Move beyond conflict with this straight-forward lens for analysis and decision-making
Deciding who does what, especially in the context of sustained partnership, can be challenging. Applying the rule of comparative advantage can help!
In an economic model, agents have a comparative advantage over others in producing a particular good if they can produce that good at a lower relative opportunity cost. While this is an idea from the economic sector, it’s a helpful one for making decisions about which partner is best positioned to take on a shared task, especially when there might be conflicting views or perspectives.
Piloted in the Rabbitt-Karl household, users analyze comparative advantage in three areas:
- Caring. Which party actually cares the most about the outcome and/or how the task gets completed?
- Joy. Which partner gets the most joy (or, the lease pain) from undertaking the task?
- Competence. Which partner brings the most skill or is “best at”?
By considering this cascading, but equally weighted, set of dimensions, we can usually come to a good and shared decision.
Examples of strategy in action
Example 1. Dishwasher loading. Both Partners care about the dishwasher getting filled. However, Partner A cares so much about the “how” of loading that they will actually rearrange loaded dishes. Neither Partner gains joy or is overly pained by the task. Both Partners are equally good at the task, even though Partner A believes they are. Calculating from here, Partner A has a higher comparative advantage “score” than Partner B. Partner A does the task.
Example 2. Dish Unloading. Assuming both Partners are home, both Partners value the unloading and putting away of dishes. Partner B, however, values that the work get done quickly, whereas Partner A is comfortable leaving the countertop cluttered and full dishwasher open in kitchen to support drying. Partner B derives some joy from task completion. Neither Partner is better or worse, but Partner A can more easily reach the higher cabinets. Partner A wins the task.
Example 3. Snow shoveling. Both Partners like to shovel snow and uphold similar standards as well as levels of competence. IN this case, comparative advantage is equal, and the Partners must share.