00:00:01
[Music]
00:00:08
[Music]
00:00:21
Adam thank you so much for joining us
00:00:22
today thank you for having me so would
00:00:25
love to talk to you about your uh book
00:00:27
give and take uh now you write in your
00:00:30
book that uh people differ in their
00:00:33
preferences for
00:00:35
reciprocity and you divide them into
00:00:37
givers takers and matchers uh could you
00:00:40
perhaps Begin by explaining the
00:00:41
difference sure so I I was really struck
00:00:44
going into this process by the fact that
00:00:46
people have different motives when they
00:00:48
walk into workplace interactions and I
00:00:51
think you could sort of anchor this at
00:00:53
you know at two extremes the takers and
00:00:55
the givers so the takers are people who
00:00:57
when they walk into an interaction with
00:00:59
another person
00:01:00
they're trying to get as much as
00:01:01
possible from that person and contribute
00:01:04
as little as they can in return thinking
00:01:06
that's sort of the shortest and most
00:01:08
direct path to achieving their own goals
00:01:10
on the other end of the spectrum we have
00:01:12
this strange breed of people that I call
00:01:14
givers um not about donating money or
00:01:17
volunteering necessarily but looking to
00:01:20
help others Maybe by making an
00:01:22
introduction or giving advice or
00:01:24
providing mentoring or sharing knowledge
00:01:26
without many strings attached and these
00:01:28
givers actually prefer to be on the the
00:01:31
contributing end of an interaction now I
00:01:33
think very few of us are purely takers
00:01:35
or purely givers most of us hover
00:01:37
somewhere in between and that brings us
00:01:39
really to the third group of people who
00:01:40
are matchers um a matcher is basically
00:01:42
somebody who tries to maintain an even
00:01:44
balance of give and take so if I help
00:01:46
you I expect you to help me in return um
00:01:48
you know I'll sort of keep score of
00:01:50
exchanges so that everything is fair and
00:01:53
really just right now uh so so it seems
00:01:57
logical enough based on what you said
00:01:59
that research shows that in fields like
00:02:01
engineering and medicine that give us
00:02:04
end up at the bottom of the Heap because
00:02:06
obviously if you have a if you are
00:02:08
focused on giving more to others than
00:02:10
taking back uh then then it's quite
00:02:13
likely that you'll end up at the bottom
00:02:14
of the Heap but who ends up at the top
00:02:17
of the Heap and why yeah that that was
00:02:19
one of the most fascinating questions
00:02:21
that I got into when I started doing the
00:02:22
research for the book is you know you
00:02:23
look across a wide range of of
00:02:25
Industries and even countries and you
00:02:27
find these three Styles exist everywhere
00:02:29
and indeed the the givers are over
00:02:31
represented at the bottom um putting
00:02:32
other people first they often put
00:02:34
themselves at risk for burning out or
00:02:36
being exploited by takers and so a lot
00:02:38
of people look at that and they'll say
00:02:39
well it's hard for a taker to rise
00:02:41
consistently to the top because you know
00:02:43
often times takers burn Bridges and so
00:02:46
it must be the matchers you know who are
00:02:48
who are more generous than takers but
00:02:49
also protect their own interests and
00:02:52
when I looked at the data I was really
00:02:54
surprised to see that both of those
00:02:55
answers were wrong it's actually the
00:02:56
givers again givers are over represented
00:02:59
at the top as well as the bottom of most
00:03:01
success metrics um I found that in sales
00:03:04
that the most productive sales people
00:03:05
are actually those who put their
00:03:07
customers interest first and you know I
00:03:09
think a lot of that comes from the trust
00:03:11
and the good will that they build but
00:03:13
also the reputations that they create
00:03:15
and I guess one of the the ways that I
00:03:17
would play this out is to say the the
00:03:19
success of givers and the the follow of
00:03:21
takers is is often driven by matchers so
00:03:24
a match is somebody who who really
00:03:25
believes in a just world and of course a
00:03:27
taker violates that belief in a just
00:03:29
world matchers cannot see stand to see
00:03:31
Takers get ahead you know by by taking
00:03:34
advantage of other people and so the
00:03:36
data on this suggests that that matchers
00:03:37
will often go around trying to punish
00:03:39
them um Often by gossiping and and
00:03:41
spreading negative reputational
00:03:42
information and just as as matchers hate
00:03:45
seeing takers get away with exploitation
00:03:48
they also hate to see people act really
00:03:49
generously and not get rewarded for it
00:03:52
and so matchers will often go out of
00:03:54
their way to promote and help and
00:03:55
support givers to make sure they
00:03:57
actually do get rewarded for their
00:03:58
generosity and I I think that's one of
00:04:00
the most powerful Dynamics behind the
00:04:01
rise of
00:04:03
givers that's great and one of the
00:04:05
things I found Most Fascinating about
00:04:07
your book is the combination of of very
00:04:10
rigorous research uh with some really
00:04:13
compelling stories of both givers and
00:04:16
takers uh and and so uh among the
00:04:18
various stories you tell there is one
00:04:21
about a person called Peter odet uh
00:04:24
could you tell us that story and did
00:04:27
being a giver help him or HT Hur him and
00:04:30
what are some of the lessons to be
00:04:31
learned yeah absolutely so I would I
00:04:33
would say yes to all of the above um so
00:04:36
so Peter adet is is one of my my
00:04:38
favorite people that I met when I was
00:04:39
doing research for the book He's a
00:04:40
financial adviser and he's the kind of
00:04:43
guy who goes out of his way to help
00:04:45
everyone that he meets so for years he
00:04:48
would interview job candidates and he
00:04:50
would only be able to hire one and have
00:04:51
to turn everybody else down and he would
00:04:53
often give up his entire afternoon just
00:04:55
trying to find jobs for the other people
00:04:57
that he couldn't hire himself and you
00:05:00
know really opening up his personal
00:05:01
Network to do that um a lot of times
00:05:04
this this orientation toward helping
00:05:06
others sort of got him in trouble um in
00:05:08
one particular case he had a a colleague
00:05:11
um who ended up calling Brad in the book
00:05:14
who essentially was was getting out of
00:05:16
the business and he needed somebody to
00:05:18
to buy his CL clients quickly and Peter
00:05:20
said sure I'll do it and you know he
00:05:22
basically paid about $10,000 for Brad's
00:05:24
clients on the spot just to help him out
00:05:27
and then a couple months later Peter
00:05:29
started losing his clients and they
00:05:31
disappeared and he discovered that all
00:05:33
of those clients that he was losing were
00:05:35
former clients of Brad's that he had
00:05:37
bought and he did a little bit of
00:05:38
homework and found out that Brad was
00:05:40
back in the business and he was
00:05:41
basically taking his clients back and
00:05:43
not paying Peter a dime for them and it
00:05:45
cost Peter a ton of money and he really
00:05:47
got I think burned by a taker in that
00:05:49
situation and yet Peter will tell you if
00:05:51
you talk to him he's been enormously
00:05:53
successful in his career um he runs a a
00:05:55
financial advisor firm that's uh well
00:05:58
well over 7 figures in terms of annual
00:06:01
revenue and he will tell you that being
00:06:02
a giver is how he has gotten ahead it's
00:06:05
how he wins business it's why people go
00:06:07
to him and I think what happens is often
00:06:09
times givers put themselves at risk in
00:06:11
the short run but in the long run they
00:06:13
end up building the kind of Social
00:06:15
Capital that's really important for
00:06:16
success in a very connected world and
00:06:19
you know you can see this play out in
00:06:20
many many different situations in his
00:06:22
career uh one of my favorites was when
00:06:24
he actually drove out to visit a client
00:06:26
in the scrap metal business who was the
00:06:28
tiniest of clients worth very very
00:06:30
little money and Peter's colleagues
00:06:32
actually said don't bother it's a waste
00:06:33
of your time um the drive out there
00:06:35
alone is not worth your your hourly fee
00:06:39
and Peter said you know you can't just
00:06:41
ignore somebody because they're not
00:06:42
worth your time I I really want to help
00:06:43
in any way I can and you know the client
00:06:46
turns out not to be a a scrap metal
00:06:49
worker but the owner of a lucrative
00:06:50
scrap metal business and he multiplies
00:06:52
his fees by a factor of a 100 once he
00:06:55
sees what a generous Guy Peter is and I
00:06:58
think that that's one of the things that
00:06:59
that we learned from Peter is that
00:07:01
givers do in the short run sometimes
00:07:03
lose and Peter has gotten better at
00:07:05
protecting himself and and screening to
00:07:07
say you know is this person a taker a
00:07:09
giver or a matcher before he determines
00:07:12
how much he'll help them um but at the
00:07:13
end of the day he also ends up helping
00:07:16
people who he would never expect to be
00:07:18
able to help him back and yet sometimes
00:07:20
they do that's very interesting that
00:07:22
just an act of kindness in going out to
00:07:24
see somebody who needed his help uh
00:07:28
multiplied his business manif that's a
00:07:30
very very really very inspiring
00:07:32
story um how do successful givers
00:07:35
approach
00:07:36
networking uh and how does that their
00:07:39
approach differ from say takers or
00:07:42
matchers so takers tend to actually have
00:07:45
incredibly broad networks in part
00:07:47
because when they burn one Bridge they
00:07:49
have to go and find new people to
00:07:51
exploit in order to get sort of keep the
00:07:53
the network going um what you find is
00:07:55
matchers tend to have much narrower
00:07:57
networks because they will typically
00:07:59
only exchange with people who have
00:08:01
helped them in the past or they who they
00:08:03
expect to be able to help them in the
00:08:04
future and so they end up restricting
00:08:07
their their Universe of opportunities um
00:08:09
givers tend to build much broader
00:08:11
networks than matchers but in a very
00:08:13
different way than takers um what givers
00:08:15
will typically do when when they meet
00:08:17
somebody new is try to figure out how
00:08:18
can I add value to this person's life
00:08:20
and what could I possibly contribute
00:08:22
that might benefit this person um and
00:08:24
what that typically means is they end up
00:08:26
creating a lot of Goodwill in the
00:08:28
relationships that they build that that
00:08:30
often lies dormant until they may
00:08:32
actually need
00:08:33
it how do you spot a faker or a taker
00:08:37
and givers clothing H that that was one
00:08:40
of my favorite bodies of research that I
00:08:41
looked into when writing the book so I
00:08:44
think there are a couple powerful ways
00:08:46
to to spot a taker um one let's start
00:08:49
with the corner office there's a
00:08:51
phenomenal study by chatter G and hamri
00:08:53
that looked at over a 100 computer
00:08:54
companies and actually downloaded the
00:08:56
annual reports of each company and tried
00:08:59
to figure figure out could you identify
00:09:01
the taker CEOs without ever meeting them
00:09:04
so they got Wall Street analysts to rate
00:09:06
how much is each CEO a taker and these
00:09:08
analysts who knew the CEOs and
00:09:10
interacted with them you know rated the
00:09:11
extent to which they were entitled and
00:09:13
narcissistic and
00:09:15
self-serving and the first factor that
00:09:17
really correlated highly with those
00:09:18
ratings was the Gap in compensation
00:09:21
between the the CEO and the next highest
00:09:23
paid executive so typical computer
00:09:25
industry CEO makes about two to two and
00:09:27
a half times as much annual compens
00:09:29
ation as the next highest paid executive
00:09:31
in that company the typical taker CEO
00:09:34
had about seven times more annual
00:09:36
compensation than the next highest paid
00:09:38
executive in that company so literally
00:09:40
taking more in terms of compensation the
00:09:42
second cue was looking at their speech
00:09:45
so the takers tended to use first-
00:09:46
person singular pronouns like I and me
00:09:49
as opposed to us and we when talking
00:09:51
about the company and then the third my
00:09:53
favorite was the takers literally felt
00:09:55
it's all about me I am the most
00:09:57
important and central figure in this
00:09:59
company
00:09:59
and when you looked at their photos in
00:10:01
the company's annual reports they
00:10:03
actually had larger photos and they were
00:10:05
more likely to be pictured alone and I
00:10:07
think that was a third signal so those
00:10:09
signals don't just show up in the corner
00:10:11
office right there's new research by
00:10:12
Keith Campbell and his colleagues
00:10:13
suggesting even you can spot these cues
00:10:15
on Facebook and one of the easiest ways
00:10:18
that you can look for a taker is to look
00:10:20
for a pattern that translates from Dutch
00:10:22
as basically kissing up kicking down so
00:10:25
takers tend to be very careful at
00:10:28
impression management and great ration
00:10:30
when they're dealing with someone
00:10:31
Superior or more influential but it's
00:10:33
hard to keep up the facade in every
00:10:35
interaction and so it's often peers and
00:10:37
subordinates who have a more direct
00:10:39
window into what are this person's true
00:10:42
motives really like you know what you
00:10:45
just said reminds me of a of a story I
00:10:47
read many years ago uh when Mahatma
00:10:50
Gandhi you know when he when he edited a
00:10:53
magazine he would receive all kinds of
00:10:55
letters and one letter was from a young
00:10:58
young woman
00:11:00
who was about to get engaged uh and uh
00:11:03
she was going to meet her you know
00:11:05
prospective uh fiance for the first time
00:11:08
and she wanted to know how she could
00:11:10
judge this person and the advice that
00:11:14
Mahatma Gandhi gave her in The Columns
00:11:16
of the the magazine that he edited was
00:11:19
don't look at how he treats you look at
00:11:22
how he treats his
00:11:23
servants uh and and and I think that's
00:11:26
very very telling in terms of because
00:11:29
with with somebody whom he was trying to
00:11:30
impress obviously he would uh you know
00:11:33
he would be very well behaved but a true
00:11:36
sign of character is how you treat
00:11:38
people who are vulnerable I I think
00:11:40
that's a really profound observation and
00:11:41
you know I think there's a famous quote
00:11:43
attributed to Samuel Johnson that the
00:11:45
the true measure of a person is how he
00:11:46
treats someone who can do him or her no
00:11:48
good exactly exactly now I you also
00:11:52
point out that givers and takers are
00:11:54
very differ quite a bit in the way they
00:11:56
approach
00:11:57
collaboration uh and and sharing credit
00:12:00
uh can you give any examples of how how
00:12:03
this works out yeah so I think this is
00:12:05
one of the most interesting Dynamics you
00:12:07
could you could really look at so in in
00:12:10
doing the research for the book I used
00:12:12
some historical examples here that I
00:12:13
found fascinating uh one was Frank Lloyd
00:12:15
Wright who at one point discovered as an
00:12:18
architect that his uh his draftsmen were
00:12:22
essentially getting more commissions and
00:12:24
more work than he was because
00:12:27
essentially customers and clients found
00:12:29
easier to work with and every bit as
00:12:31
talented and he was offended by this and
00:12:34
and felt that you know they should be
00:12:35
subservient to him so he actually set a
00:12:38
policy that they were not allowed to
00:12:40
accept independent commissions and if
00:12:42
while working in his Studio they did any
00:12:45
work even if he never touched it his
00:12:47
name had to be signed first and you know
00:12:50
I think that obviously that cost him a
00:12:52
lot of very very talented drafts people
00:12:54
and if you look at his legacy he really
00:12:57
mentored and championed far fewer great
00:13:00
AR Architects than than most who achieve
00:13:02
similar stature did another example that
00:13:05
I think really stands out from history
00:13:07
is is Jonas sulk who's really remembered
00:13:09
as as a hero uh for discovering and and
00:13:12
sort of commercializing a polio vaccine
00:13:16
but if you look at suk's Behavior really
00:13:18
closely one of the things you'll see is
00:13:19
he never gave credit to any of the the
00:13:22
people in his lab who helped him
00:13:23
discover the vaccine and actually caused
00:13:26
the the team to fracture and Splinter um
00:13:28
so sulk never made a discovery that was
00:13:30
nearly as as influential again and I
00:13:33
think this is one of the costs of
00:13:35
appearing like a taker in a
00:13:36
collaboration right is slighting other
00:13:38
people who might deserve credit what
00:13:41
givers tend to do in collaboration is
00:13:43
assume that credit is not zero some and
00:13:45
if I give you credit for your
00:13:47
contributions that doesn't necessarily
00:13:49
take away from my contribution and that
00:13:52
makes it a lot easier to keep people on
00:13:54
board in a team over time it means
00:13:56
typically that if you're a leader or
00:13:57
manager people will follow you if you
00:13:59
rotate to a different organization or a
00:14:01
different job and I think that that's
00:14:03
that's really powerful but often harder
00:14:05
to do great no you also have a very
00:14:08
interesting reason you give why s didn't
00:14:11
give credit to his team uh and and and
00:14:15
there was a certain bias at work could
00:14:17
could you explain that that's very
00:14:18
fascinating yeah so this this comes out
00:14:20
of Social and cognitive psychology so
00:14:23
the the immediate thinking is well you
00:14:25
know if if sulk were a taker he would be
00:14:27
motivated to put best foot forward and
00:14:30
so he would trumpet his accomplishments
00:14:32
and really dismiss those of of people
00:14:34
around him and yet Ross and colleagues
00:14:38
have shown consistently that these kinds
00:14:41
of biases are less about our desires to
00:14:43
paint ourselves in the most flattering
00:14:45
light and actually more about
00:14:47
information that there's a discrepancy
00:14:50
between what we know about our own
00:14:51
contributions and those of others so in
00:14:54
suk's case he remembered the Blood The
00:14:56
Sweat The Tears that he put in Moment by
00:14:59
moment when he was working toward
00:15:00
creating that that polio vaccine that
00:15:02
saved thousands and possibly millions of
00:15:04
lives he literally couldn't remember the
00:15:07
contributions of his colleagues because
00:15:08
he wasn't there a lot of the time right
00:15:10
he he didn't actually experience them
00:15:12
and this is really the discrepancy that
00:15:14
exists um Eugene Caruso and his
00:15:16
colleagues have done some really
00:15:17
powerful research showing that when
00:15:19
people are just asked to list the
00:15:20
contributions of their team members and
00:15:22
their own they're literally more able to
00:15:24
remember their own contributions and I
00:15:26
think that's one of the big factors that
00:15:28
drives credit biases in
00:15:30
collaboration uh one of the biggest
00:15:32
challenges for any manager or even a
00:15:34
teacher is identifying the so-called
00:15:37
Diamonds in the Rough you know people
00:15:39
who have the potential uh to to to
00:15:42
become to do great things as they go
00:15:44
forward uh how can you tell us a little
00:15:46
bit about how a legendary teacher uh uh
00:15:49
does this in in your book absolutely so
00:15:52
there's an accounting professor at the
00:15:53
University of North Carolina and Duke by
00:15:56
the name of CJ skender um the man is
00:15:58
taught over 35,000 students in his
00:16:00
career he's won every teaching award on
00:16:03
the planet and he has a remarkable gift
00:16:06
for bringing out the best in his
00:16:07
students he's had many many students win
00:16:10
gold medals both in his State and
00:16:12
nationally for their accounting
00:16:13
achievements he's had more than three
00:16:15
dozen students follow him to become
00:16:18
professors of accounting and when you
00:16:20
look at his approach the question is how
00:16:22
does he do it a lot of people assume
00:16:24
that he's got a great eye for talent and
00:16:26
that he's immediately able to spot the
00:16:28
quantitative Vance and then basically
00:16:31
work with them and CJ says no it's the
00:16:33
exact opposite he sees every student who
00:16:36
walks into his classroom as a diamond in
00:16:37
the rough waiting to be polished and
00:16:40
then what he does is he tries to make
00:16:42
his classes as interesting as possible
00:16:44
to bring out the best in those students
00:16:46
now of course it doesn't work with every
00:16:48
student but what he finds over time is
00:16:50
by making his material interesting that
00:16:53
he does shift some people toward
00:16:56
becoming more motivated and more
00:16:58
hardworking and this is true I think of
00:17:00
of coaches and leaders and managers
00:17:02
everywhere if you look at at research by
00:17:04
Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues of
00:17:06
what made somebody a worldclass tennis
00:17:08
player or a world-class musician or even
00:17:11
a mathematician or a scientist of of
00:17:13
great acclaim very rarely were those
00:17:16
worldclass candidates Superior early on
00:17:18
in their careers um they looked pretty
00:17:20
average when you started with them but
00:17:22
what they had in common was a coach a
00:17:24
teacher or a manager who believed in
00:17:27
them and set their aspirations very high
00:17:29
and then that often created a self
00:17:31
fulfilling prophecy by inspiring them to
00:17:34
to engage in more deliberate practice
00:17:35
and to put in the 10,000 hours that we
00:17:37
all know are critical to achieving
00:17:39
expertise you know one other really
00:17:42
fascinating part of your book deals with
00:17:45
what you call powerless communication
00:17:48
what does that what does exactly what
00:17:50
does that mean and how is it useful in
00:17:52
persuading and influencing others so
00:17:55
I'll give you my own personal example of
00:17:57
this um when I was 25 and I had first
00:17:59
started teaching I was asked to to teach
00:18:01
a leadership and motivation course uh
00:18:03
for uh for senior leaders in the US Air
00:18:06
Force and I was about half their age and
00:18:10
I had just finished my doctorate and I
00:18:11
had relatively little
00:18:13
experience and I felt like what I had to
00:18:15
do was speak in you know the most
00:18:17
confident possible tone to really
00:18:19
establish my credibility and so I came
00:18:21
in and I I walked through all my
00:18:23
credentials and describe sort of what my
00:18:25
training was and then we we went through
00:18:27
the session and and afterward I got the
00:18:30
the course feedback and you know it was
00:18:32
pretty depressing to say the least uh
00:18:35
one of the comments that that really got
00:18:36
burned into my brain was that there was
00:18:39
more knowledge uh in the audience than
00:18:41
on the podium and there were other
00:18:42
people who made comments like you know
00:18:44
gosh the professors get younger every
00:18:46
year and you know how could this guy
00:18:48
really teach us to lead he's never been
00:18:50
a leader and you know I sat back and
00:18:53
thought about that and realized that
00:18:55
perhaps the The Confident dominant
00:18:58
powerful approach was not the best path
00:19:00
to influence and I decided to open up
00:19:03
with a slightly different approach which
00:19:05
is I walked into the next class that I
00:19:07
had to teach for that same audience in
00:19:09
the Air Force and I said okay my name's
00:19:12
Adam Grant I know what all of you are
00:19:14
thinking right now what can I possibly
00:19:16
learn from a professor who's 12 years
00:19:18
old and then I just waited and you know
00:19:21
after a few seconds everybody started
00:19:24
laughing and and one of the Air Force
00:19:25
Colonels said no no no no that's way off
00:19:27
I'm sure you're at least 13
00:19:29
and you know that became sort of a
00:19:30
running joke throughout the session and
00:19:32
I I think what I I guess what I what I
00:19:34
learned from that experience was that
00:19:35
sometimes humility and vulnerability in
00:19:37
communication um what you might think of
00:19:39
as powerless communication is actually a
00:19:42
stronger way to connect with your
00:19:43
audience and there's a lot of research
00:19:45
on this there's a classic study by
00:19:46
Elliot arenson on the pratfall effect
00:19:49
where um quizbowl uh competitors are
00:19:53
recorded and you get to listen to them
00:19:54
and you hear an expert and when the
00:19:56
expert spills coffee all over himself
00:19:58
you actually like him more it humanizes
00:20:00
him it gives you an authentic connection
00:20:02
with him and I think that's a lot of the
00:20:04
power of powerless communication uh what
00:20:07
can givers do to avoid burnout and also
00:20:10
to avoid becoming dmats it seems those
00:20:13
are two pretty big risks for people who
00:20:15
see themselves as givers yeah I think
00:20:17
that's right I think in a way being a
00:20:19
matcher is a safer strategy I think that
00:20:21
you know knowing the givers end up at
00:20:23
the bottom and the top means there are
00:20:24
some risks associated with it but I
00:20:26
think that those risks actually can be
00:20:28
mitigated with with careful strategies
00:20:31
so I think a lot of it comes down to
00:20:33
setting boundaries so many givers can
00:20:36
confused being helpful or being generous
00:20:39
with being available for every person
00:20:41
and every Quest request all the time um
00:20:44
there other givers who confuse perhaps
00:20:46
you know being generous with empathizing
00:20:49
and dropping everything that you're
00:20:51
doing to help others um and I think
00:20:53
there are also plenty of givers out
00:20:55
there this is something I found over and
00:20:56
over in my research who feel like it's
00:20:58
uncomfortable able or inappropriate to
00:21:00
advocate for their own interests and I
00:21:03
think that we need to we need to work
00:21:04
with with people who sort of fall in the
00:21:06
giving end of the spectrum to help them
00:21:08
set clear boundaries and determine okay
00:21:10
how am I going to help most of the
00:21:11
people most of the time uh one of my
00:21:13
favorite Concepts that I I came across
00:21:15
when doing the background research for
00:21:16
the book is is What's called the five
00:21:17
minute favor uh which is basically
00:21:20
instead of just helping everyone all the
00:21:22
time thinking about okay can I offer
00:21:24
something of unique value to this other
00:21:26
person that will take me 5 minutes or
00:21:28
less
00:21:29
and you know I think it's it's basically
00:21:30
about finding High benefit to others but
00:21:32
low cost to the self ways of
00:21:35
contributing you know normally people
00:21:37
believe that the alternative to being
00:21:39
selfish which is what uh you know the
00:21:42
trait that takers usually have is being
00:21:44
selfless but you've come up with a
00:21:47
another term called uish could you
00:21:50
explain the difference yeah so when I
00:21:52
first started studying give and take I
00:21:54
thought that that basically
00:21:56
self-interest versus sort of
00:21:57
selflessness were on one spectrum and
00:22:00
you had takers over here who are very
00:22:01
you know very selfish you had givers who
00:22:03
are very selfless and it actually turns
00:22:06
out if you look at the data on this that
00:22:08
you can more effectively draw a 2 by two
00:22:10
and say concern for your own interests
00:22:12
and concern for other people's interests
00:22:14
are actually independent motivations so
00:22:17
you could score low and high on one or
00:22:19
on both so the takers tend to be purely
00:22:22
selfish um there's one group of givers
00:22:24
who's purely selfless who constantly put
00:22:27
other people's interests ahead of their
00:22:29
own but there's this other group of
00:22:31
givers that I call other who are
00:22:33
concerned about benefiting others but
00:22:35
they also keep their own interest in the
00:22:36
rearview mirror and so they will look
00:22:38
for ways to help others that are either
00:22:40
low cost to themselves or even high
00:22:42
benefit to themselves I.E win-win as
00:22:45
opposed to win lose here's the irony the
00:22:48
selfless givers might be more altruistic
00:22:51
in principle right because they're
00:22:52
they're constantly elevating other
00:22:54
people's interests ahead of their own
00:22:56
but my data and and research by lots of
00:22:58
others show that they're actually less
00:23:00
generous because they run out of energy
00:23:03
they run out of time and they lose their
00:23:04
resources because they don't basically
00:23:06
take enough care of themselves the
00:23:08
others givers are able to sustain their
00:23:10
giving by looking for ways that giving
00:23:12
can hurt them less or benefit them more
00:23:14
so the the vulnerabilities that you
00:23:16
identified earlier of burnout and being
00:23:18
a dmat are actually uh something that
00:23:21
affects selfless givers more than others
00:23:24
that's right yeah selfless givers are at
00:23:26
much greater risk of burnout and
00:23:27
exploitation are the other is givers
00:23:30
right well uh one final question Adam uh
00:23:33
what practical advice apart from reading
00:23:36
your book uh could you offer people who
00:23:39
want to start applying the these
00:23:40
principles to their own lives so I think
00:23:43
there there's lots of advice sort of
00:23:44
peppered throughout the book in
00:23:46
different chapters but when I take a
00:23:47
step back I think the first question is
00:23:50
what is your own style um if you go to
00:23:52
the the give and take website give
00:23:54
take.com there's a self assessment that
00:23:55
you can take there there's also a 360
00:23:57
assessment both available for free where
00:23:59
you can get other people to rate you and
00:24:02
I think that's really the first step is
00:24:03
to hold up a mirror and figure out okay
00:24:05
what is my default um I may act more
00:24:07
like a taker when I'm negotiating a big
00:24:09
contract I may act more like a giver
00:24:11
when I'm in a mentoring role and I'm
00:24:13
probably a matcher when a colleague from
00:24:15
another organization approaches me for
00:24:17
some specialized knowledge but how do I
00:24:20
treat most of the people most of the
00:24:21
time I think as the first step and then
00:24:23
I think you know the second step is
00:24:24
there are some surprising opportunities
00:24:26
both for success and for meaning in
00:24:28
operating like a giver and so I would
00:24:31
ask okay what are the types of giving
00:24:32
that you find most energizing or most
00:24:34
consistent with your skills um for some
00:24:36
people it's making introductions for
00:24:38
others it's sharing credit for others
00:24:40
it's stepping up as a mentor and I think
00:24:42
finding your own sort of Giver style is
00:24:44
really powerful and you know I think the
00:24:47
the real meaning and purpose associated
00:24:48
with that is that you know even if
00:24:51
givers don't always do better than
00:24:53
takers or matchers they manage to
00:24:55
succeed in ways that make others better
00:24:57
and lift others up instead of cutting
00:24:58
them down and I think looking for ways
00:25:00
to do that is probably the the most
00:25:03
sustainable path to success in the long
00:25:05
term both for individuals and
00:25:07
organizations Adam thank you so much for
00:25:09
speaking with knowledge at Wharton my
00:25:10
pleasure thanks for having me
00:25:15
[Music]
