A former colleague recently recommended Adam Grant’s book "Give and Take."

In the volume Grant identifies three work traits: Giving, Taking and Matching. Givers are guided by values of helpfulness, responsibility, social justice, compassion and contribute to others while not expecting anything in return. Takers, on the other hand, are guided by values of wealth, power, pleasure, winning and strive to get as much as possible from others. Matchers refers to those that attempt to trade evenly.

As a graduate student Grant conducted a study to change the culture of the fund raising call center at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. The practice had been to use cash prizes and competitive games to motivate the student workers. He brought in a student who had benefited from fund raising to talk for just ten minutes on how much the scholarship from fundraising had changed his life and helped prepare him to be a teacher with "Teach for America." A month later the workers were working 142% more time on the telephone and bringing in 171% more donations. Grant repeated the study five times with equal or better results. Interestingly, in debriefings after the studies, the student workers denied that the visit from the scholarship recipient made any difference. The student workers were motivated to succeed but were not aware of the cause.

Grant concludes that successful Givers score high in concern for others and high in concern for self. Successful Givers are strategic by giving to other Givers and Matchers to achieve objectives and reinforce their social relationships.

It’s surprising that Grant doesn’t relate his work to the long established styles of conflict—avoiding, accommodating, competing, compromising and collaboration. Those of us working in that field have long taught the advantages of collaboration or resolving conflicts in creative ways so that each party can achieve their objectives. It is true, though, that in workshops I conduct when given a hypothetical conflict situation, almost all workshop participants select the compromise style.  As I point out, while compromise may be easy and may reduce the conflict, it doesn’t have the same optimal outcomes that collaboration can have. And as I say, collaboration may not be easy, but it is usually possible if both parties work towards it.

I recently re-read John W. Gardner's 1990 book "On Leadership."

Gardner was Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare under President Lyndon Johnson, creator of Common Cause, and presided over the creation of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

In Chapter 9, Gardner noted that every government and business leader must occasionally engage in justifiable conflict and while we seem to have a limitless capacity for conflict there is a point where conflict becomes counterproductive. Political, business and informal leaders must learn the art of preventing, defusing, and resolving conflicts. 

Gardner listed ways to help disputants work together and search for solutions. The list included scaling down irrational demands and provocations, differing perceptions of the facts, insensitivity of each side to the other's legitimate needs and giving each side the possibility of compromising without losing face. Making it possible for each side to have their say while the other side is required to listen can make it possible for parties to find common ground that can be pursued to mutual advantage.

Gardner described a process (later used by President Carter to arrive at the Camp David Accords) of a third party drafting a proposed settlement agreement for discussion that was basically mid-way between the positions of the two parties. With each subsequent draft the parties began to find ways to agree. He ends his discussion of conflict resolution by writing that the techniques of conflict resolution should be taught in every high school and college.

I can't help but wonder what Gardner would propose in Washington today.