A Social Experiment to Improve a Culture of Giving

Now, let's step out of the Saga of the Web-Surfing Squatter for a little bit of application.  If you haven't gotten hold of Adam Grant's book, Give and Take, it's worth a read and a re-read.  Go to http://giveandtake.com/ for the details and other resources.

Grant identifies three types of folks: takers, matchers and givers.  The short version is this.  Takers give in order to come out ahead.  Matchers give in order to come out even, at least in the long run.  Givers give in order to increase the world's overall level of giving, goodness and well-being.

It appears that the majority of folks are matchers--disciples of the quid pro quo.  Let's assume that's true, for example, in a religious congregation.  If that happens to be a congregation that lives and dies based on donations, then the preponderance of matchers creates a problem.  After all, the idea is to give on the basis of religious commitment rather than on the basis of receiving a fair return on your investment.

So, how we do we get to the matchers and help them act more like givers?  Grant describes a number of such efforts in the business world that appears to have had some success.  Here's a proposal for a project in the church world.

Take the names of all the adult members in the congregation and make them available in some random fashion.  Simplest is to have the names drawn out of a hat, fishbowl, etc.  Have church members draw a name at random.  The rules of the game after that are quite simple.

1.  Give a gift to that member with a value of up to twenty five dollars.

2.  Pledge to keep the identity of the gift-ee a secret known only to you.

3.  Ensure that the gift-ee cannot know your identity as the giver.

4.  Attach a note to the gift that says, "A gift for you from your friends at ____ Church, Synagogue, etc.  The best way to say thank you for this gift is to give a gift to someone else."  Make sure that it is clear that the gift is from the community and not from an individual.

If Grant is right, then the matchers will feel a responsibility to set accounts right.  They won't feel the need to give followed by an expectation that the gift-ee will reciprocate.  The matchers are already in arrears and will need to balance the books.  Since the matchers can't identity the giver, they will have no choice but to follow the instructions in step four.  And they will get the pleasure we all receive from giving with no expectation of repayment.

What if a taker gets such a gift?  That may be the end of the transaction.  But Grant would suggest that takers are reluctant to be outed as takers.  So in all likelihood, the takers will participate as well in order to avoid potential social disapproval.

And the givers?  They'll just think it's all way cool and get on with it.

What do you think?

Will you give it a try and report the results here?

I'm going to suggest it to my stewardship folks.  We'll see if anything happens.