The Giving Tree

I've never been a fan of the book, The Giving Tree, which was written and illustrated by Shel Silverstein.  As it turns out, I'm not alone.  Even though the book is frequently given as a present for milestone events such as graduations (I think I may have received it for my high school graduation), it's been described as "one of the most divisive books in children's literature."  The book ranks high in either the "most favorite" or "least favorite" lists of children's books, and it was even banned in the state of Colorado in 1988 for apparently being sexist (read about that here).  For those individuals who love the book, it is a story of friendship, generosity, sacrifice, and selfless love.  For those of us who hate the book, it is a story of selfishness and narcissism.  See for yourself - either read the book (remember, it's a children's book, so it's very short) or listen to a reading of the book here.    

Both Silverstein and his publishers were actually surprised by the initial success of the book.  Reportedly, the publisher initially printed just seven thousand copies of the book - the book has gone on to sell over 5 million copies!  Silverstein himself once claimed the book had no message, and when asked to defend the book's theme said, "It’s just a relationship between two people; one gives and the other takes."

That last comment leads right into the point of my discussion today.  I've written a number of posts about the Wharton professor Adam Grant's three books, the first of which was Give and Take.  Grant recently talked about The Giving Tree in an article that he co-wrote with Allison Sweet Grant (who just so happens to be his wife) in the New York Times, "We Need to Talk About 'The Giving Tree'", in which he brought in key concepts from his book.  Basically, people at work generally belong to one of three groups - givers, takers, and matchers.  Givers are those individuals who contribute their time and energy to help others without expecting anything in return, while takers try to get everything they can from others.  Matchers trade their time and energy evenly (think quid pro quo).

What Adam Grant finds in his research, perhaps surprisingly, is that givers are usually the most successful individuals in the workplace.  It is usually the case that there are always exceptions to these kinds of statements, and there is certainly a few caveats here.  Grant also noted that givers can be taken advantage of or exploited.  There is also a limit to what an individual giver can give - if they give too much, they are at risk for burning out.  In other words, being generous doesn't mean that you have to be selfless to the point of self-sacrifice, as in the case of the apple tree in The Giving Tree.  Being strategic about giving turns out to be incredibly important.  Grant calls these strategic givers, otherish givers!  Otherish givers are strategic about how, when, and who they give to and understand that every "no" frees them up for a "yes" that matters more.

Givers, then, are further sub-classified into otherish givers (who are indeed the most successful of all the groups that Grant has studied) and the self-sacrificing givers, who suffer from what the author Barbara Oakley calls pathological altruism, which she defines as "an unhealthy focus on others to the detriment of one's own needs."  Bill Gates once argued at the World Economic Summit that "there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest and caring for others."  The most successful individuals - the otherish givers - are the ones who strike a balance between these two forces.

 

As Grant and his wife Allison write in their New York Times article, "Paradoxically, being less selfless actually allows you to give more: Instead of letting other people sap your energy, you maintain your motivation."  Here is one potential explanation to the growing epidemic of burnout in health care workers that I discussed in a recent post ("Mindfulness training?").  For example, selflessness to the point of self-sacrifice predicts emotional exhaustion among nurses.  The Grants go on to write, "Generosity is not about sacrificing yourself for others - it's about helping others without harming yourself."  A study of 161 employees of a large engineering firm found that those employees who give selfishly and without thinking of their own needs were the least productive - they made more errors, missed more deadlines, and failed to finish more projects than their counterparts.  I suspect that similar results would be found in health care.

Successful givers - the otherish givers - are both altruistic and ambitious.  If you analyzed their personalities, they would score high on being "other-oriented" and "self-interested" compared to their peers.  They've learned to navigate in a world of matchers and takers, and they are less likely to be taken advantage of in the workplace.  Grant often references a study of nearly 700 Belgian medical students who were followed during their medical school training.  Medical students whose personality traits matched up with being a giver performed well during medical school.  However, those who scored unusually high on the giver personality actually did worse.  Again, being an otherish giver means giving strategically where and when it counts the most.  It also means striking a balance between giving to others and giving to yourself.   

Clearly there are some important lessons in Shel Silverstein's book, The Giving Tree.  Giving is not one-sided.  As William Cole, an editor at the book publisher Simon & Schuster said when he famously turned the book down, "My interpretation is that that was one dum-dum of a tree, giving everything and expecting nothing in return."  Perhaps that is the secret - don't be a dum-dum.  Be an otherish giver.