In the book as well as in previous definitions of Whuffie, I’ve included the idea that reciprocity is a core part of the definition. But what I probably should have outlined is that the type of reciprocity I’m talking about is indirect and non-obligatory. Here is the rough definition taken from previous posts and from the book:
The sum of the reputation, influence, bridging capital and bonding capital, access to ideas and talent, access to resources, potential access to further resources, saved up favors, accomplishments (resumes, awards, articles, etc.) and the Whuffie of those who you have relationships with.
I first realized the power of reciprocity when I read Matt Ridley’s The Origins of Virtue: Human Instincts and the Evolution of Cooperation. His main thesis (though I highly recommend reading as it’s full of great anthropological evidence) is that human beings are wired to cooperate because that is how we survive. We help people out because there may be a time in our future that we will need help, too. But reciprocity in Ridley’s thesis isn’t direct – i.e. I do you this favor, then you do me that favor. In fact, the most powerful acts of generosity are without direct return. The more we help others, the stronger our own status becomes. If we help people out without request of the favor being returned, we increase our bank of goodwill. If the favors are performed as a tit for tat, the goodwill bank stays empty.
This theme continues through books like The Generous Man: How Helping Others is the Sexiest Thing You Can Do by Tor Norretranders and Social Intelligence: The New Science of Human Relationships by Daniel Goleman. Both books supply more evidence that helping others increases our status in society because of the idea of reciprocity. The power lies in the idea of reciprocity, not the direct exchange of favors.
Along the way I’ve encountered multiple misinterpretations of reciprocity where I’ve been challenged by contacts in my social network with the question, “I did this for you, now I want you to do this for me.” There are two types of reciprocity at work. One, which is described by Ridley, Norretranders and Goleman is indirect reciprocity. You do me a favor and in the future when you need something that I can help out with, I will voluntarily help you. The ideal situation is that the favor is about equivalent to the favor you performed for me. For example, you introduce me to a contact that can help me out in a situation and, down the road, I see that you could use a similar introduction to help you out. There is time and a lack of obligation between the favors. The second situation is direct reciprocity, which is more transactional and can be with or without obligation. You make an introduction then ask me if I can also make an introduction to someone in your network. When obligation comes into play, you say, “I will make this introduction for you, but only if you make this introduction for me.”
The thing about direct and obligatory reciprocity that bothers me is that there is no generosity involved. The motivation is clear. You want something from me and you are only willing to do something nice for me if I give that to you. It is no different than me paying directly for a good or service and there is no bond left between us. In fact, the obligatory nature of it may even leave a goodwill deficit behind. I no longer want to accept any favors from you in the future because I know they come with a price. And the price means there have been no favors performed. This is essentially where the idea of reciprocity has earned its negative reputation as it becomes more akin to coersion than cohesion between multiple parties.
It is always best to leave a surplus of goodwill in your account with friends and leave the transactions to a disconnected world. When it comes to increasing one’s Whuffie/social capital, it’s important to proceed on the side of generosity. Great generosity with people will be recognized and, when it is needed, reciprocity will be voluntary and bountiful. Anything less – favors bound by obligation or tit-for-tat – is part of a disconnected transactional context that is best left to bullies, cartels and gangs.
Reciprocity + Obligation = trade or barter, not Whuffie. As usual, you got it right.
I agree with your definition. I just got back from a meeting organizing a small conference where there is one organizer that basically gets the big sponsors and does nothing at all, but in return wants to be able to promote his products & services. I must stress that a) he’s not sponsoring directly and b) that this is a event that is free of charge and done voluntarily to help promote entrepreneurship. To make a long story short…..I think this sort of barter of contacts for publicity is not real “reputation or social capital” because finally the balance ends up in 0 because I give you something and you give something back. It’s a monetary transaction without actual paper money (or a barter or swap, that’s the beginning of the de-whuffing of transactions).
I think the right approach to Whuffie or Social Capital is to do and help causes you believe in and people you can help and don’t expect nothing else back. You can indeed get something when you need it and you probably will. But doing it with the reward in mind doesn’t lead to any honest, open, long term relationship that should go beyond just getting a tangible benefit from it. Whuffie has to be understood as part of what can earn us people that love us rather than thing, money or contacts.
I totally agree with you. Your book makes it very clear, it is one of the best books about social networking in my opinion. You always have great examples and real life stories. Seth Godin comes to the same conclusion in ‘Linchpin’, the work of an artist is a gift. Your blog articles are always a big encouragement for a new understanding of economy and entrepreneurship. Thank you!
“The thing about direct and obligatory reciprocity that bothers me is that there is no generosity involved. The motivation is clear.”
You walk a very tricky line (but an awesome one) with this… asking for and expecting both generosity *and* indirect reciprocity. They’re not necessarily mutually exclusive, but I think it was even Tor–who you mention talks about indirect reciprocity–still said, ultimately, it still all comes down to doing what it takes… “to get laid.”
So I’m not sure how much I care how much real generosity is involved in many cases, and it’s one of the areas I have agreed with you in the past — the idea that if a company does the right thing for selfish reasons, it’s still better than the alternative (doing the WRONG things), and it may one day lead to a more sincere change.
indeed!
if you attempt to enforce reciprocity it stops being a gift! which changes the behavioral grammar of the conversation…
i talk about the difference between barter and enhancing your social gravity here
http://farisyakob.typepad.com/blog/2008/08/social-gravity-and-the-value-of-free.html
rock ON FX
Tara,
There are a great deal of subtleties involved here, and while I both agree and resonate with what you’re saying, I’ve found that these subtleties surrounding these “transactions” can lead to disagreements and/or misunderstandings. Inevitably the tripping point is “obligation”. Whether direct or indirect there is still a sense of obligation in the scenarios you outline. To whit, the only way to remove any sense of obligation is to truly do something for another without any expectation of any kind in return. Basically, we’re talking about a form of social karma in action.
This is easier said than done, particularly if you’re the only one playing by this set of social rules. On the givers end, it means not being upset when you need assistance from someone you’ve helped out in the past and it’s not forthcoming. On the other hand, I can say it’s much more rewarding to remove these obligation expectations from ones life and move on. If you can help someone do it. If you can’t don’t. Expectations and reciprocity be damned. What you may find is that karma is really just an extension of the fact that when others see selfless actions, they are much more likely to offer the same to that person.
I always enjoy the insights you share.
Cheers,
Matt Ridings – @techguerilla
I definitively agree to this vision. Give, be genererous without expecting nothing. i feel proud also when i know i can be helpul
I’m always ver satisfied when sharing. But as said Matt Ridings, this is particularly difficult not to be disappointed when others have different values.