Giving Versus Giving In

Altruism is central to organizational and social life, but its motivations are not well understood. We propose a new theoretical distinction that sorts these motivations into two basic types: “giving” indicates prosocial behaviors in which one willingly engages, while “giving in” indicates prosocial behavior in which one reluctantly engages, often in response to social pressure or obligation. Unlike those who give, those who give in prefer to avoid the situation that compels altruism altogether, even if doing so leaves the would-be beneficiary empty-handed. We review the existing literature on altruism in behavioral economics, psychology, and organizational behavior and suggest that the distinction between giving and giving in is not only central from a theoretical standpoint, but also has important methodological implications for researchers trying to study prosocial behavior and practitioners trying to encourage it. ∗Corresponding author. Email: [email protected] The Academy of Management Annals, 2014 Vol. 8, No. 1, 505–533, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19416520.2014.911576 # 2014 Academy of Management 505 D ow nl oa de d by [ Y al e U ni ve rs ity L ib ra ry ], [ A nt ho ny D in i] a t 0 6: 55 1 6 Ju ne 2 01 4 Successful organizations and societies depend on altruistic behavior for their survival. Firms rely on purely discretionary organizational citizenship behaviors (OCBs) (e.g. Organ, 1988) such as employees following best practices and making decisions that benefit the organization, even when their behavior cannot be monitored. Similarly, coworkers rely on prosocial organizational behaviors (e.g. Brief & Motowidlo, 1986) such as getting help from another coworker, even when the personal reward for helping does not seem to selfishly justify the effort. Outside stakeholders such as charities, non-profits, and community organizations often critically rely on the generosity of workers and firms. Therefore, it seems essential to understand the origins and nature of altruistic behavior from the perspective of organizational behavior and management. In this paper, we propose a new classification of the motivations for altruism along different lines than the existing literature. Altruism is commonly defined by its costs to the agent—i.e. sacrifices of money, time, or energy that in some way aid the betterment of an external entity. As a result, theorists have long puzzled over why individuals are generous, helpful, or prosocial if the costs of such behaviors seem to outweigh the narrow benefits to the individual (Batson, 1991). For example, why do “good citizens” continue to bear the personal costs of bettering the organization and selfish employees focus only on the tasks for which they are remunerated? Most approaches to this puzzle assume that those generous individuals must ultimately be getting something in return for their prosociality, be it reputational benefits, quid pro quo, or a positive self-image. We suggest, however, that a surprising amount of prosocial behavior is a compulsory response to a request for help, either implicit or explicit. Sometimes people behave prosocially not because of the benefit of saying “yes”, but rather because they feel they cannot say “no”. We distinguish two fundamentally different explanations for altruistic behavior, which we refer to as “giving” versus “giving in”. Giving refers to altruistic behaviors in which an individual willingly engages for a variety of possible benefits to the giver, including those that are ultimately self-regarding. Giving in, by contrast, refers to altruistic behavior in which one reluctantly engages (i.e. “reluctant altruism”) without necessarily deriving any benefit aside from fulfilling a request for help—a request which one would rather avoid altogether. In terms of their immediate, first-order effects, giving and giving in produce identical behavior, especially if there is a direct request: both can lead individuals to help. The second-order effects, however, are quite different: Individuals who give will not avoid—and may even seek out—opportunities to help because they get something from helping (e.g., positive feelings, reputational benefits). By contrast, individuals who give in will avoid contexts that provide the opportunity to help so that they do not feel obliged to do so. 506 † The Academy of Management Annals D ow nl oa de d by [ Y al e U ni ve rs ity L ib ra ry ], [ A nt ho ny D in i] a t 0 6: 55 1 6 Ju ne 2 01 4 We stress that giving in is distinct from free-riding. Those who help by giving in would readily avoid the request even if they are certain that no one else would provide help in their place. Therefore, whether an individual avoids a potential giving situation is a behavioral litmus test for distinguishing giving from giving in. An example may help further clarify this distinction. Consider three employees, Ava, Beatrice, and Celine, each of whom are asked to cover a shift for a coworker. Ava covers because she believes that employees should do such things for each other. Beatrice covers because she thinks her efforts will be recognized by others and that her reputation as a team player will ultimately benefit her. Celine covers because she felt that she could not say no when asked, but feels regretful and wishes she had not been asked in the first place. Perhaps Ava can be described as more purely altruistic while Beatrice can be described as acting in her self-interest, but this is not the distinction we are highlighting here—both Ava and Beatrice are “giving” within our taxonomy. Celine, on the other hand, is “giving in” because she would prefer to avoid the situation so that she does not feel compelled to help. Failing to understand the difference between giving and giving in might lead one to overestimate the amount of citizenship in the organization if covering the shift is taken to reflect giving. In situations where requests for help can be avoided, one might see much less helping. Also, because Celine was “trapped” into helping, it is possible that her future interactions with her coworker will be much different than Ava’s or Beatrice’s. For instance, Celine could feel resentment toward her coworker or avoid interacting with her altogether so as not to be asked for more favors. Of course, many instances of prosocial behavior within an organization are discretionary and without reluctance, and individuals even seek out opportunities to help at times. We argue, however, that the literature significantly overstates the prevalence of giving because a substantial portion of what looks like giving is actually giving in. This may seem a somewhat cynical take on human altruism. However, as we outline in further detail, understanding giving in also presents managers with opportunities for encouraging prosocial behavior. As suggested by Flynn and Bohns (2012), direct requests for help are perhaps the most basic weapon of influence. The remainder of this paper is organized into four main sections. The first section focuses on giving and reviews major schools of thought behind the different benefits individuals may realize from prosocial behavior. The second section focuses on giving in and reviews recent empirical evidence demonstrating that when subjects are placed in situations that “suggest” altruism (such as economic games in which one player is asked to share money with another), providing opportunities to avoid or “exit” the situation reduces rates of altruism by as much as 50%. The third section more broadly discusses the implications of the giving versus giving-in distinction for organizations, Giving Versus Giving In † 507 D ow nl oa de d by [ Y al e U ni ve rs ity L ib ra ry ], [ A nt ho ny D in i] a t 0 6: 55 1 6 Ju ne 2 01 4 while the final section discusses the implications and potential directions for further research in this area.