Team Production and Gift Exchange

I find it very interesting how the article talking about the pulling of the shared rope saw better outcomes than separate ropes. I feel like in many organizations, this is true because people will work harder and be happier with a more even distribution when they know everyone is working the same amount, or everyone is working towards the same goal. 

I find these articles very interesting because they give me perspective into why some behavioral structures are more efficient than others. 

One idea that I have of team production with gift exchange is in business. I have a joint venture with a partner of mine who works full time as a healthcare executive. The business acts as a distributor of nitrile gloves to American companies. The gloves are sourced from Malaysia, and the target companies are large healthcare, restoration, laboratory, etc. companies in the United States. My partner and I are the two main employees, the other two are hired on an hourly fee for service basis. Therefore, the profits we attain are split evenly between us. Because of this, we both make the presumption in our heads that the work we put in must be equal. Now in a company, this is obviously tough to do, because the “level” or “difficulty” of different tasks cannot often be estimated specifically. However, we often see very few issues in this regard- because both of us know that our work is a team effort, and the profit is the product of a team effort, if one person completes a larger or harder than normal task the other person will go the extra mile next time in order to compensate. I think there is a mental construct that makes me want my partner to think I am putting in equal work and holding up my end of the deal, and vice versa. 

I also remember our high school basketball team as a distinct example of gift exchange versus “work” input. We had a rather large basketball team, even though we were a small school, and there would be many kids who sat on the bench. Whenever there were some major errors made by a certain player on the team, the coach would call the whole team back. They would not single out the player, even though everyone on the team knew who was at fault. The catch to this was that all players had around the same level of frequency in mistake making. Not completely, but close enough. For example, even if one of our teammates made a very bad pass or took a very bad shot, we would refrain from criticism because we knew that we would likely do the same thing in the future. Rather, we aimed to keep the focus positive by just pointing out that a better shot or pass should be taken next time. In this particular case, criticism was hard to pass out because the outcome of the team was dependent on every individual player, and also each player makes mistakes for which they are accountable personally. We knew there were certain individuals who were much less athletic and more prone to making mistakes, and we tried to limit their exposure for the best of the team. 

I don’t believe we can ever achieve a “perfect” level of fairness. Fairness, after all, when it comes down to it, becomes somewhat of a mental construct. For example, the monkey in the cage who gets a tasty cucumber gets angry because his peer gets a tasty grape. Now, does the monkey really judge the grape to be “better” than the cucumber? I believe not. It is simply the idea that something “different” may indeed be better. If we as human beings can come to a consensus that the work we are doing is fair for US to do, meaning that an individual’s workload is fair with respect to everyone else (not necessarily equivalent to everyone else), then perhaps we can be more open to sharing. 

If I do my friend’s dishes for him most of the times after he cooks, I may feel like he is not doing his “fair” share of cleaning up. But do I believe the larger picture is unfair? No, because the utility I receive from our friendship and the help I receive elsewhere far outweighs any ideas of unfairness regarding cleaning up. So I don’t mind at all.