Giver, Matcher, Taker…

About 14 years ago, as we walked to work, my then-boyfriend/now-husband and I were discussing the purpose of life.

“It’s to be helpful to others,” I announced. “What else is there to do?”

He smiled. “You can help yourself. When you do that, others end up being helped as well.”

A new book is coming out next week, by Adam Grant, a young (youngest tenured at 31) professor at The Wharton School, called Give and Take. I’ve pre-ordered it, I’ve taken the online assessment on his site to estimate my giving, taking, or matching tendencies, and I’ve bookmarked his blog, so that I can follow it when it opens next week with the release of his book, all because of this article I started reading at 6:45 this morning:

Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead?” By Susan Dominus for The New York Times, it’s a thorough interview of Grant and examination of the theories (and data!) behind his work. It moved me, because it validates that the implicit conclusion of that conversation I had with my best friend 14 years ago.

In professional interactions, it turns out that most people operate as either takers, matchers, or givers. Whereas takers strive to get as much as possible from others and matchers aim to trade evenly, givers are the rare breed of people who contribute to others without expecting anything in return.

Are “givers” saps? Not necessarily.

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.

And get this: In the video of Dominus talking with Grant, he describes how “takers” only win in the short-term. And in fact, Grant shares that according to his colleague’s research givers or matchers might engage in what is known as “pro-social gossip” about takers, in order to affect the taker’s reputation and protect others from that taker. Specifically:

The more generous and moral among us are most likely to pass on rumors about untrustworthy people,” says Willer, “and they report doing so because they are concerned about the well-being others.

love that, for so many reasons (which I can’t elucidate here, because there’s prosocial gossip, and then there’s antisocial blogging).

I can’t wait to read his book.

dominating what, exactly?

I was tempted to add to the comments section on this: “Taking the Lead on Child Rearing,” an examination of why, “despite all the studies that show dads are taking on more and more responsibility in raising their children (in two-parent heterosexual households, that is), the issue of which parent plays a more dominant role… still presents a challenge for couples.”

But I didn’t, because there’s something mildly desperate about The New York Times’ effort to give these issues “Room for Debate.” Sometimes, there’s no real debate to be had–rather, there’s just room for people to kvetch.

K.J. Dell’Antonia describes how she needed to walk her husband through an afternoon kids’ schedule when she was away, and she did that little dominant parent “dance.” What does that mean? Was she pleased that she was the one that knew everything, after intentionally not leaving a list of what needed to be done? I understood Bruce Feiler’s follow-up question: was she protecting her role and in a way, treasuring the idea of a bumbling dad/husband?

She shifts gears in response, indicating that knowing everything and saving the day (for her kids’ schedules) gives her license to work outside the home and “have it all,” and increases her esteem in the eyes of other moms. She can’t escape it (her dominant role) or she’ll have guilt, or shame. Bruce responds rationally, with a basic, “who gives a hoot?” to all the eyebrow-raising, tut-tutting moms out there.

So K.J. concludes that what this is really about is her–her own judgment of herself. That the “mommy wars” are just internal shame spirals, amplified and multiplied.

End of “debate.”

I just want to shake K.J., and wake her up. And I want to sock Bruce in the arm, just because he, too, was missing the point. Their conversation was not about child rearing. It was about marriage, and the kind of work that parents in a marriage need to do together.

Child rearing is Work. It is a Job. It is not something that comes naturally, any more than say, being a chief financial officer at a large corporation comes “naturally.” It is not something whose details and logistics are magically memorized by all involved.  The way you and your partner manage the work of child rearing reflects (1) the way you and your partner communicate, and (2) the level of respect you have for each other’s skills, time, and preferences.

Without good communication and healthy respect, the work of child rearing will–and I do mean will–turn into the worst kind of burden. It will turn the “dominant parent” into a martyr (or worse, know-it-all), and it will turn the other parent into a perceived slacker (or worse–actual slacker). This applies to two-earner/two-parent families, and single-earner/two-parent families.

I think my husband would agree that right now, I am “dominant” because time allows and requires it. And so what? We make the most of our skills, our expertise, our preferences, our time. Sometimes it’s 50-50, sometimes it 90-10. It’s just work.

Yes, we can fall into these traps, where we keep score, where we revel in our “dominance,” and maybe do a little dance (I still don’t understand K.J. on that one). As parents… as mothers… We can feel righteous, or guilty, or put upon, or taken for granted. We can simultaneously question whether we’re good enough as mothers and why it is that our partner just doesn’t “get it” or “pay attention,” the way that we do. Those traps are hard to escape.

I’ve climbed out a few times, with my husband’s help. After I asked for his help, clearly and respectfully, because that’s a hallmark of marriage. I avoid those traps now, because he’s removed them, by listening, with sincere appreciation for what I do all day.

He doesn’t want me to fall in again. There’s too much work to do.

This is amazing…

This is amazing to me:

In spite of clichés about Nascar dads and Walmart moms, the actual share of voters nationally who are up for grabs is probably between just 3 percent and 5 percent in this election, polling experts say. The Obama and Romney campaigns are expected to spend on the order of $2 billion, in part to try to sway this tiny share of the electorate.

It’s reminiscent of the Coke/Pepsi war. They’re trying to get people who drink water for free to buy soda.