Give and Take

Key Concepts

Givers, Takers, and Matchers, defined

“Takers have a distinctive signature: they like to get more than they give. They tilt reciprocity in their own favor, putting their own interests ahead of others’ needs.” (p. 4)

“In the workplace, givers are a relatively rare breed. They tilt reciprocity in the other direction, preferring to give more than they get.” (p. 4)

“Rather, givers and takers differ in their attitudes and actions toward other people. If you’re a taker, you help others strategically, when the benefits to you outweigh the personal costs. If you’re a giver, you might use a different cost-benefit analysis: you help whenever the benefits to others exceed the personal costs.” (p. 5)

“Professionally, few of us act purely like givers or takers, adopting a third style instead. We become matchers, striving to preserve an equal balance of giving and getting.” (p. 5)

Givers can win over the long-run, but Takers can succeed in zero-sum contests

“The worst performers and the best performers are givers; takers and matchers are more likely to land in the middle.” (p. 7)

“This is one important feature of giving to keep in mind as we move through the ideas in this book: on any particular morning, giving may well be incompatible with success. In purely zero-sum situations and win-lose interactions, giving rarely pays off.” (p. 15)

“But most of life isn’t zero-sum, and on balance, people who choose giving as their primary reciprocity style end up reaping rewards.” (p. 15)

Givers support creative group processes because they are not concerned about getting credit for every idea

“In Multipliers, former Oracle executive Liz Wiseman distinguishes between geniuses and genius makers. Geniuses tend to be takers: to promote their own interests, they “drain intelligence, energy, and capability” from others. Genius makers tend to be givers: they use their “intelligence to amplify the smarts and capabilities” of other people, Wiseman writes, such that “lightbulbs go off over people’s heads, ideas flow, and problems get solved.” (p. 63)

“Givers reject the notion that interdependence is weak. Givers are more likely to see interdependence as a source of strength, a way to harness the skills of multiple people for a greater good.” (p. 73)

“In line with Meyer’s experience, research shows that givers get extra credit when they offer ideas that challenge the status quo. In studies that I conducted with colleagues Sharon Parker and Catherine Collins, when takers presented suggestions for improvement, colleagues were skeptical of their intentions, writing them off as self-serving. But when ideas that might be threatening were proposed by givers, their colleagues listened and rewarded them for speaking up, knowing they were motivated by a genuine desire to contribute.” (p. 76)

“Research by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson shows that in the type of psychologically safe environment that Meyer helped create, people learn and innovate more. And it’s givers who often create such an environment….” (p. 85)

Managers invest more in their associates when they see potential; Giver managers do this for everyone

“Evidence shows that leaders’ beliefs can catalyze self-fulfilling prophecies in many settings beyond the military.” (p. 100)

“Givers don’t wait for signs of potential. Because they tend to be trusting and optimistic about other people’s intentions, in their roles as leaders, managers, and mentors, givers are inclined to see the potential in everyone.” (p. 101)

Powerless communication, when paired with competence, is more persuasive

“When we hear a powerful persuasive message, we get suspicious. In some cases, we’re concerned about being tricked, duped, or manipulated by a taker. In other situations, we just want to make our own free choices, rather than having our decisions controlled by someone else. So if I tell you to go out and vote, you might resist. But when I ask if you’re planning to vote, you don’t feel like I’m trying to influence you.” (p. 141)

“The art of advocacy is to lead you to my conclusion on your terms. I want you to form your own conclusions: you’ll hold on to them more strongly. I try to walk jurors up to that line, drop them off, and let them make up their own minds.” (p. 141)

“Givers tend to use more powerless speech, talking with tentative markers like these: Hesitations: “well,” “um,” “uh,” “you know” Hedges: “kinda,” “sorta,” “maybe,” “probably,” “I think” Disclaimers: “this may be a bad idea, but” Tag questions: “that’s interesting, isn’t it?” or “that’s a good idea, right?” Intensifiers: “really,” “very,” “quite”” (p. 144)

“I believe this applies more generally to powerless communication: it works for givers because they establish a sincere intent to act in the best interests of others.” (p. 153)

“Otherish” giving strategy enables Givers to avoid burnout

“Being otherish means being willing to give more than you receive, but still keeping your own interests in sight, using them as a guide for choosing when, where, how, and to whom you give.” (p. 158)

“Otherish givers help with no strings attached; they’re just careful not to overextend themselves along the way.” (p. 158)

“Givers don’t burn out when they devote too much time and energy to giving. They burn out when they’re working with people in need but are unable to help effectively.” (p. 165)

“That choice has real consequences for givers. In numerous studies, Carnegie Mellon psychologist Vicki Helgeson has found that when people give continually without concern for their own well-being, they’re at risk for poor mental and physical health. Yet when they give in a more otherish fashion, demonstrating substantial concern for themselves as well as others, they no longer experience health costs.” (p. 170)

Givers who employ a generous tit-for-tat strategy can avoid being taken advantage of

“Generous tit for tat is an otherish strategy. Whereas selfless givers make the mistake of trusting others all the time, otherish givers start out with trust as the default assumption, but they’re willing to adjust their reciprocity styles in exchanges with someone who appears to be a taker by action or reputation. Being otherish means that givers keep their own interests in the rearview mirror, taking care to trust but verify.” (p. 199)

 Actions for Impact

1. Test Your Giver Quotient. 

2. Run a Reciprocity Ring.

3. Help Other People Craft Their Jobs—or Craft Yours to Incorporate More Giving.

4. Start a Love Machine.

5. Embrace the Five-Minute Favor. 

6. Practice Powerless Communication, but Become an Advocate. 

7. Join a Community of Givers. 

8. Launch a Personal Generosity Experiment. 

9. Help Fund a Project. 

10. Seek Help More Often.

Quotables

“As Chip Conley, the renowned entrepreneur who founded Joie de Vivre Hotels, explains, ‘Being a giver is not good for a 100-yard dash, but it’s valuable in a marathon.’” (p. 16)

“One signal appeared in CEO interviews. Since takers tend to be self-absorbed, they’re more likely to use first-person singular pronouns like I, me, mine, my, and myself—versus first-person plural pronouns like we, us, our, ours, and ourselves.” (p. 35)

“Thirty years ago, the sociologist Fred Goldner wrote about what it means to experience the opposite of paranoia: pronoia. According to the distinguished psychologist Brian Little, pronoia is ‘the delusional belief that other people are plotting your well-being, or saying nice things about you behind your back.’” (p. 48)

“Frank Lloyd Wright’s drought lasted until he gave up on independence and began to work interdependently again with talented collaborators.” (p. 69)

“When Huckman and Pisano examined the data, they discovered a remarkable pattern. Overall, the surgeons didn’t get better with practice. They only got better at the specific hospital where they practiced. ... To reduce the risk of patient mortality, the surgeons needed relationships with specific surgical team members.” (p. 70)

“In the 1960s, a pioneering psychologist named Raymond Cattell developed an investment theory of intelligence. He proposed that interest is what drives people to invest their time and energy in developing particular skills and bases of knowledge. Today, we have compelling evidence that interest precedes the development of talent. It turns out that motivation is the reason that people develop talent in the first place.” (p. 104)

“Whereas takers often strive to be the smartest people in the room, givers are more receptive to expertise from others, even if it challenges their own beliefs.” (p. 121)

“For example, here’s a simple exercise to get started as a connector. Start by going through your Rolodex, LinkedIn, or Facebook network. Identify pairs of people who share an uncommon commonality. Then, pick one pair a week and introduce them by e-mail.” (p. 264)