Sharing

I stumbled into a new program on my local NPR station tonight called, "The Really Big Questions."  The "really big question" that was being explored tonight was "Why do people share?"  I was intrigued, and I listened with rapt attention.  Soon I was taking notes.  Before I knew it, I could feel a blog post forming.

Contrary to what is suggested by the "economic survival of the fittest"--the assumption that we survive by trying to get more stuff for ourselves, it ends up that just the opposite is true.  That didn't totally surprise me since, in my field of organizational behavior studies have long proven that people are more driven intrinsically than by external rewards, but I didn't really realize the extent to which research has shown that we feel better when we give than when we take and that asking people to do something for free leads to better inputs than when we pay for results.

In a number of studies, the results of a number of workplace studies demonstrated the same thing in other settings:  offering to pay money for certain behaviors "messes up motivation."  People won't do what they might have done without pay after money is offered.  Even in settings in which we might normally have expected selfishness to prevail--sales teams--when team members gave to other members, the resulting team was more cohesive and performed better over the long run.  There are even studies in which people will refuse their own reward if they feel that others have been treated unfairly but less equally.

Researcher Michael Norton at Harvard gave people money to spend.  Some were told to spend it on themselves,  and others were told to spend it on someone else. The least happy were those who spent on themselves, more happy were those who spent on someone else, and the most happy were those who gave to someone/something else that would make a positive difference in the world.

In all settings, people who gave with no expectation of receiving anything in return were happier than those who expected some kind of reciprocity. 

Even Darwin from whom we have come to expect a one-against-another battle for survival, filmmaker Tom Shadyac told us in his film "I am," only used the term "survival of the fittest" twice, while using the word "love" 95 times.  Cooperation, the film tells us, is the order among the most successful species.

A number of years ago I lived on a lake.  I always loved this time of year when young life was springing forth in nature all around me.  What I noticed very quickly is that baby geese survived at a much higher rate than baby ducks.  The difference: geese parent communally, sharing the responsibility for the next generation, while ducks parented individually. 

The geese would "post sentries" on the banks when their little ones where out of the water, and the sentries would happily "goose" passersby that came anywhere near their young.  In the water, the adult geese would encircle the young, protecting them in all directions.  In a given cohort of say 20-24 goslings, rarely would more than one or two lose their lives.

By contrast, a single duck might start with 12-14 ducklings, and within days that number would be cut in half.  Rarely did more than one or two of a brood reach maturity, as the ducklings fell victim to house cats, snakes, catfish, and other predictors.  Clearly the strategy of a single mother duck parenting her young flock was not as effective as the sharing and cooperation of the geese.

Last night I watched "It Could Happen To You," an old Nicholas Cage film, which explores three lottery winners and how they used their winnings.  The one selfishly went on a spending spree, buying expensive clothing, furs, and enlarging her home.  The other two had fun sharing their wealth.  One day they showed up in a subway station and gave away subway tokens.  Another day they rented Yankee Stadium for poor kids to play baseball like the big leaguers. One was a waitress who bought the diner in which she worked and set up a special table for those who couldn't afford to buy a meal. In the end, as you might expect, the two who gave the money were the happiest and were soon beloved by their whole city, while the greedy one ended up losing everything and being alone except for her mother.

"The Really Big Question" of "Why do people share?" was never definitively answered, but clearly we not only come out ahead, but we feel better when we do.  I think I used to share more than I do now, but even as a small child, I was taught to tithe--give away 1/10th of what I earned.  I am sure I no longer hit 10 percent, but there are a number of "causes" that I support because I think they make the world better.  Like those in the study who were happiest giving to make the world better, I am happiest when I feel like in some small way I am making the world better.

We do have many things to give other than money.  I think that is where I've fallen short. So, this evening, like many others, I give my words in this blog post in hopes that it will make the world better for all of us.  Tomorrow I will look for others ways to share more of my time and talent.