Give and Take, by Adam Grant

[Magnus]

I would like to recommend a book I've been reading called Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success, by Adam Grant.  Dr. Grant is a relatively young business professor at Wharton, and focuses his research on organizational psychology. (I have found that "organizational psychology" has a great deal of overlap with -- if not being virtually indistinguishable from -- what they used to call "microeconomics.")

The book concerns an aspect of interpersonal dynamics that he calls "reciprocity style."  In the simplest terms, he says that people can be rated on a spectrum of reciprocity goals that fall into three broad categories -- Takers, Matchers and Givers.  Matchers try to come as close to exactly equal as possible, getting and giving in equal measure.  Takers are (in the extreme) the users in our society, the people who look out for No. 1.  Givers are the people who put others' needs ahead of their own. 

This is obviously a major hot-button social issue.  The entire body of Western fiction, both popular and artsy, boils down to heroes being (or becoming) Givers and villains being unreconstructed Takers. (Secondary characters can be Matchers.) The entire body of free-market economics is built on a Matcher style of social organization.

I was excited to read a study of the topic that approached the issue of reciprocity more scientifically, and I have been blown away by what I have been reading.  I'm not sure that anything in the book is exactly explosive or revolutionary, but at the same time, I feel that the broader implications of this line of thinking are enormous. 

The author examines people in the workplace (or professional school, or the military, or in sports, or other areas where something concrete is at stake), and sorts them (by self-reported questionnaires and with surveys) into these three categories.  As to people with Giver styles, he found something very interesting -- they are vastly overrepresented as some of the least successful people in any given group.  They are the chumps.  They are the underperformers. 

But who is at the top?  Givers again! 

Takers can do well in organizations, but they seem to have an upper limit on their success.  Also, their success (not surprisingly) leaves a lot of broken, bitter people in their wake.  Takers do not impart anything to the group to help it succeed long term, and groups tend to fail rapidly after a Taker-style leader leaves.  Givers, on the other hand, have the ability to make everyone around them succeed, and their success continues to reverberate in the group with continued successes after they are gone. 

The case studies of some Givers in the book have illuminated a whole new area of social behavior for me.  For example, the book examines George Meyer, a long-time writer for The Simpsons.  It goes into a lot of detail about how he came to the show, how little credit he received for essentially creating the entire genre and brand of humor, and how he made all of the writers and producers around him more successful. 

Two more examples are C.J. Skender and Stu Inman -- the former an accounting professor at Duke, and the latter the general manager of the Portland Trailblazers in the 1970s and 80s.  Both men spent their careers teaching or coaching other people to be successful.  Skender has managed to teach more students who have been the highest scorers on the CPA exam than anyone else.  Inman was a talent spotter for an NBA team, and managed to pick two young players in the draft that have been universally rated the two worst draft picks in NBA history (famously passing up Michael Jordan for Sam Bowie).  But Inman also went on to pick some of the very best players, at amazing bargains, and the team went on to the NBA championships within a couple of years of joining the NBA.  He revolutionized the practice of sports talent-spotting.

I have clearly lived my life mostly as a Matcher. I am highly sensitive
to being taken advantage of.  I am also highly sensitive to the limits
of my obligations toward others, and the careful calculation of how to
remedy problems I either cause or experience.  I have lived my life with
a detailed ledger of credits and debits in my mind, without even paying much
attention to it.  I had always equated giving (without getting) with being a chump, and while I have mildly appreciated the ethos of giving as a personal choice, I've usually been irritated by the intense social pressure that is placed on giving, and concluded that it is a subtle form of selfish manipulation.  After all, the government heavily exploits this "giving" mantra, and has used it to become the Ultimate Taker.  I've also always resented being disparaged for being a Matcher, since matching one's costs and benefits with others means that they (by definition) have nothing to complain about. It never occurred to me that there was another way to live, certainly not one that made economic sense. 

I think the book would be of great interest to the anarchists of FDR, and the libertarian movement in general.  There is also a website where you can take a little quiz on your reciprocity style.

I am a little more than halfway through the book, and am going to read it with an immense interest.  I'd love to hear people's thoughts, either on the book, or on your experiences with the giving-matching-taking spectrum in general.

[Pepin]

Sounds like a book that might be good to read. Does it give advice as to how to avoid being in the lowest group and how to avoid being taken advantage of? In general, I tend not care about this, but more recently I have been running into issues with this. I would be considered a giver.

[Magnus]

 

Sounds like a book that might be good to read. Does it give advice as to how to avoid being in the lowest group and how to avoid being taken advantage of? In general, I tend not care about this, but more recently I have been running into issues with this. I would be considered a giver.

 

Yes, an early chapter indicated that your question would be answered in a later chapter -- how do high-achieving givers avoid being taken advantage of, thereby dissipating their time and energies, and ending up as low-achieving givers. I just haven't gotten that far yet. 

That fear is one of the main reasons I never gave much credence to Giving as a viable life strategy.