Lessons learned from Give and Take - RWieruch
58 The relationship should involve give-and-take, speaking and listening, and Image of God as Father Finally, we need to renew and clarify our image of god. This is a little practice that helps me say no when I need to. Giving in Relationships Without Losing Yourself or Sacrificing Your Needs Some other ways that I've found to stay open in my relationship without losing myself is taking quiet time each day to meditate, breathe, Disappearing woman image via Shutterstock. Recently I have read Give and Take: A revolutionary approach to Success by Adam Grant. We act like givers in close relationships to our family and friendships. .. that attaining expertise in a domain typically requires ten thousand hours of deliberate practice. This is where givers often enter the picture.
Givers tend to see potential in all people as diamonds in the rough. This inspires trust in their motives and creates a safe space where ideas are shared without fear of exploitation where a taker would claim credit or retaliation where a taker may reflexively shoot it down. Since most people are matchers, they reciprocate to the network.
Takers can spur zero-sum behaviors that drag the whole group down, and people are wary of sharing ideas out of fear of exploitation promote a giving culture by publicly rewarding giving behaviors; creating a reciprocity ring; setting low bars for giving; making giving behavior public and expected. Takers will have to cooperate or appear unhelpful, which threatens their well-being later. This reduces ego tensions, helps them gather more information, and makes for more effective sales and negotiations.
Start out with trust, punish when competed against, but forgive once in a while to allow redemption of behavior.
Best Summary + PDF: Give and Take, by Adam Grant
Pure tit for tat can cause a vicious cycle of competition after a mishap giving leads to potential pitfalls, each with remedies: But in reality they tend to accept disconfirming evidence more than takers, who want to be right all the time and see mistakes as ego threats. Michael Jordan example of not admitting he made a bad draft pick givers are prone to burnout if they practice selfless giving. To reduce this, make the impact of the giving clear; chunk giving into fewer time slots givers tend not to advocate for themselves for fear of offending the other party.
They are more effective when advocating for other people like family or a cause since this aligns with their giving standpoint. The Internet makes taker reputations hard to reverse. There are disagreeable givers and agreeable takers. They see only their pain and contributions, and not those of others. Takers like to get more than they give. They feel the world is a zero-sum game, for them to win means others must lose.
They self-promote and make sure they get credit. They help others strategically, when the benefits to them outweigh their personal costs. They help others when the benefits to others exceeds their personal costs. Matchers like to balance and giving exactly, practicing quid pro quo. Outside the workplace, giving is quite common, especially in marriages and friendships.
But in the workplace, people tend to adopt a matcher style. The roles are fluid. You may act like a taker when negotiating a job offer, a giver when mentoring an intern, and a matcher when sharing information with a colleague.
Interestingly, according to Give and Take, both the worst and the best performers in a firm tend to be givers. The givers at the bottom tend to give away too much time to get their work done, or were too nice to customers.
But givers also fill out the top ranks. This tends to be true across industries, from medical school students, to engineering and salespeople. In true zero-sum interactions, giving rarely pays off. Givers take some time to build goodwill, but eventually their reputations and network build their success in a virtuous cycle way.
Here, helping other students meant necessarily that they earned lower on the scoring curve. But in later clinical years, where teamwork is necessary, the givers perform better with their peers and patients. People prefer service providers doctors, lawyers, teachers who are givers to them, who will contribute value without claiming it back.
But givers are sometimes afraid of giving in the workplace, as it may signal weakness or naivete. When people perceive the workplace as zero-sum and other people as matchers, they want to respond in kind. This perpetuates a matching culture. President Lincoln was a giver, known to be among the least self-centered US presidents.
In his first Senate run, he gave up his 2nd place position to support the 3rd place candidate to defeat the 1st place candidate he believed this was better for the state. Venture capitalist David Hornik was cited as a main example of an inveterate giver. Examples of his giving include starting a blog and openly describing how venture capital works thus giving away trade secrets and weakening their position over companiesand running a conference called The Lobby where other VC firms were invited to meet potential investee companies.
He creates the world he wants to live in. Give and Take covers three aims: Let your reputation precede you. Someone you help might unpredictably become your boss or client in the future. If you selectively target only people you believe will help you, you ignore all the unproven people whose connections would have turned out to be helpful.
Takers and matchers take advantage of the reciprocity tendency. They offer favors to people whose help they want in the future. But there are two downsides. This ends up feeling like a transaction more than a meaningful gesture. Second, matchers tend to build smaller networks than givers or takers, because they help only people for whom there is an immediate benefit.
Thus, matchers tend to have a smaller network of quid pro quo ties. Surprisingly, people are much more likely to benefit from weak ties than from strong ties like your close colleagues and best friends. Strong ties tend to be people belonging to the same group whom you interact with consistently, thus limiting access to new ideas. In contrast, weak ties provide access to information and people from different niches, facilitating creation of new leads.
Givers and takers both tend to have more dormant ties than matchers, as explained above. But takers and matchers are disadvantaged in reactivating dormant ties. Takers may have carried a bad reputation with them, prompting even matchers and givers to punish the taker.
But they feel uncomfortable reaching out to weak ties, because they may already owe a debt to the weak tie, dislike the creation of a debt, or never have developed a warm trusting relationship rather than a transactional one. In contrast, givers have major advantages in reconnecting. Givers a history of helping you, so you feel happy when they contact you again. Givers tend to be asking for help for someone else, not themselves, prompting people to add value rather than trade value.
He built this network over decades, developing with every small gesture of kindness and a genuine desire to help people. For instance, Rifkin was a fan of Blogger, founded by Ev Williams. When Blogger ran out of money, he offered a contract to Ev to build something and keep Blogger afloat. Ev went on to co-found Twitter. In another example, Rifkin was connected to a venture capitalist through a connection made 4 years earlier, when he helped a punk rock fan who happened to be the founder of search engine Excite.
Adam Grant gives Rifkin as a clear success case of a giver. He now runs miles, a network of entrepreneurs, and he gleefully connects people in the group and answers questions even from the most hapless.
As a last small example, he has written LinkedIn recommendations for others, compared to 49 inbound ones.
How to Take a Relationship Slow: 9 Steps (with Pictures) - wikiHow
He lives by a maxim: The experiment was a cash giving scenario, where each person in a group of 4 had two choices: At the end of each round, the behaviors are revealed.
In this scenario, all people are better off if everyone gives. Despite this, some people were consistent givers, and this inspired other group members to give. Despite earning less on each personal transaction, they benefited overall by inspiring others to give to him and each other. Similarly, in ordinary life, giving inspires more giving from others, and ultimately some of this giving leads back to you.
If a monkey climbed the ladder, all the monkeys were doused with water. They quickly learned not to climb the ladder, and they quickly discouraged any monkey that tried to climb. Then, monkeys in the original group were swapped out for new ones that were never doused, but were conditioned to beat any monkey that climbed.
Eventually the behavior persisted even with monkeys that never knew water was in the picture. This may be apocryphal, but it illustrates the power of continuous feed-forward effects. A matcher would rarely initiate a favor without knowing what favor she wants in return. But a giver kicks off the cycle and establishes trust, which invites the good spirits of the matcher.
To avoid rejection, takers become good fakers. How do you tell a false taker? They kiss up to superiors but treat peers and subordinates poorly as they believe these people have nothing to contribute. They tend to speak in a self-absorbed way, using singular pronouns like I vs plural pronouns like we. They put themselves front and center on websites and annual reports. Taker CEOs tend to earn more money than other senior executives in their companies. Taker CEOs earn 3x the salary and 7x stock of the next best person, compared to 1.
Takers tend to post more self-promoting information, feature arrogant quotes, rack up more Facebook friends to get favors, and post vainer pictures of themselves.
On the surface, Ken Lay of Enron looked like a giver. But reality showed he was actually a taker, having condoned schemes that inflated earnings and hid losses. How could you have detected taking behavior before this? Adam Grant presents this evidence: When giving a tour of Wall Street, he recruited employees to appear to be busy traders in an otherwise empty floor. These employees made fake phone calls. In so doing, Lay asked his subordinates to forsake their integrity for his gain, giving them a terrible experience with their manager.
Punishing Takers Since most people are matchers, people who feel exploited by takers want to see justice served, and will seek the downfall of takers. They circulate reputational information, signaling caution to others. Takers eventually run out of bridges that they have burnt or have been closed off. The Kahneman ultimatum game studies show the desire for fairness.
The subject can take the offer, or reject and both get nothing. But most people reject the offer, leaving both with no money but the subject with dignity intact. This reflects a strong reciprocity tendency — people want justice, and they prefer to work with fair people. If you set out to help others, you will rapidly reinforce your own reputation and expand your universe of possibilities. Takers tend to see themselves as superior to others and collaboration as opening vulnerabilities to being overtaken.
Givers focus on achieving the goals of the group and see collaboration as harnessing the best of multiple people. They take on tasks that are in the best interest of the group and not necessarily of themselves. There are a few reasons for this.
When givers show they care more about the group, they signal that they care less about themselves and intra-competition. Takers no longer feel competitive with a giver, matchers feel they owe a giver, and givers identify with a giver. Because many people are matchers and use tit-for-tat strategies, adding takers to the mix promotes competitive and zero-sum behaviors that can drag the whole group down.
People are wary of sharing creative ideas for fear of being exploited — indeed, taking behavior tends to lower creativity. But adding givers to the group can push the whole group to focus on the overall goals and increase collaboration. Among predominantly givers, people can feel more comfortable opening up and sharing ideas, building psychological safety. Giving also increases reception to your personal ideas. When givers voice opinions, others are less entrenched in a competitive mood and can be more objective about ideas.
This also applies to feedback — the recipient understands the giver wants her to succeed, rather than giving feedback to harm. In contrast, when takers voice opinions, jealousy can spur collaborators to shoot them down in fear of competition or out of punishment for previous bad behavior. And when takers express threatening ideas or give constructive feedback, others can be skeptical of motives and reflexively dismiss it as self-serving. Success Requires the Team Much knowledge work relies on collaboration and working with a set of particular team members.
In other words, every procedure the surgeon performed at one hospital lowered the mortality risk at that hospital. Similarly, investment banks often recruit star analysts from other firms. These top analysts earn 7 digits per year and are highly coveted. Both studies suggest that the supposed center of innovation — the surgeon and the star analyst — relies on their colleagues for top performance.
Geniuses vs Genius Makers A study collected the top 40 creative architects by surveyed opinion and 84 successful but uncreative architects, and studied the groups psychologically. They found that the ordinary architects were more likely to be givers, showing good character and sympathetic concern.
But that also come with costs. Adam Grant spends much of this Give and Take chapter on portraying two people on opposite sides of the spectrum: Wright is recognized as one of the greatest architects of all time, but he was notoriously difficult to work with.
He refused to pay his apprentices and demanded that his name be featured as lead architect on their designs. His taker stance bolstered his prestige and gave him courage to push original controversial ideas, but it came at a cost. Few of his hundreds of apprentices became successful architects — the best apprentices quit after feeling exploited.
George Meyer, in contrast, is a giver. Adam Grant argues that despite his relative anonymity for many years, he eventually got deserved credit through a feature in The New Yorker and multiple Emmys.
And in contrast to Wright, Meyer has helped the careers of many writers who are universally grateful. Adam Grant gives Jonas Salk as another example of a taker. He was publicly credited as a miracle worker in polio vaccine development, but at an important press conference, Jonas Salk refused to acknowledge the work of colleagues and his lab researchers.
Salk, of course, viewed the rest of the world as jealous. I get how Meyer is an admirable person whose qualities we should emulate. People generally want to think of themselves as fair and good. Rather, it can be due to a lack of effective empathy, which distorts their view of the world. Imagine you and your partner are asked about how much you each contribute to the relationship, from 0 to percent.
This is the responsibility bias: This happens partly because of ego we want to glorify ourselves but also because of information discrepancy: There is an antidote to responsibility bias: The Perspective Gap The chasm of empathy causing responsibility bias is called the perspective gap.
Doctors consistently think their patients are feeling less pain than the patients themselves rate. And there is a fast decay effect — someone who is exposed to cold water and then 10 minutes of warmth rate cold pain as though they had never experienced the cold water. According to Keith Ferrazzi, there is only one key to success: When givers succeed, it spreads and cascades to close people, the team in a company and whole organizations. Adam Grant coins it as the ripple effect, because it enhances the success of others.
As Randy Komisar says: Rockstars When speaking about superstars and rockstars, takers are superstars and givers are rockstars. Takers are confident in their skills, they are confident to perform well on their own.
But research shows that superstars, even though they trust their individual skills, had a decline in their performance when changing their employer. In conclusion, the performance always depends on the team. Even superstars rely on the expertise, creative ideas and information of their colleagues. Independence is seen as symbol of strength, whereas interdependence is seen as a weakness.
Takers lean towards independence, because they perceive themselves as superior and separated from others. 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. A team that is contributing towards one goal will grow the pie of success for everyone that it can be shared afterward. When takers or matchers offer constructive feedback, they can make others stressed or jealous.
Instead, givers are appreciated for their contribution to the group. Matchers and takers miss out to give credit to others work. Because of that, they have a hard time in the long run.
The presence of a single giver was enough to establish a norm of giving. On the other hand, the value contributed by others will be underestimated. This responsibility bias is a major source of failure in a collaboration. As mentioned, all reciprocity styles, especially matchers, track credits and debits in collaborations.
The focus lays on collaborative achievements. It shows that givers not even remember all the things they contributed. All you need to Dosis make a list of what your partner contributes before you estimate your own contribution. Research has shown that people in such environments learn and innovate more.
When too many veteran givers or matchers are superiors, people are intimidated by them. But when givers lead the way, and they earned the role through generosity, people are not intimidated anymore. There is no feeling of competition and everyone contributes to a greater objective. Beyond the Perspective Gap Adam Grant argues that givers get beyond the perspective gap.
Their empathy and the act of giving itself supports givers to put themselves into the state of someone else. Takers on the other hand focus on their own viewpoints and contributions. Believe is one of the core concepts in mentoring and teaching. It creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. Research with students and teachers showed that when teachers believed in their students, their students performed better.
Even though the students made mistakes, teachers acting as givers created a climate of taking risks. It improved the learning and confidence of the students. Givers encourage others to believe in their potential and set high expectations for them to succeed.
By seeing the potential in everybody, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Takers are in no good position to teach others.
These low expectations trigger a vicious cycle, constraining the development and motivation of others. Matchers are more likely to use the power of the self-fulfilling prophecy, but only when they see the potential in someone.
Since givers treat everyone equally, they are optimistic and create a greater pool of potential people in their network. Adam Grant says that they see everyone as a rough diamond. Chris Granger, executive at the NBA, says: It builds up on the flaw that talent comes first followed by motivation. But as research shows, by seeing potential in everyone, the pool of talent gets bigger and by encouraging everyone the is potential to grow is unleashed.
But what motivates people to practice at such length in the first place? This is where givers often enter the picture. It is the grit. It is the grit that givers see in their students. But as George Anders notes: Takers are more vulnerable to an escalation of commitment, because of their ego.
Even though a project seems to fail and it gets harder to turn the ship around, takers invest even more into it regardless of the initial investment. In studies, it shows that takers in charge are willing to follow suggestions more likely when they feel less criticized. However, their ego takes over when they get criticized. They are willing to work harder and longer, committing to grunt work if it needs to be done. When we establish dominance, we gain influence because others see us as strong, powerful, and authoritative.
When we earn prestige, we become influential because others respect and admire us. Dominance and prestige can be created by powerful and powerless communication. Our communication is powerful when we show confidence. It can be expressed by how we choose our words or body language. After a while, powerful communication can be resisted by others, because they get skeptical.
In addition, it gets more difficult for powerful communicators when other competitors - other powerful communicators - show up. Powerless communication is the opposite: They talk in ways that signal vulnerability, revealing their weakness and making use of disclaimers, hedges, and hesitations. Powerful and powerless communication play a major role in the world of extroverts and introverts.
Best Summary + PDF: Give and Take, by Adam Grant | Allen Cheng
Presenting Sometimes it is hard to earn credit in audiences of knowledgeable, most of the time older, people. Whereas powerful communication can lead to even more scepticism in the audience, powerless communication gives you access to the people. Givers are much more comfortable expressing vulnerability: By making themselves vulnerable, givers actually build prestige. A perceived highly-competent individual would be, on average, more likeable after committing a blunder, while the opposite would occur if a perceived average person makes a mistake.
Instead of widening the distance between you and your audience, you get closer to them. The effect is one of the strategies to create a Psychological Safety in collaborations when being the expert in a team. Selling Regardless of a personal conversation or discussion in a group, takers are more likely to talk. When takers try to sell something, people get suspicious by their powerful communication and get defensive to avoid being tricked.
Givers lean towards listening instead of talking which establishes the opportunity to get to know the needs of others. Givers naturally adopt the listening aspect in in powerless communication. In the service industry you can see the difference. Salespeople who are takers are more likely to talk in order to sell their product.
Salespeople who are givers will listen and adjust the product to your needs. An optician who sells glasses ones said: I see myself as an optician. My job is to take the patient, ask the patient questions, and see what the patient needs. Over time, this makes them better and better at selling.
Instead of rushing into a situation to convince someone by using powerful communication, givers take the approach of helping and using powerless communication. Establishing dominance will not work to persuade others, but having prestige by using powerless speech is supporting it.
When speaking to subordinates, research shows that there are particular places for powerful speech: But when most employees are proactive, generating new ideas […], powerful speech backfires.
It is always a difficult topic. Givers put the other person in their shoes. The other person has to consider it from a different perspective. Givers are able to change the point of view of the other person. Whereas a manager would have seen the best interest for the company in the beginning of the conversation, the manager would see now the benefits and opportunities for the employee. The manager puts himself or herself as mentor of a mentee.
Seeking advice is a subtle way to invite someone to make a commitment to us. How do givers end up at the top instead of the bottom of the success ladder. A lot of givers burn out at some point, because they are not avoiding the pitfalls of giving. Successful givers, it turns out, are just as ambitious as takers and matchers.
Givers have a high other interest, but vary in self-interest. It leads to two types of givers: Adam Grant found out that self-interest and other-interest are independent motivations. These motivations are not competing with each other. Bill Gates once said: He calls it a hybrid engine and concludes that people are successful when they make use of both. How to prevent Giver Burnout? How can givers prevent burnout? Impact of Giving Research shows that givers need a motivation aspect behind their giving.
When teaching, they want to see the progress of their students. Giver burnout is linked to givers who feel that they make no difference. Companies build up on this knowledge to show their employees the impact they have, regardless of where they are working. By giving, givers build up a network of supporters. These supporters can be accessed any time to get encouragement or advice. Research shows that otherish givers access their pool of supporters more likely than selfless givers.
Another strategy to prevent giver burnout can be to change the domain. Instead of giving more to one and the same group of people, expanding the giving to other groups of people can be rewarding for givers.
Sprinkling Research shows that people gain more happiness when they chunk the act of giving rather than sprinkle it over time. For instance, it has a greater impact to perform multiple acts of kindness in one day than doing the same amount of giving sprinkled over one week. Selfless givers perform giving after work, whereas otherish givers get recharged during the week to be able to give during the weekend.
The technique of chunking gets adopted by companies too. They slice their weekdays into productive quite time and giving time to help or to seek advice. More research shows that giving during work time only affects productivity when the giver lacks skills of time management. The hour rule of Volunteering Experiments have shown the best amount of time to spend on volunteering regarding happiness. It seems that people who volunteer more than hours but less than hours are more satisfied than people volunteering outside of these time constraints.
The act of volunteering has a lasting impact, because the satisfaction of people goes up one year later. Is the act of giving itself a flow activity? Companies, who struggle to give their employees time for volunteering, should learn about these benefits. But the act of volunteering has to be meaningful to the employee without being an obligation. Meaningfulness and Happiness All these strategies help otherish givers to keep up their commitment and stamina.
By making use of them, they outperform takers, matchers and obviously selfless givers. Selfless givers use up these reserves, exhausting themselves and often dropping to the bottom of the success ladder. By giving in ways that are energizing rather than exhausting, otherish givers are more likely to rise to the top. For takers, it can be easy to exploit givers as doormats.
How to protect from a taker as a giver? Screening Multiple authors Blink by Malcolm Gladwell, Thinking, Fast and Slow by Daniel Kahneman have revealed that the first impression of another person can be very important to distinguish givers from other reciprocity styles. If you take more time, by listening to a person, you can wait for clues that reveal the person as a taker or giver.
Takers are more likely to use first-person pronouns. In addition, they use more time in talking than listening. They are not listening to your needs. It turns out that takers can be agreeable and givers can be disagreeable. Start out as Giver, Become a Matcher Once you revealed a person as a taker, it makes sense to shift the reciprocity style to a matcher when being a giver.
The strategy is called tit for tat by game theorists: When your counterpart competes, match the behavior by competing too. This is a wildly effective form of matching that has won many game theory tournaments.
Act on behalf of your team, when your boss sets impossible deadlines or expectations. Or act on behalf of the companies best interest when negotiating. See with whom you can connect the person. It would turn out as a win-win situation for everyone.
You can keep giving and the other people create a giving culture too. A rippling effect will evolve and you make the pie bigger to give and take. Embrace Giving in Collaborations The ripple effect when a giver collaborates with a group of people was already mentioned. Knowing about this effect, makes it possible to let everyone in the group act more like givers.
- Givers vs. Takers: The Surprising Truth about Who Gets Ahead
- Give and take stock photos
- Follow the Author
This reduces the risks of giving: The Giving Community Research has shown that when takers and matchers are in a sharing community of givers, they will experience the feeling of oneness. They belong to the sharing community and will act as givers. Even though they might have started the collaboration out of selfish interests. In a sharing community, people develop a feeling a responsibility, while in other communities there is only the atomic transaction without a lasting impact.
People from the same city, with similar preferences or even the same name can experience a feeling of oneness. In general, people like to be reminded of themselves. For instance, research shows that more people with the name Jack live in Jacksville and more people with the name Georgia live in Georgia. Names can be associated to professions as well.