. The process of empathizing allows us to partially dissolve our own ego boundaries and to merge with another’s—to this end, is altruism just assuaging our own guilt or discomfort? This is the mechanism by which “otherish” giving can be explained. Due to the ego boundary dissolution, we are effectively giving to ourselves when we give to others—we can prioritize both needs at the same time.

There is a false dichotomy between giving and personal success: the two do not have to be mutually exclusive. After reading this book, Peter and I think that we are often held back by the misconception that giving means sacrificing one’s personal advancement. It’s not only more likely but more admirable that we can find great success without diminutive action toward others. Peter and I are challenging ourselves to expand the ways in which we give, even if miniscule. If there is one thing we learned, it is that small deeds may have significant consequence. At the end of the day, even if giving has self-serving elements, it is wholly a move in a more positive direction: a bigger slice of pie for all involved.