What do you think?
Rate this book
Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success
Goodreads Choice Award
Nominee for Best Nonfiction (2013)Give and Take highlights what effective networking, collaboration, influence, negotiation, and leadership skills have in common.
For generations, we have focused on the individual drivers of success: passion, hard work, talent, and luck. But today, success is increasingly dependent on how we interact with others. It turns out that at work, most people operate as either takers, matchers, or givers. Whereas takers strive to get as much as possible from others and matchers aim to trade evenly, givers are the rare breed of people who contribute to others without expecting anything in return.
Using his own pioneering research as Wharton's youngest tenured professor, Grant shows that these styles have a surprising impact on success. Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries. Combining cutting-edge evidence with captivating stories, this landmark book shows how one of America's best networkers developed his connections, why the creative genius behind one of the most popular shows in television history toiled for years in anonymity, how a basketball executive responsible for multiple draft busts transformed his franchise into a winner, and how we could have anticipated Enron's demise four years before the company collapsed - without ever looking at a single number.
Praised by bestselling authors such as Dan Pink, Tony Hsieh, Dan Ariely, Susan Cain, Dan Gilbert, Gretchen Rubin, Bob Sutton, David Allen, Robert Cialdini, and Seth Godin-as well as senior leaders from Google, McKinsey, Merck, Estee Lauder, Nike, and NASA - Give and Take highlights what effective networking, collaboration, influence, negotiation, and leadership skills have in common. This landmark book opens up an approach to success that has the power to transform not just individuals and groups, but entire organizations and communities.
For generations, we have focused on the individual drivers of success: passion, hard work, talent, and luck. But today, success is increasingly dependent on how we interact with others. It turns out that at work, most people operate as either takers, matchers, or givers. Whereas takers strive to get as much as possible from others and matchers aim to trade evenly, givers are the rare breed of people who contribute to others without expecting anything in return.
Using his own pioneering research as Wharton's youngest tenured professor, Grant shows that these styles have a surprising impact on success. Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries. Combining cutting-edge evidence with captivating stories, this landmark book shows how one of America's best networkers developed his connections, why the creative genius behind one of the most popular shows in television history toiled for years in anonymity, how a basketball executive responsible for multiple draft busts transformed his franchise into a winner, and how we could have anticipated Enron's demise four years before the company collapsed - without ever looking at a single number.
Praised by bestselling authors such as Dan Pink, Tony Hsieh, Dan Ariely, Susan Cain, Dan Gilbert, Gretchen Rubin, Bob Sutton, David Allen, Robert Cialdini, and Seth Godin-as well as senior leaders from Google, McKinsey, Merck, Estee Lauder, Nike, and NASA - Give and Take highlights what effective networking, collaboration, influence, negotiation, and leadership skills have in common. This landmark book opens up an approach to success that has the power to transform not just individuals and groups, but entire organizations and communities.
320 pages, Hardcover
First published January 1, 2013
About the author
Adam M. Grant
15 books19.7k followersAdam Grant has been Wharton’s top-rated professor for 7 straight years. As an organizational psychologist, he is a leading expert on how we can find motivation and meaning, and live more generous and creative lives. He has been recognized as one of the world’s 10 most influential management thinkers and Fortune’s 40 under 40.
He is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of 5 books that have sold millions of copies and been translated into 35 languages: Think Again, Give and Take, Originals, Option B, and Power Moves. His books have been named among the year’s best by Amazon, Apple, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. His New York Times article on languishing is one of the most-shared articles of 2021.
Adam hosts WorkLife, a chart-topping TED original podcast. His TED talks on original thinkers and givers and takers have been viewed more than 30 million times. He received a standing ovation at TED in 2016 and was voted the audience’s favorite speaker at The Nantucket Project. His speaking and consulting clients include Google, the NBA, Bridgewater, and the Gates Foundation. He writes on work and psychology for the New York Times, has served on the Defense Innovation Board at the Pentagon, and has been honored as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. He has more than 5 million followers on social media and features new insights in his free monthly newsletter, GRANTED.
He is the #1 New York Times bestselling author of 5 books that have sold millions of copies and been translated into 35 languages: Think Again, Give and Take, Originals, Option B, and Power Moves. His books have been named among the year’s best by Amazon, Apple, the Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. His New York Times article on languishing is one of the most-shared articles of 2021.
Adam hosts WorkLife, a chart-topping TED original podcast. His TED talks on original thinkers and givers and takers have been viewed more than 30 million times. He received a standing ovation at TED in 2016 and was voted the audience’s favorite speaker at The Nantucket Project. His speaking and consulting clients include Google, the NBA, Bridgewater, and the Gates Foundation. He writes on work and psychology for the New York Times, has served on the Defense Innovation Board at the Pentagon, and has been honored as a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum. He has more than 5 million followers on social media and features new insights in his free monthly newsletter, GRANTED.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,441 reviews
February 15, 2014
After I read the NY Times profile on Adam Grant last year, this book has been on my list. The idea that giving and being generous with your time will help you get ahead in life seemed sort of interesting. Now that I'm in social work school, I think that most of his argument is bullshit, and is written for business/finance/wealthy people in general. Grant writes from a place of incredible privilege (white, male, educated, wealthy, heterosexual, you name it), and the premise of the book is that by caring about other people, you will make more money. He says that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, that by helping others to be successful, you help yourself also. The big issue for me is that the book is full of examples of well-off people helping other well-off people. Sure, Grant threw in a story about a young, white, female Teach for America teacher in Philadelphia mentoring poor Black teenagers... but as far as I remember, that was the only anecdote about a person helping other people who could truly be described as "disadvantaged".
The other thing that Grant doesn't talk about are gender differences in socialization that necessarily contribute to this giver/taker/matcher question. He dismisses the entire concept in one sentence, denying that there are any differences between men and women, yet throughout the book he cites statistics that show that women consistently seem to accomplish and earn less than their male counterparts. I know this book was written for men in business, but I think its irresponsible that Grant never fully accounts for the fact that women face unique challenges by being socialized to be selfless givers as opposed to what he calls "otherish" givers, who look out for themselves as well as others. Theres no question that men and women face different challenges, and its sexist to ignore it.
I admit that I liked the parts about volunteering and reciprocity. I like that he promotes service and talks a lot about Freecycle. The Reciprocity Ring idea is also really cool.
The other thing that Grant doesn't talk about are gender differences in socialization that necessarily contribute to this giver/taker/matcher question. He dismisses the entire concept in one sentence, denying that there are any differences between men and women, yet throughout the book he cites statistics that show that women consistently seem to accomplish and earn less than their male counterparts. I know this book was written for men in business, but I think its irresponsible that Grant never fully accounts for the fact that women face unique challenges by being socialized to be selfless givers as opposed to what he calls "otherish" givers, who look out for themselves as well as others. Theres no question that men and women face different challenges, and its sexist to ignore it.
I admit that I liked the parts about volunteering and reciprocity. I like that he promotes service and talks a lot about Freecycle. The Reciprocity Ring idea is also really cool.
September 4, 2013
A lot of books like this aren't nearly as groundbreaking as they claim to be, but this one definitely changed the way I think about the world.
The authors divide the world into three types of people, givers, takers, and matchers. Not surprisingly, givers are the chumps, those people who mentor and donate and always help others at personal cost. Matchers who give and take equally, do better. Takers, the kind of people who say that it's dog-eat-dog out there and that's why they're justified in screwing over everyone dumb enough to get screwed over, tend to do okay too. But here's the weird part, the people who do even better than that are also givers.
That last fact is what got me hooked. I had to find out if there was a way in which I could still be generous and not come to regret it again and again and again. In a way, this is like a novel, because the authors tell stories in which selfish jerks lose out and the generous trusting sorts have their good works repaid. In that regard, it's very satisfying.
The book also has some other information which is tangental but fascinating, such as how to keep from getting burned out if you are in a job (such as teaching) which requires you to give and give and give. Also, it says how to motivate charitably minded people vs. how to motivate people who are more self-centered.
This book has some useful tips, and I will be thinking about it and talking about it for quite a while. It was also well written and engaging enough that I found it a pleasure to read.
The authors divide the world into three types of people, givers, takers, and matchers. Not surprisingly, givers are the chumps, those people who mentor and donate and always help others at personal cost. Matchers who give and take equally, do better. Takers, the kind of people who say that it's dog-eat-dog out there and that's why they're justified in screwing over everyone dumb enough to get screwed over, tend to do okay too. But here's the weird part, the people who do even better than that are also givers.
That last fact is what got me hooked. I had to find out if there was a way in which I could still be generous and not come to regret it again and again and again. In a way, this is like a novel, because the authors tell stories in which selfish jerks lose out and the generous trusting sorts have their good works repaid. In that regard, it's very satisfying.
The book also has some other information which is tangental but fascinating, such as how to keep from getting burned out if you are in a job (such as teaching) which requires you to give and give and give. Also, it says how to motivate charitably minded people vs. how to motivate people who are more self-centered.
This book has some useful tips, and I will be thinking about it and talking about it for quite a while. It was also well written and engaging enough that I found it a pleasure to read.
March 27, 2017
If everyone in the world read this book, the world would instantly become a better place. Mental models, while never perfect, are very powerful tools, and Grant has come up with a compelling, research backed view of what makes some people successful, and others less so.
Grant divided the world into givers, matchers, and takers. Through a lot of research, Grant determined that the most successful and the least successful people are often givers, that takers often do well but not over the long term, and the vast majority of people are matchers. Like all such categorizations (eg fixed vs growth mindset), it isn’t perfect, which bothered me a little - until you realize that in different situations you can either be giving, taking, or matching, and there are probably people that favor one of those three more often than not.
Grant used surveys to determine if people are givers, though its strange that he didn’t expand on what type of questions are used to determine this, as it would have been insightful. Happily, Google works, and I found he does have such a test on his website. And I scored 53% giver!
The book opens with a chapter about one of the best givers and people that I know, David Hornik, who funded the last company I worked at. So awesome to see him getting such an amazing shoutout - he deserves it!
I liked the example of Ken Lay as a successful taker. “When kissing up, takers are often good fakers.” I do wonder how many successful “takers” there are out there that don’t have anything bad happen to them though. The book does use Frank Lloyd Wright as such an example, which is a fascinating dichotomy.
Other interesting ways to determine givers & takers: use of “I” vs “we”, number of LinkedIn
recommendations written vs received.
This was a very powerful insight: “people actually make more accurate and creative decisions when they’re choosing on behalf of others than themselves.”. Eg: “The solution was thinking about myself as an agent, an advocate for my family. As a giver, I feel guilty about pushing too much, but the minute I start thinking, ‘I’m hurting my family, who’s depending on me for this,’ I don’t feel guilty about pushing for that side.”
The book also explains why givers are also the most unsuccessful - they are too selfless. Successful givers balance giving to others while taking care of themselves. “As Bill Gates argued at the World Economic Forum, “there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others,” and people are most successful when they are driven by a “hybrid engine” of the two. If takers are selfish and failed givers are selfless, successful givers are otherish: they care about benefiting others, but they also have ambitious goals for advancing their own interests.”
I liked the example of how with Freecycle, small numbers of givers could turn everyone into givers. I think Goodreads has had a similar journey with our community. It’s kind of the definition of a community: “If a group develops a norm of giving, members will uphold the norm and give, even if they’re more inclined to be takers or matchers elsewhere. This reduces the risks of giving: when everyone contributes, the pie is larger, and givers are no longer stuck contributing far more than they get.”
Some other quotes I liked:
“highly talented people tend to make others jealous, placing themselves at risk of being disliked, resented, ostracized, and undermined. But if these talented people are also givers, they no longer have a target on their backs.”
“For many years, psychologists believed that in any domain, success depended on talent first and motivation second. To groom world-class athletes and musicians, experts looked for people with the right raw abilities, and then sought to motivate them. If you want to find people who can dunk like Michael Jordan or play piano like Beethoven, it’s only natural to start by screening candidates for leaping ability and an ear for music. But in recent years, psychologists have come to believe that this approach may be backward. 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.”
Grant divided the world into givers, matchers, and takers. Through a lot of research, Grant determined that the most successful and the least successful people are often givers, that takers often do well but not over the long term, and the vast majority of people are matchers. Like all such categorizations (eg fixed vs growth mindset), it isn’t perfect, which bothered me a little - until you realize that in different situations you can either be giving, taking, or matching, and there are probably people that favor one of those three more often than not.
Grant used surveys to determine if people are givers, though its strange that he didn’t expand on what type of questions are used to determine this, as it would have been insightful. Happily, Google works, and I found he does have such a test on his website. And I scored 53% giver!
The book opens with a chapter about one of the best givers and people that I know, David Hornik, who funded the last company I worked at. So awesome to see him getting such an amazing shoutout - he deserves it!
I liked the example of Ken Lay as a successful taker. “When kissing up, takers are often good fakers.” I do wonder how many successful “takers” there are out there that don’t have anything bad happen to them though. The book does use Frank Lloyd Wright as such an example, which is a fascinating dichotomy.
Other interesting ways to determine givers & takers: use of “I” vs “we”, number of LinkedIn
recommendations written vs received.
This was a very powerful insight: “people actually make more accurate and creative decisions when they’re choosing on behalf of others than themselves.”. Eg: “The solution was thinking about myself as an agent, an advocate for my family. As a giver, I feel guilty about pushing too much, but the minute I start thinking, ‘I’m hurting my family, who’s depending on me for this,’ I don’t feel guilty about pushing for that side.”
The book also explains why givers are also the most unsuccessful - they are too selfless. Successful givers balance giving to others while taking care of themselves. “As Bill Gates argued at the World Economic Forum, “there are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others,” and people are most successful when they are driven by a “hybrid engine” of the two. If takers are selfish and failed givers are selfless, successful givers are otherish: they care about benefiting others, but they also have ambitious goals for advancing their own interests.”
I liked the example of how with Freecycle, small numbers of givers could turn everyone into givers. I think Goodreads has had a similar journey with our community. It’s kind of the definition of a community: “If a group develops a norm of giving, members will uphold the norm and give, even if they’re more inclined to be takers or matchers elsewhere. This reduces the risks of giving: when everyone contributes, the pie is larger, and givers are no longer stuck contributing far more than they get.”
Some other quotes I liked:
“highly talented people tend to make others jealous, placing themselves at risk of being disliked, resented, ostracized, and undermined. But if these talented people are also givers, they no longer have a target on their backs.”
“For many years, psychologists believed that in any domain, success depended on talent first and motivation second. To groom world-class athletes and musicians, experts looked for people with the right raw abilities, and then sought to motivate them. If you want to find people who can dunk like Michael Jordan or play piano like Beethoven, it’s only natural to start by screening candidates for leaping ability and an ear for music. But in recent years, psychologists have come to believe that this approach may be backward. 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.”
March 31, 2017
Note to self: only read nonfiction in Kindle from now on so I can share my notes and highlights on Goodreads. It's a pain having to type up all these notes!!
Apologies to readers of this "review" - it's not actually a review, more a collection of notes and insights from the book for my future reference.
Adam Grant divides the world into three groups:
Takers - usually burn bridges by constantly asking for favors and not giving back. Seen as selfish and therefore people respect them less. Have little trust in other people. They harbor doubts about other people's intentions. Treat others with suspicion and distrust. If they are impressed by someone else, they usually the feel threatened and are less willing to support and develop that person.
Matchers - will ask someone for a favor if they can feel they can offer something in return. This hampers them as they feel uncomfortable asking for advice or help unless they can reciprocate. Always keeping a mental score.
Givers - More willing to see the potential in everyone and try and bring out the best in people. Get immense satisfaction out of helping others. Give for the satisfaction of helping others. BUT, Givers can be divided into Self-Protective Givers (generous, but within limits) and Selfless Givers (put the needs of others before their own and end up burned out/miserable).
If you want to find out where you stand, go here: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/01/b...
Great quote: "If you're going to get tens of millions of people using your software, you really should do something meaningful, something that changes the world." (Adam Rifkin, one of the most connected people on LinkedIn and noted Giver.)
Dormant ties - we all have people who we used to see or know well but have since lost contact with them. A study by Daniel Levin, Jorge Walter, and Keith Murnighan, found that people who are "dormant ties" are valuable contacts for advice. Why? "The dormant ties provided more novel information than the current contacts. Over the past few years, while they were out of touch, they had been exposed to new ideas and perspectives. [Current contacts are] more likely to share the knowledge base and viewpoint [that you already have]." And for Givers, it's much easier to re-connect with dormant ties - people are happy to be back in touch with them.
Giving can be contagious - it's possible to cultivate a culture of giving in a group as people in a group look to others for clues about appropriate behavior. When you invest your expertise or connections in someone, it encourages them to try and do the same to others. It's not transactional - you don't have to give back to exactly the same person, just to the group. Also, "studies show that, on average, from sales teams to paper mill crews to restaurants, the more giving group members do, the higher the quantity and quality of their groups' products and services."
Bias [Talking about a study which randomly labelled students as "bloomers" - high potential to succeed - and how they ended up performing better than their classmates. Why? Because their teachers were told they had high potential.] "Teachers' beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies. When teachers believed their students were bloomers, they set high expectations for their success. As a result, the teachers engaged in more supportive behaviors that boosted the students' confidence and enhanced their learning and development. Teachers communicated more warmly to the bloomers, gave them more challenging assignments, called on them more often, and provided them with more feedback." [Same experiment has been replicated in the military and other organizations.]
What can leaders learn from this? Look for people with talent but focus on whether they have high motivation and work ethic.
Givers tend to have the belief that everyone could be a potential bloomer and so they are worth investing time and energy in.
Sunk cost - there's more to why people continue to invest in something when it's no longer smart to keep investing. Three other factors are involved: 1) Anticipated regret (Will I be sorry if I didn't give this another chance?), 2) Project completion (I want to finish this) and 3) Ego threat <- this is the most powerful (If I don't keep doing this, I'll look and feel like a fool. I want to prove that I'm right and they are wrong.) Takers are more susceptible to falling for this.
Persuasion "By asking people questions about their plans and intentions, we increase the likelihood that they actually act on these plans and intentions." Why? Because our answers have been influenced by ourselves. We don't feel forced/persuaded to do something. One caveat is that the plans and intentions have to be for desirable actions. (Which probably explains why asking my sons "When are you planning to clean your room?" doesn't get the outcome I'd like!)
Seeking advice is a good way to influence people. (Good reminder for women who stereotypically don’t like asking for advice as they fear it makes them look weak. Apparently, people seeking advice are rated more favorably by their bosses than those who never seek advice and help.) “Asking for advice encouraged greater cooperation and information sharing, turning a potentially contentious negotiation into a win-win deal. Studies demonstrate that across the manufacturing, financial services, insurance, and pharmaceuticals industries, seeking advice is among the most effective ways to influence peers, superiors, and subordinates. Advice seeking tends to be significantly more persuasive than the taker’s preferred tactics of pressuring subordinates and ingratiating superiors. Advice seeking is also consistently more influential than the matcher’s default approach of trading favors.”
Seeking advice has four benefits: learning, perspective taking, commitment, and flattery. First one is obvious, you find out new info. Second one is that in order for someone to answer your question, they have to look at the problem from your point of view (change their perspective). If they come up with a solution (and have also giving some of their time, energy, or knowledge to help you think something through), that often leads to them being committed to helping you achieve it (third benefit). As for the fourth benefit, apparently Walter Isaacson sums it up best: appeal to “their pride and vanity by constantly seeking their opinion and advice, and they will admire you for your judgment and wisdom.”
I was starting to feel uncomfortable at this point but Grant does then point out that for all this is to work, it has to be genuine. If you’re doing it just as an influence strategy, you’ll come across as a faker. But if you genuinely need advice and are worried about asking for it, the benefits above should convince you to reach out.
How to avoid 'giving burnout'
1. “Chunk” your giving rather than sprinkling it out. If you’re constantly giving in small amounts (sprinkling), then it’s likely you’re interrupting your own productivity and not getting your own work done. Set boundaries and pack your giving into set times so you can conserve your energy and focus.
2. Make sure that you’re not giving continually without concern for your own well-being. Don’t put the needs of others over your own. Make sure that the giving provides satisfaction for you too. Do you feel energized by it? Or are you doing something out of a sense of duty?
3. Watch out for takers! They are masters are getting givers to give too much.
Find your tribe
"We gravitate toward people, places, and products with which we share an uncommon commonality.” Marilynn Brewer has a theory for this. “On the one hand, we want to fit in: we strive for connection, cohesiveness, community, belonging, inclusion, and affiliation with others. On the other hand, we want to stand out: we search for uniqueness, differentiation, and individuality. As we navigate the social world, these two motives are often in conflict. The more strongly we affiliate with a group, the greater our risk of losing our sense of uniqueness. The more we work to distinguish ourselves from others, the greater our risk of losing our sense of belongingness.”
So what do people do? Find a way to have “optimal distinctiveness” - to fit in and stand out. One way to do that is to join a group with shared interests, identities, goals, etc. (Hello Goodreads!) “And research indicates that people are happier in groups that provide optimal distinctiveness, giving a sense of both inclusion and uniqueness. These are the groups in which we take the most pride, and feel the most cohesive and valued."
If you're interested in learning more about Giving, this is a great Harvard Business Review article that Adam Grant and Reb Rebele wrote as a follow up to this book: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/01/b....
Apologies to readers of this "review" - it's not actually a review, more a collection of notes and insights from the book for my future reference.
Adam Grant divides the world into three groups:
Takers - usually burn bridges by constantly asking for favors and not giving back. Seen as selfish and therefore people respect them less. Have little trust in other people. They harbor doubts about other people's intentions. Treat others with suspicion and distrust. If they are impressed by someone else, they usually the feel threatened and are less willing to support and develop that person.
Matchers - will ask someone for a favor if they can feel they can offer something in return. This hampers them as they feel uncomfortable asking for advice or help unless they can reciprocate. Always keeping a mental score.
Givers - More willing to see the potential in everyone and try and bring out the best in people. Get immense satisfaction out of helping others. Give for the satisfaction of helping others. BUT, Givers can be divided into Self-Protective Givers (generous, but within limits) and Selfless Givers (put the needs of others before their own and end up burned out/miserable).
If you want to find out where you stand, go here: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/01/b...
Great quote: "If you're going to get tens of millions of people using your software, you really should do something meaningful, something that changes the world." (Adam Rifkin, one of the most connected people on LinkedIn and noted Giver.)
Dormant ties - we all have people who we used to see or know well but have since lost contact with them. A study by Daniel Levin, Jorge Walter, and Keith Murnighan, found that people who are "dormant ties" are valuable contacts for advice. Why? "The dormant ties provided more novel information than the current contacts. Over the past few years, while they were out of touch, they had been exposed to new ideas and perspectives. [Current contacts are] more likely to share the knowledge base and viewpoint [that you already have]." And for Givers, it's much easier to re-connect with dormant ties - people are happy to be back in touch with them.
Giving can be contagious - it's possible to cultivate a culture of giving in a group as people in a group look to others for clues about appropriate behavior. When you invest your expertise or connections in someone, it encourages them to try and do the same to others. It's not transactional - you don't have to give back to exactly the same person, just to the group. Also, "studies show that, on average, from sales teams to paper mill crews to restaurants, the more giving group members do, the higher the quantity and quality of their groups' products and services."
Bias [Talking about a study which randomly labelled students as "bloomers" - high potential to succeed - and how they ended up performing better than their classmates. Why? Because their teachers were told they had high potential.] "Teachers' beliefs created self-fulfilling prophecies. When teachers believed their students were bloomers, they set high expectations for their success. As a result, the teachers engaged in more supportive behaviors that boosted the students' confidence and enhanced their learning and development. Teachers communicated more warmly to the bloomers, gave them more challenging assignments, called on them more often, and provided them with more feedback." [Same experiment has been replicated in the military and other organizations.]
What can leaders learn from this? Look for people with talent but focus on whether they have high motivation and work ethic.
Givers tend to have the belief that everyone could be a potential bloomer and so they are worth investing time and energy in.
Sunk cost - there's more to why people continue to invest in something when it's no longer smart to keep investing. Three other factors are involved: 1) Anticipated regret (Will I be sorry if I didn't give this another chance?), 2) Project completion (I want to finish this) and 3) Ego threat <- this is the most powerful (If I don't keep doing this, I'll look and feel like a fool. I want to prove that I'm right and they are wrong.) Takers are more susceptible to falling for this.
Persuasion "By asking people questions about their plans and intentions, we increase the likelihood that they actually act on these plans and intentions." Why? Because our answers have been influenced by ourselves. We don't feel forced/persuaded to do something. One caveat is that the plans and intentions have to be for desirable actions. (Which probably explains why asking my sons "When are you planning to clean your room?" doesn't get the outcome I'd like!)
Seeking advice is a good way to influence people. (Good reminder for women who stereotypically don’t like asking for advice as they fear it makes them look weak. Apparently, people seeking advice are rated more favorably by their bosses than those who never seek advice and help.) “Asking for advice encouraged greater cooperation and information sharing, turning a potentially contentious negotiation into a win-win deal. Studies demonstrate that across the manufacturing, financial services, insurance, and pharmaceuticals industries, seeking advice is among the most effective ways to influence peers, superiors, and subordinates. Advice seeking tends to be significantly more persuasive than the taker’s preferred tactics of pressuring subordinates and ingratiating superiors. Advice seeking is also consistently more influential than the matcher’s default approach of trading favors.”
Seeking advice has four benefits: learning, perspective taking, commitment, and flattery. First one is obvious, you find out new info. Second one is that in order for someone to answer your question, they have to look at the problem from your point of view (change their perspective). If they come up with a solution (and have also giving some of their time, energy, or knowledge to help you think something through), that often leads to them being committed to helping you achieve it (third benefit). As for the fourth benefit, apparently Walter Isaacson sums it up best: appeal to “their pride and vanity by constantly seeking their opinion and advice, and they will admire you for your judgment and wisdom.”
I was starting to feel uncomfortable at this point but Grant does then point out that for all this is to work, it has to be genuine. If you’re doing it just as an influence strategy, you’ll come across as a faker. But if you genuinely need advice and are worried about asking for it, the benefits above should convince you to reach out.
How to avoid 'giving burnout'
1. “Chunk” your giving rather than sprinkling it out. If you’re constantly giving in small amounts (sprinkling), then it’s likely you’re interrupting your own productivity and not getting your own work done. Set boundaries and pack your giving into set times so you can conserve your energy and focus.
2. Make sure that you’re not giving continually without concern for your own well-being. Don’t put the needs of others over your own. Make sure that the giving provides satisfaction for you too. Do you feel energized by it? Or are you doing something out of a sense of duty?
3. Watch out for takers! They are masters are getting givers to give too much.
Find your tribe
"We gravitate toward people, places, and products with which we share an uncommon commonality.” Marilynn Brewer has a theory for this. “On the one hand, we want to fit in: we strive for connection, cohesiveness, community, belonging, inclusion, and affiliation with others. On the other hand, we want to stand out: we search for uniqueness, differentiation, and individuality. As we navigate the social world, these two motives are often in conflict. The more strongly we affiliate with a group, the greater our risk of losing our sense of uniqueness. The more we work to distinguish ourselves from others, the greater our risk of losing our sense of belongingness.”
So what do people do? Find a way to have “optimal distinctiveness” - to fit in and stand out. One way to do that is to join a group with shared interests, identities, goals, etc. (Hello Goodreads!) “And research indicates that people are happier in groups that provide optimal distinctiveness, giving a sense of both inclusion and uniqueness. These are the groups in which we take the most pride, and feel the most cohesive and valued."
If you're interested in learning more about Giving, this is a great Harvard Business Review article that Adam Grant and Reb Rebele wrote as a follow up to this book: https://hbr.org/cover-story/2017/01/b....
April 7, 2014
The concept is good in that it tries to prove that givers are ultimately more successful than takers. However the numerous examples that are used to prove the same point again and again is extremely off putting. its like the author is showing off his knowledge of trivia. He has commented on how givers should avoid being taken advantage of, but the pearls of wisdom are interspersed with boring examples, so making it difficult to cut to the chase.
April 8, 2020
This is unscientific self-help under the guise of science. It's fine, it's helpful, but there is no formula or even an attempted test for whether someone is a giver or a taker. The basic takeaway here is don't be an asshole because if you're an asshole, you will lose in the end. But people are not always one thing or another. A lot of people are assholes in certain contexts and not others. Also, some "giving" is just the Dale Carnegie variety of social manipulation, which is basically just about self-advancement, but Grant seems to be ok with that. Just be a giver or at least pretend to be one so you can succeed in business. And those who don't succeed, it's because they are takers. I don't about that. I mean every Billionaire out there: Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Jobs, Musk, I could go on and on, is a big taker. And if he's going to twist them into givers, his analysis makes no sense
June 3, 2017
Had some interesting and inspirational anecdotes, part of which resonated with my own experience. Also had a few nice ideas that seem worth trying out, e.g. reciprocity rings.
Main criticisms: felt that at times, the book was bending a bit too much to take whatever perspective ended up painting "givers" as the best group of people. Also saw some claims which I felt weren't entirely supported by the state of existing research. Much of the book also seemed to be built around anecdotes, as well as studies that were old (saw several which were from the 1980s, when psychology's standards were even worse than what they are today), had small samples, or questionable methodology - for instance, I'm not convinced that counting people's number of LinkedIn connections is a good proxy for how connected they really are.
Overall, it feels like the author was more motivated to tell a story that would motivate people to become "givers", than making a particularly rigorous argument in support of it.
Main criticisms: felt that at times, the book was bending a bit too much to take whatever perspective ended up painting "givers" as the best group of people. Also saw some claims which I felt weren't entirely supported by the state of existing research. Much of the book also seemed to be built around anecdotes, as well as studies that were old (saw several which were from the 1980s, when psychology's standards were even worse than what they are today), had small samples, or questionable methodology - for instance, I'm not convinced that counting people's number of LinkedIn connections is a good proxy for how connected they really are.
Overall, it feels like the author was more motivated to tell a story that would motivate people to become "givers", than making a particularly rigorous argument in support of it.
July 21, 2023
Absolutely fascinating insights presented by THE Adam M. Grant!
With this book, Adam Grant asks you the incisive question about your profile:
Do you demonstrate the style of a giver, a matcher or a taker?
For instance, ´takers are attracted to dominance…as they strive to be superior to others´ (Grant 2013: 130). Yet, ´when our audiences are skeptical, the more we try to dominate them, the more they resist´ (Grant 2013: 130). Matchers value reciprocity by ´playing it safe and waiting to offer support until they´ve seen evidence of promise´ (Grant 2013: 101). Whilst Givers build prestige by ´presenting vulnerability and expressing their interest in helping others, not gaining power over them’ (Grant 2013: 133).
Grant highly values the sense of connection and belonging, which he attributes to the ´principle of optimal distinctiveness´, where you feel ´part of a group with shared interests, identities, goals, values, skills, characteristics or experiences´ (Grant 2013: 233).
I love the fact that he is placing emphasis on human aspects in work environments by being consistent in our efforts to build trust and rapport. Because ´Trust, like love and happiness, is difficult for people to explain in clear, rational terms´ (Hurley 2012: 7) and research shows that it is ´hard to build but easy to destroy´ (Grant 2013: 198).
MIND-Shifting read!
Find me on instagram
With this book, Adam Grant asks you the incisive question about your profile:
Do you demonstrate the style of a giver, a matcher or a taker?
For instance, ´takers are attracted to dominance…as they strive to be superior to others´ (Grant 2013: 130). Yet, ´when our audiences are skeptical, the more we try to dominate them, the more they resist´ (Grant 2013: 130). Matchers value reciprocity by ´playing it safe and waiting to offer support until they´ve seen evidence of promise´ (Grant 2013: 101). Whilst Givers build prestige by ´presenting vulnerability and expressing their interest in helping others, not gaining power over them’ (Grant 2013: 133).
Grant highly values the sense of connection and belonging, which he attributes to the ´principle of optimal distinctiveness´, where you feel ´part of a group with shared interests, identities, goals, values, skills, characteristics or experiences´ (Grant 2013: 233).
I love the fact that he is placing emphasis on human aspects in work environments by being consistent in our efforts to build trust and rapport. Because ´Trust, like love and happiness, is difficult for people to explain in clear, rational terms´ (Hurley 2012: 7) and research shows that it is ´hard to build but easy to destroy´ (Grant 2013: 198).
MIND-Shifting read!
Find me on instagram
April 20, 2013
A lovely antidote to any cynicism you may have about who succeeds in business and life, and maybe a gentle nudge for anyone most concerned with getting what they can to give a little, too.
Grant is a business professor who has studied the career and life trajectories of people he labels givers, takers, matchers and fakers. (Fakers being those people who have taker values, but try to seem like givers to higher-ups and powerful people to create good impressions and get the rewards of being generous without the costs.) I was surprised to learn that while givers did indeed congregate at the bottom of the career and salary ladders, they also congregated at the top, basically forming a sandwich around the takers and matchers in the middle. What explains this counter-intuitive result?
Givers, when they manage to give a lot without letting themselves get burned out or taken advantage of, create large networks of friends and allies and excellent reputations that work to their long-term advantage, whereas takers--even when they manage to create short-term giver reputations--end up with their selfish actions coming back later to ruin their reputations and destroy their networks and relationships.
Give and Take is another black eye for the Greed Is Good philosophy, and the more the better in my opinion. Grant solidly establishes that not only is Greed bad for society, greedy workers are bad for the companies they work for, greedy leaders lead their teams to disaster, and greedy people end up shooting themselves in the foot over the long term. It's better to give, in every way that can be measured, so long as you don't let yourself be taken advantage of--and he's got plenty of research establishing how successful givers manage to do just that.
Regardless of whether or not you personally care about who is more successful (givers vs. takers vs. matchers), I highly recommend this book to help restore your faith in human nature and potential and the futures we are capable of creating.
Grant is a business professor who has studied the career and life trajectories of people he labels givers, takers, matchers and fakers. (Fakers being those people who have taker values, but try to seem like givers to higher-ups and powerful people to create good impressions and get the rewards of being generous without the costs.) I was surprised to learn that while givers did indeed congregate at the bottom of the career and salary ladders, they also congregated at the top, basically forming a sandwich around the takers and matchers in the middle. What explains this counter-intuitive result?
Givers, when they manage to give a lot without letting themselves get burned out or taken advantage of, create large networks of friends and allies and excellent reputations that work to their long-term advantage, whereas takers--even when they manage to create short-term giver reputations--end up with their selfish actions coming back later to ruin their reputations and destroy their networks and relationships.
Give and Take is another black eye for the Greed Is Good philosophy, and the more the better in my opinion. Grant solidly establishes that not only is Greed bad for society, greedy workers are bad for the companies they work for, greedy leaders lead their teams to disaster, and greedy people end up shooting themselves in the foot over the long term. It's better to give, in every way that can be measured, so long as you don't let yourself be taken advantage of--and he's got plenty of research establishing how successful givers manage to do just that.
Regardless of whether or not you personally care about who is more successful (givers vs. takers vs. matchers), I highly recommend this book to help restore your faith in human nature and potential and the futures we are capable of creating.
December 17, 2015
In traditional old-school reciprocity, people operated like matchers, trading value back and forth with one another. We helped the people who helped us, and we gave to the people from whom we wanted something in return. But today, givers like Adam Rifkin are able to spark a more powerful form of reciprocity. Instead of trading value, Rifkin aims to add value. His giving is governed by a simple rule: the five-minute favor. “You should be willing to do something that will take you five minutes or less for anybody.”
Wonderful book! With keen sense of observation and understanding the psychology behind people’s behaviors, Adam Grant, the world’s top business professor at the Wharton School, argues that self-interest is not the only driving force for success. His research examinations reveal that in professional settings people act as either takers, givers or matchers. These reciprocity styles have direct impact on how and why they succeed or fail: “Whereas takers tend to be self-focused, evaluating what other people can offer them, givers tilt reciprocity in the other direction, preferring to give more than they get, hence paying more attention to what others need from them”. Matchers stand somewhere in between. “They strive to preserve an equal balance of giving and taking. Matchers operate on the principle of fairness: when they help others, they protect themselves by seeking reciprocity.”
In our close relationships like marriage or friendships, most of us show up as givers; contributing without keeping scores, enjoying the time and effort we put into helping our loved ones. However, when it comes to work, we think we have to focus on our own interests. We believe that those who combine motivation and ability with a good share of self-opportunism will rise to the top of the success ladder faster, stronger and more profitable. In other words, takers are the winners. Now, the important question is: Is it always true? Well … not according to Mr. Grant! With the support of numerous examples and extensive references, Adam Grant demonstrates that “Givers, takers, and matchers all can— and do— achieve success. But there’s something distinctive that happens when givers succeed: it spreads and cascades.” Giving is essentially risky. But when it’s structured in an intelligent and creative way so that a combination of interest, networking, motivation and uniqueness is present, the positive effects of such business ethic cascades through the entire network. Interesting! You might ask how? Or why? Well... to find out the answer, I'd recommend you read the book yourself! It’s totally worth the time...
Before closing this review, I'd like to first introduce you to a website: www.giveandtake.com. Here you can take a free survey that tests your “giver” quotient. You can also invite people in your network to rate your reciprocity style...
The next “give”away is a video (here) in which the author gives an overview of his book (Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success) using an entire deck of playing cards...
And finally, here is one of my most favorite picks from the book, which is an advice from Mr. Grant to those who want to practice giving (taken from one of his interviews, with a reference to the last chapter, also opening of my review):
One way to test the water is to do what the serial entrepreneur Adam Rifkin calls “the five minute favor.” If you’re motivated to give, to be helpful and make a difference—which most people are—you don’t have to be Mother Theresa or Ghandi. In fact, that’s not sustainable for most of us. Instead of worrying about getting sucked into extremely time-consuming acts of helping and giving, you should look for ways to add high value to others, at a low personal cost. If you can add a few more five minute favors to each week, it’s a great way to contribute more value to other people without making a personal sacrifice.
Wonderful book! With keen sense of observation and understanding the psychology behind people’s behaviors, Adam Grant, the world’s top business professor at the Wharton School, argues that self-interest is not the only driving force for success. His research examinations reveal that in professional settings people act as either takers, givers or matchers. These reciprocity styles have direct impact on how and why they succeed or fail: “Whereas takers tend to be self-focused, evaluating what other people can offer them, givers tilt reciprocity in the other direction, preferring to give more than they get, hence paying more attention to what others need from them”. Matchers stand somewhere in between. “They strive to preserve an equal balance of giving and taking. Matchers operate on the principle of fairness: when they help others, they protect themselves by seeking reciprocity.”
In our close relationships like marriage or friendships, most of us show up as givers; contributing without keeping scores, enjoying the time and effort we put into helping our loved ones. However, when it comes to work, we think we have to focus on our own interests. We believe that those who combine motivation and ability with a good share of self-opportunism will rise to the top of the success ladder faster, stronger and more profitable. In other words, takers are the winners. Now, the important question is: Is it always true? Well … not according to Mr. Grant! With the support of numerous examples and extensive references, Adam Grant demonstrates that “Givers, takers, and matchers all can— and do— achieve success. But there’s something distinctive that happens when givers succeed: it spreads and cascades.” Giving is essentially risky. But when it’s structured in an intelligent and creative way so that a combination of interest, networking, motivation and uniqueness is present, the positive effects of such business ethic cascades through the entire network. Interesting! You might ask how? Or why? Well... to find out the answer, I'd recommend you read the book yourself! It’s totally worth the time...
Before closing this review, I'd like to first introduce you to a website: www.giveandtake.com. Here you can take a free survey that tests your “giver” quotient. You can also invite people in your network to rate your reciprocity style...
The next “give”away is a video (here) in which the author gives an overview of his book (Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success) using an entire deck of playing cards...
And finally, here is one of my most favorite picks from the book, which is an advice from Mr. Grant to those who want to practice giving (taken from one of his interviews, with a reference to the last chapter, also opening of my review):
One way to test the water is to do what the serial entrepreneur Adam Rifkin calls “the five minute favor.” If you’re motivated to give, to be helpful and make a difference—which most people are—you don’t have to be Mother Theresa or Ghandi. In fact, that’s not sustainable for most of us. Instead of worrying about getting sucked into extremely time-consuming acts of helping and giving, you should look for ways to add high value to others, at a low personal cost. If you can add a few more five minute favors to each week, it’s a great way to contribute more value to other people without making a personal sacrifice.
August 26, 2013
Short-sighted networking:
-only with those who you perceive can be of use (matchers)
-receivers feel manipulated (takers)
Strong ties are bonds, weak ties are bridges.
Pronoia VS Paranoia (People are out to help you)
Dormant ties (strong ties that drifted) provide more novel insights.
5 minute favours, for anybody.
Make it a norm to add values
Success is only portable when the team moves. (e.g. surgeons need their operating theatre team)
Expedition behaviour - put the team first
Responsibility bias: We overestimate our own contribution to a project/relationship because we see all of what we do, but not all of what others do.
Psychological safety allows people to make/report mistakes, and share learning points.
See all as talented (self-fulfilling prophecy, growth mindset)
Escalation of commitment - givers less prone to ego threat (being seen as less because of their bad decision), face reality sooner
Pratfall Effect - Clumsy behaviour humanising experts
Thoughtful questions - let others persuade themselves
Powerless communication - promotes collaboration/openness
Seek advice - perspective shift
Giver burnout - From not seeing the fruits of your giving (i.e. teachers: students graduate quickly) Possible counter: Shift the domain of your giving.
Chunking giving - concentrate your giving efforts to reduce the net interruption impacts they have on your work
Giving as a meaningful, enjoyable choice, rather than a duty or obligation.
Do not confuse agreeableness with compassion. Agreeable takers exist (笑里藏刀)
An alternative to empathy - consider thoughts instead of feelings when making tough decisions.
Advocate by seeing yourself as negotiating for your best friend instead, or remind yourself of who is dependent on you. Aim to understand your counterparty's interests (grow the pie)
Remember: You're not the only one who can help. Connect.
Find (unique) common ground.
We underestimate the tendency of others to help and give.
Takers do good to look good.
-only with those who you perceive can be of use (matchers)
-receivers feel manipulated (takers)
Strong ties are bonds, weak ties are bridges.
Pronoia VS Paranoia (People are out to help you)
Dormant ties (strong ties that drifted) provide more novel insights.
5 minute favours, for anybody.
Make it a norm to add values
Success is only portable when the team moves. (e.g. surgeons need their operating theatre team)
Expedition behaviour - put the team first
Responsibility bias: We overestimate our own contribution to a project/relationship because we see all of what we do, but not all of what others do.
Psychological safety allows people to make/report mistakes, and share learning points.
See all as talented (self-fulfilling prophecy, growth mindset)
Escalation of commitment - givers less prone to ego threat (being seen as less because of their bad decision), face reality sooner
Pratfall Effect - Clumsy behaviour humanising experts
Thoughtful questions - let others persuade themselves
Powerless communication - promotes collaboration/openness
Seek advice - perspective shift
Giver burnout - From not seeing the fruits of your giving (i.e. teachers: students graduate quickly) Possible counter: Shift the domain of your giving.
Chunking giving - concentrate your giving efforts to reduce the net interruption impacts they have on your work
Giving as a meaningful, enjoyable choice, rather than a duty or obligation.
Do not confuse agreeableness with compassion. Agreeable takers exist (笑里藏刀)
An alternative to empathy - consider thoughts instead of feelings when making tough decisions.
Advocate by seeing yourself as negotiating for your best friend instead, or remind yourself of who is dependent on you. Aim to understand your counterparty's interests (grow the pie)
Remember: You're not the only one who can help. Connect.
Find (unique) common ground.
We underestimate the tendency of others to help and give.
Takers do good to look good.
July 7, 2013
I thought this book was terrific. The gist is that there are three kinds of people in this world:
- takers -- those who selfishly exploit every situation to their advantage
- givers -- those who give to others without much regard for themselves
- matchers -- those who play a tit-for-tat game and match the giving styles of the people they deal with (i.e. they are takers when dealing with other takers and givers when dealing with other givers).
The author claims that while it seems like takers would be at the top of the world, it turns out that givers are more likely to be found there. It also turns out that givers are more likely to be other people's doormats -- no surprise there. Takers and matchers tend to achieve an average amount of success while givers find themselves living in the extremes.
The author provides anecdotes and some research to back up his assertions, and also offers plenty of recommendations for becoming a successful giver. "Give and Take" reads like a Malcolm Gladwell book that's actually backed by some research.
- takers -- those who selfishly exploit every situation to their advantage
- givers -- those who give to others without much regard for themselves
- matchers -- those who play a tit-for-tat game and match the giving styles of the people they deal with (i.e. they are takers when dealing with other takers and givers when dealing with other givers).
The author claims that while it seems like takers would be at the top of the world, it turns out that givers are more likely to be found there. It also turns out that givers are more likely to be other people's doormats -- no surprise there. Takers and matchers tend to achieve an average amount of success while givers find themselves living in the extremes.
The author provides anecdotes and some research to back up his assertions, and also offers plenty of recommendations for becoming a successful giver. "Give and Take" reads like a Malcolm Gladwell book that's actually backed by some research.
May 26, 2021
Fiction or nonfiction, ultimately, a book must be interesting. That's the cardinal rule. Interesting enough to sustain the interest of the reader till the last letter. Dry spells are permitted every now and then, but they can't, in pretence of a suspense that lapses into ennui, take over the plot or thematic structure of the entire book so that the reader is only looking to get the reading experience over with, and quickly.
This, effectively, is what Adam Grant's Give and Take managed to accomplish, from my point of view. I hate to say it, this book became boring all too suddenly, and never recaptured the promising spark of intrigue with which the book began.
The whole idea of the book, in a summary, is that givers somehow profit more from the act of giving, than takers or matchers. That's the whole concept, buttressed by a host of research, interviews, opinions and suggestions.
The intention and effort of the author behind the telling of the stories, presentation of opinion, facts and figures cannot be entirely faulted. He earnestly tried to inform the reader's mind on how givers are better served in the long run than takers and matchers. Where the book falters, however, is that it dearly lacked the poetic rhythm, the ebb and flow to animatedly keep the reader intrigued from one page and chapter to the other. One ought not lose sense of purpose and direction, even when you dropped the book hours before picking it up again.
In the end, I couldn't say it was a waste of time, I found the idea educative, but I was quite glad to drag myself to the finish line. I couldn't bother to read the Action points on the other side. I hope Originals, his latest book which I hope to read much later, is a vastly enjoyable read.
This, effectively, is what Adam Grant's Give and Take managed to accomplish, from my point of view. I hate to say it, this book became boring all too suddenly, and never recaptured the promising spark of intrigue with which the book began.
The whole idea of the book, in a summary, is that givers somehow profit more from the act of giving, than takers or matchers. That's the whole concept, buttressed by a host of research, interviews, opinions and suggestions.
The intention and effort of the author behind the telling of the stories, presentation of opinion, facts and figures cannot be entirely faulted. He earnestly tried to inform the reader's mind on how givers are better served in the long run than takers and matchers. Where the book falters, however, is that it dearly lacked the poetic rhythm, the ebb and flow to animatedly keep the reader intrigued from one page and chapter to the other. One ought not lose sense of purpose and direction, even when you dropped the book hours before picking it up again.
In the end, I couldn't say it was a waste of time, I found the idea educative, but I was quite glad to drag myself to the finish line. I couldn't bother to read the Action points on the other side. I hope Originals, his latest book which I hope to read much later, is a vastly enjoyable read.
March 30, 2021
อ่านสนุกครับ เอาแนวคิดไปใช้ในการสังเกตุคน และทำงานได้ทันที
.
adam grant เขียนเล่มนี้ออกมาได้เยี่ยมครับ
give and take เล่มนี้จะทำให้เราเปลี่ยนวิธีการมองคน
หรือการจัดประเภทคนไปเลยครับ
.
ใครที่ตามคนอื่นไม่ทัน หรือ ตามคนไม่ทัน หรือ เคยมองคนแบบผิดๆมา เล่มนี้ช่วยได้
.
แถมยัง ทำให้นึกย้อนมาสำรวจตัวเองว่า เห้ย เราเป็นผู้ให้หรือผู้รับกันแน่
และหนังสือต้องการให้เราเป็นผู้ให้ที่ชาญฉลาดมากขึ้น
ไม่ใช้ผู้ให้ที่โดนเอาเปรียบครับ
.
แค่รู้วิธีให้ คนรับได้เท่าไหร่ คนให้ได้มากกว่า : Give And Take
เพราะการให้ทุกครั้งคือการหยิบยื่นโอกาสให้ตัวคุณเอง
.
หนังสือบอกว่าคนเรามี 3 แบบ
1. ผู้ให้
2. ผู้แลกเปลี่ยน
3. ผู้รับ
.
คน 3 แบบนี้แบบไหนประสบความสำเร็จมากที่สุดกันแน่
.
ผู้รับ ที่พร้อมเหยียบคนอื่นก็ประสบความสำเร็จได้ครับ แต่คนจะไม่รัก และ คำนินทาจะตามมาภายหลัง ตรงข้ามกับผู้ให้
.
แต่ผู้ให้ที่ให้อย่างเดียวจนไม่นึกถึงตัวเอง
จะทำให้ตัวเองเดือดร้อน
ผู้ให้ที่ดีจึงต้องฉลาด
.
กรณีศึกษามากมายในเล่มครับ เช่น
- เคส CEO ฉาวของ Enron
- เคส ผู้เขียนบทเบื้องหลัง The Simpson
- เคส ครูคนแรก มีอิทธิพลมากแค่ไหน กับ ศิลปิน หรือ นักกีฬาระดับโลก
- เคส ความแตกต่างของยอดพนักงานขายกับพนักงานขายทั่วไป
- เคส ความแตกต่างของยอดนักเจรจาต่อรองกับนักต่อรองทั่วไป
- เคส ออาชีพครูที่หมดไฟได้ง่ายที่สุด เพราะอะไร
- เคส ทำไมการใช้เงินเพื่อคนอื่น ถึงตอบโจทย์ชีวิต มากกว่าการใช้เงินเพื่อตัวเอง
- เคส ทำไมคนเราชอบช่วยเหลือคนที่พื้นเพ คล้ายๆ ดันมากกว่า
.
จุดสังเกตุ
- หนังสือแนวนี้ทุกเล่ม แทบจะอ้างถึงงานจากคนในวงการเดียวกัน อย่าง
Daniel Kahneman malcolm galdwell carol dweck และ Angela duckworth
.
9.5/10 เล่มนี้ดีมากกกกก
ล้มเลิกความคิดที่ว่า การขอความช่วยเหลือผู้อื่น แล้วเราจะดูอ่อนแอไปได้เลยครับ เพราะคนเราชอบให้คำปรึกษา คนให้คำปรึกษามักมีความสุข และเห็นความสำคัญของตนเองมากขึ้น เวลามีคนมาถามครับ วินๆ
.
adam grant เขียนเล่มนี้ออกมาได้เยี่ยมครับ
give and take เล่มนี้จะทำให้เราเปลี่ยนวิธีการมองคน
หรือการจัดประเภทคนไปเลยครับ
.
ใครที่ตามคนอื่นไม่ทัน หรือ ตามคนไม่ทัน หรือ เคยมองคนแบบผิดๆมา เล่มนี้ช่วยได้
.
แถมยัง ทำให้นึกย้อนมาสำรวจตัวเองว่า เห้ย เราเป็นผู้ให้หรือผู้รับกันแน่
และหนังสือต้องการให้เราเป็นผู้ให้ที่ชาญฉลาดมากขึ้น
ไม่ใช้ผู้ให้ที่โดนเอาเปรียบครับ
.
แค่รู้วิธีให้ คนรับได้เท่าไหร่ คนให้ได้มากกว่า : Give And Take
เพราะการให้ทุกครั้งคือการหยิบยื่นโอกาสให้ตัวคุณเอง
.
หนังสือบอกว่าคนเรามี 3 แบบ
1. ผู้ให้
2. ผู้แลกเปลี่ยน
3. ผู้รับ
.
คน 3 แบบนี้แบบไหนประสบความสำเร็จมากที่สุดกันแน่
.
ผู้รับ ที่พร้อมเหยียบคนอื่นก็ประสบความสำเร็จได้ครับ แต่คนจะไม่รัก และ คำนินทาจะตามมาภายหลัง ตรงข้ามกับผู้ให้
.
แต่ผู้ให้ที่ให้อย่างเดียวจนไม่นึกถึงตัวเอง
จะทำให้ตัวเองเดือดร้อน
ผู้ให้ที่ดีจึงต้องฉลาด
.
กรณีศึกษามากมายในเล่มครับ เช่น
- เคส CEO ฉาวของ Enron
- เคส ผู้เขียนบทเบื้องหลัง The Simpson
- เคส ครูคนแรก มีอิทธิพลมากแค่ไหน กับ ศิลปิน หรือ นักกีฬาระดับโลก
- เคส ความแตกต่างของยอดพนักงานขายกับพนักงานขายทั่วไป
- เคส ความแตกต่างของยอดนักเจรจาต่อรองกับนักต่อรองทั่วไป
- เคส ออาชีพครูที่หมดไฟได้ง่ายที่สุด เพราะอะไร
- เคส ทำไมการใช้เงินเพื่อคนอื่น ถึงตอบโจทย์ชีวิต มากกว่าการใช้เงินเพื่อตัวเอง
- เคส ทำไมคนเราชอบช่วยเหลือคนที่พื้นเพ คล้ายๆ ดันมากกว่า
.
จุดสังเกตุ
- หนังสือแนวนี้ทุกเล่ม แทบจะอ้างถึงงานจากคนในวงการเดียวกัน อย่าง
Daniel Kahneman malcolm galdwell carol dweck และ Angela duckworth
.
9.5/10 เล่มนี้ดีมากกกกก
ล้มเลิกความคิดที่ว่า การขอความช่วยเหลือผู้อื่น แล้วเราจะดูอ่อนแอไปได้เลยครับ เพราะคนเราชอบให้คำปรึกษา คนให้คำปรึกษามักมีความสุข และเห็นความสำคัญของตนเองมากขึ้น เวลามีคนมาถามครับ วินๆ
April 14, 2013
This book is excellent. It highlights the power and joy in giving. While I appreciate and respect this work because of the good it should spread, the main point in giving is not to get ahead or be more successful. The point of giving is simply to do the right thing.
January 7, 2017
For me this book was groundbreaking. It is second of the top five books I will recommend (after Blink by Malcolm Gladwell) to everyone to read.
You will relate with this book if you are (or if you know) a person who does for people without thinking much about yourself (himself/herself). Prof Grant has termed them as givers. The book is laded with examples from numerous fields such as business, startup, publishing, movies, legal, sports and many more.
Prof Grant will make sure you stay glued to this book until you finish it. His theories, backed up by research and woven into story-telling is something that will not only make the reading simple and fun but also will teach you a lot in its unique way. The book wonderfully argues why givers tend to be at the top of success ladder and the theories (backed by real-life examples) that are mentioned make sense and can be applied in life. Givers tend to create large network of friends and acquaintances because of their giving attitude and that benefits them in one way or the other in long term. He has also highlighted how not to become a doormat while you are constantly giving and that is something that everyone will be willing to understand.
Also, the book has a lot of interesting things that are happening in the world such as Kiva and many others which make the book even more addictive. The book is written in very simple English so that everyone can read it. The research that must have been done for this book is commendable. You will fall in love with Prof Grant and his ideas even if you havent met him.
Give and Take reads like any Malcolm Gladwell's and should be read by everyone from all walks of life.
You will relate with this book if you are (or if you know) a person who does for people without thinking much about yourself (himself/herself). Prof Grant has termed them as givers. The book is laded with examples from numerous fields such as business, startup, publishing, movies, legal, sports and many more.
Prof Grant will make sure you stay glued to this book until you finish it. His theories, backed up by research and woven into story-telling is something that will not only make the reading simple and fun but also will teach you a lot in its unique way. The book wonderfully argues why givers tend to be at the top of success ladder and the theories (backed by real-life examples) that are mentioned make sense and can be applied in life. Givers tend to create large network of friends and acquaintances because of their giving attitude and that benefits them in one way or the other in long term. He has also highlighted how not to become a doormat while you are constantly giving and that is something that everyone will be willing to understand.
Also, the book has a lot of interesting things that are happening in the world such as Kiva and many others which make the book even more addictive. The book is written in very simple English so that everyone can read it. The research that must have been done for this book is commendable. You will fall in love with Prof Grant and his ideas even if you havent met him.
Give and Take reads like any Malcolm Gladwell's and should be read by everyone from all walks of life.
July 11, 2022
اگر قابلیت همدردی بالایی دارید و این ویژگی رو یه نقطه ضعف تو زمینهی کاری میدونید، یعنی حس میکنید قابلیت همدردی بالای شما مانع پیشرفت تو شغلتون میشه و "همیشه هر کی گرگتره موفقتره"، این کتاب رو بهتون پیشنهاد میدم.
August 8, 2015
Learning how to be a giver without being a doormat is a basic life skill every human on earth should learn - it benefits others and it benefits you. Highly recommended.
December 11, 2019
The lack of this book's intersectionality with race, class, or gender is its Achilles heel.
Page after page, Grant weaves into stories of how doctors don't empathize with patients' pain, how "we" prefer people with similar names who remind us of ourselves, how doing helpful favors can bolster your likeability, and how communication should be casual, suggestive, and even "powerless." Every single one of these examples lacks the gender, class, and racial analysis that would make the advice truly effective for everyone.
For example:
* Numerous studies have shown that in the US, black women's pain is consistently taken less seriously - and why the black maternal mortality is so high. This is more than a "perspective gap" or an issue of some doctors being "takers." Another word for perspective gap could very well be "racism."
* Women's casual speech at work is policed in a way that men's will never be, and his advice could actually harmful to women in professional situations.
* Re: psychological kinship to similar, personal features. Well, duh. On Forbes's just published list of America's 100 "Most Innovative Leaders," there are twice as many men named Stanley as there are women of any name. And there are only two Stanley's. This is because 99 of America's 100 so-called most innovative leaders are men. Again, this is called "sexism." Those of us with female or non-Anglo Saxon names may have a hard time finding those commonalities to promote us in the workplace - and I would appreciate some advice on how to do so.
Ninety percent of the examples of successful givers are wealthy, privileged men working in male-dominated environments (so, closed systems.) But by far the biggest omission is the lack of discussion about how women are *socialized* to be thankless givers in cultures across the globe. There's no discussion about social norms and market norms, and how women do most of the unpaid labor in the home or in the workplace - and without that labor, our economic and societal systems would collapse. From an article about a study of women and volunteering: "Women received 44% more requests to volunteer than men in mixed-sex groups. People in charge lean into this bias, and making it harder for women to refuse this track to nowhere. Both men and women managers had the same tendencies—it’s something we all have to work on. It's a deeply embedded cultural problem that women are simply expected to do so. Without some mutual awareness, a woman who refuses to volunteer could easily be seen as difficult to work with or face other repercussions." (The study: Economica, Volume 85, Issue 338, Coase Lecture – The Glass Ceiling, Marianne Bertrand, First published: 02 March 2018.)
Lastly, I didn't know whether to laugh or throw the book at the wall at one of the last bits of advice: a former Big 4 Consulting CEO suggested that people can get ahead through doing more "powerless communication." Mr. CEO has implemented a rule of talking in meetings only 20% of the time. It seems he's doing this in the twilight of his career with a pat on his own back. Better late than never, I suppose. Again, study after study shows that men overwhelmingly speak and interrupt the most in meetings, whether that is the boardroom or in legislative hearings. Women are quite tired of being powerless listeners, thank you very much.
It is so Illuminating and disappointing to see how writing like this shoots through the TED Talk class with little consideration to very real cultural contexts.
MAYBE these gaps exist because this book was published in 2013 - before #MeToo, before Black Lives Matter, before MAGA. I'd like to think that today one would have to be purposely avoidant of social research and the cultural milieu write such a sweeping, assumptive book.
Two stars for effort, and a good foundation to work on. I'd like to see a second edition with more diversity and discussion of group power dynamics. Adam, if you're reading this - call me.
Page after page, Grant weaves into stories of how doctors don't empathize with patients' pain, how "we" prefer people with similar names who remind us of ourselves, how doing helpful favors can bolster your likeability, and how communication should be casual, suggestive, and even "powerless." Every single one of these examples lacks the gender, class, and racial analysis that would make the advice truly effective for everyone.
For example:
* Numerous studies have shown that in the US, black women's pain is consistently taken less seriously - and why the black maternal mortality is so high. This is more than a "perspective gap" or an issue of some doctors being "takers." Another word for perspective gap could very well be "racism."
* Women's casual speech at work is policed in a way that men's will never be, and his advice could actually harmful to women in professional situations.
* Re: psychological kinship to similar, personal features. Well, duh. On Forbes's just published list of America's 100 "Most Innovative Leaders," there are twice as many men named Stanley as there are women of any name. And there are only two Stanley's. This is because 99 of America's 100 so-called most innovative leaders are men. Again, this is called "sexism." Those of us with female or non-Anglo Saxon names may have a hard time finding those commonalities to promote us in the workplace - and I would appreciate some advice on how to do so.
Ninety percent of the examples of successful givers are wealthy, privileged men working in male-dominated environments (so, closed systems.) But by far the biggest omission is the lack of discussion about how women are *socialized* to be thankless givers in cultures across the globe. There's no discussion about social norms and market norms, and how women do most of the unpaid labor in the home or in the workplace - and without that labor, our economic and societal systems would collapse. From an article about a study of women and volunteering: "Women received 44% more requests to volunteer than men in mixed-sex groups. People in charge lean into this bias, and making it harder for women to refuse this track to nowhere. Both men and women managers had the same tendencies—it’s something we all have to work on. It's a deeply embedded cultural problem that women are simply expected to do so. Without some mutual awareness, a woman who refuses to volunteer could easily be seen as difficult to work with or face other repercussions." (The study: Economica, Volume 85, Issue 338, Coase Lecture – The Glass Ceiling, Marianne Bertrand, First published: 02 March 2018.)
Lastly, I didn't know whether to laugh or throw the book at the wall at one of the last bits of advice: a former Big 4 Consulting CEO suggested that people can get ahead through doing more "powerless communication." Mr. CEO has implemented a rule of talking in meetings only 20% of the time. It seems he's doing this in the twilight of his career with a pat on his own back. Better late than never, I suppose. Again, study after study shows that men overwhelmingly speak and interrupt the most in meetings, whether that is the boardroom or in legislative hearings. Women are quite tired of being powerless listeners, thank you very much.
It is so Illuminating and disappointing to see how writing like this shoots through the TED Talk class with little consideration to very real cultural contexts.
MAYBE these gaps exist because this book was published in 2013 - before #MeToo, before Black Lives Matter, before MAGA. I'd like to think that today one would have to be purposely avoidant of social research and the cultural milieu write such a sweeping, assumptive book.
Two stars for effort, and a good foundation to work on. I'd like to see a second edition with more diversity and discussion of group power dynamics. Adam, if you're reading this - call me.
August 8, 2017
I know I wouldn't have chosen to read this book if it hadn't been one of the summer reading options for my job, but I'm so glad I did. I just loved it.
Grant's writing style, telling people's stories to illustrate his philosophy, was a perfect fit for me. There are studies and there are numbers, but it's definitely more about the stories.
And, while I didn't find the concept of a world divided among givers, takers and matchers revolutionary, I did appreciate applying that philosophy to professional success. It's very different from the dog-eat-dog model we are surrounded with.
This is an optimistic view of the world, and we all certainly need a bit of that these days. An easy and inspiring read.
Grant's writing style, telling people's stories to illustrate his philosophy, was a perfect fit for me. There are studies and there are numbers, but it's definitely more about the stories.
And, while I didn't find the concept of a world divided among givers, takers and matchers revolutionary, I did appreciate applying that philosophy to professional success. It's very different from the dog-eat-dog model we are surrounded with.
This is an optimistic view of the world, and we all certainly need a bit of that these days. An easy and inspiring read.
January 31, 2015
This book explores how we give and take as the title implies. We are all a combination of givers, takers or matchers, but have a dominate preference. You already have a feel for this in your daily activities, but his helps to quantify it and shows you why you should strive to be more a giver who has there own long term interests at heart as they help the world. Excellent book.
April 6, 2017
(4.0) Actually pretty good for pop social science--written by actual academic
See my Kindle notes for my thoughts and read Suzanne's review for a great summary of salient points. I may try to give a similar summary at some point soon as well.
See my Kindle notes for my thoughts and read Suzanne's review for a great summary of salient points. I may try to give a similar summary at some point soon as well.
June 21, 2021
I really love this book. It explains why givers outperform takers and matchers in the long run. However you have to be a 'right kind' of giver in order to succeed. Really recommended.
August 26, 2019
I hope you don't get too sick of me posting reviews of books I had to complete for my course. I really did enjoy this one a lot. It had a lot of interesting facts and data/examples to show why helping others leads to win/win. It's hard out there if you are a manager and you have employees or bosses that are set to win and they want to make sure that you lose. Heck, I have to deal with agency officials at times that don't want to concede a point since that will be saying (to them at least) that they lost.
"Give and Take" starts off with Grant laying out a story about an investor and a man who had a great idea for a company (the investor's name was Hornik and the man who pitched an idea to him was named Shader). What I thought was interesting was that Shader felt uneasy since he thought that Hornik in a word was too nice. Hornik suggested he seek out other people and take his time. And Shader was worried that Hornik would spend too much time encouraging him instead of challenging him. Yes in the business world this is apparently bad.
From there, Grant breaks the rest of the book down into "takers" and "givers." I found out through my course work and feedback survey and other surveys I took am a giver. I am also a border crosser (means I go back and forth between groups and am a go to person to do that) and surprise surprise I am also more likely to hit burnout. And in fact my one instructor read through all of my surveys and gave me feedback that I am close now. This book really was eye opening to me that you can be a "giver" and not be taken advantage of and not be seen as weak. That you want to approach ever negotiation as a win-win and not do your level best to wreck your opponent. You do have to be protective of yourself though and not "give" too much of yourself away to others.
I loved reading that yes "givers" are more likely to land at the bottom of the success leaders, but also they are more likely to land at the top as well. I think it's all about how people perceive givers as the story above shows. In the end I loved that Shader went back to Hornik after realizing the other guy who was a "taker" was ultimately not who he wanted to work with.
Grant also provides examples of one of the biggest takers out there: Kenneth Lay. What's shocking is how many people knew what Lay was doing, but were talked down to and were not allowed to speak up. Lay was a classic taker and Grant shows numerous ways that he was first and foremost thinking only of himself.
One of my favorite facts in this book though is Grant showcases a famous lawyer named Dave Walton who used to stutter And he points out other famous people who used to stutter as well such as GE CEO Jack Welch, VP Joe Biden, singer Carly Simon, 20/20 anchor John Stossel and actor James Earl Jones. I used to stutter as a child and had a great speech therapist. I eventually learned to speak without a stutter, and now all of my colleagues don't believe me when I mention that I used to have one. I think that they just see the person before them, not the one who had to jump a lot of hurdles to get to where she is now.
So all in all, a great book that I think would enhance any class on leadership.
"Give and Take" starts off with Grant laying out a story about an investor and a man who had a great idea for a company (the investor's name was Hornik and the man who pitched an idea to him was named Shader). What I thought was interesting was that Shader felt uneasy since he thought that Hornik in a word was too nice. Hornik suggested he seek out other people and take his time. And Shader was worried that Hornik would spend too much time encouraging him instead of challenging him. Yes in the business world this is apparently bad.
From there, Grant breaks the rest of the book down into "takers" and "givers." I found out through my course work and feedback survey and other surveys I took am a giver. I am also a border crosser (means I go back and forth between groups and am a go to person to do that) and surprise surprise I am also more likely to hit burnout. And in fact my one instructor read through all of my surveys and gave me feedback that I am close now. This book really was eye opening to me that you can be a "giver" and not be taken advantage of and not be seen as weak. That you want to approach ever negotiation as a win-win and not do your level best to wreck your opponent. You do have to be protective of yourself though and not "give" too much of yourself away to others.
I loved reading that yes "givers" are more likely to land at the bottom of the success leaders, but also they are more likely to land at the top as well. I think it's all about how people perceive givers as the story above shows. In the end I loved that Shader went back to Hornik after realizing the other guy who was a "taker" was ultimately not who he wanted to work with.
Grant also provides examples of one of the biggest takers out there: Kenneth Lay. What's shocking is how many people knew what Lay was doing, but were talked down to and were not allowed to speak up. Lay was a classic taker and Grant shows numerous ways that he was first and foremost thinking only of himself.
One of my favorite facts in this book though is Grant showcases a famous lawyer named Dave Walton who used to stutter And he points out other famous people who used to stutter as well such as GE CEO Jack Welch, VP Joe Biden, singer Carly Simon, 20/20 anchor John Stossel and actor James Earl Jones. I used to stutter as a child and had a great speech therapist. I eventually learned to speak without a stutter, and now all of my colleagues don't believe me when I mention that I used to have one. I think that they just see the person before them, not the one who had to jump a lot of hurdles to get to where she is now.
So all in all, a great book that I think would enhance any class on leadership.
January 4, 2024
Much or most of the book consists of anecdotes and summaries of other books, so I don't think this qualifies as a "revolutionary approach" to anything. Even the core idea of win/win is of course nothing new. But by circling around this one concept over and over from many different angles, he did hit on a few specifics I had not read before (e.g. measurable impact of giving decreases burnout; telling people to act as an agent for someone else can improve their negotiating). If I apply any tips successfully I will come back and bump up the score.
I give this more than the 1* rating for weak science because at least it is trying to fight the pernicious propaganda of the pathological that everyone is either evil or stupid. The problem is that in a culture of corruption and incompetence, "takers" do systematically beat everyone else: Detroit: An American Autopsy. In the process, takers ruin cities, nations and planets. So we do need to find a better way.
Years ago I read a simple take on this that resonated with me because it made the point that if you "give" to other people at work, 3 times out of 5 you will gain nothing from it, one time out five you will get taken advantage of, and one time out of five you will experience a great win/win. That's not based on any science but has worked for me as a useful practical construct.
Love Is the Killer App: How to Win Business and Influence Friends
Classics about win/win:
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Got this audiobook free from the library.
I give this more than the 1* rating for weak science because at least it is trying to fight the pernicious propaganda of the pathological that everyone is either evil or stupid. The problem is that in a culture of corruption and incompetence, "takers" do systematically beat everyone else: Detroit: An American Autopsy. In the process, takers ruin cities, nations and planets. So we do need to find a better way.
Years ago I read a simple take on this that resonated with me because it made the point that if you "give" to other people at work, 3 times out of 5 you will gain nothing from it, one time out five you will get taken advantage of, and one time out of five you will experience a great win/win. That's not based on any science but has worked for me as a useful practical construct.
Love Is the Killer App: How to Win Business and Influence Friends
Classics about win/win:
The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People: Powerful Lessons in Personal Change
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Got this audiobook free from the library.
March 7, 2023
Lovely intent, lovely ideas expressed but dull and longer than what ideally would have made it more impactful. I couldn’t help but compare the book to some of Gladwell’s books. While Gladwell makes non fiction as engaging as fiction, Grant in this book couldn’t do so. As you read through, you get the idea he is trying to present that being a giver is a better way to exist through various chapters and examples, reading through them becomes a chore. An average book that can be read for the intent and impact it aims to create.
January 27, 2016
Many books aim to take a look at the world with a view to discerning some principles and ideas from successful people that others can apply. Few books manage to do this, combining being immensely readably with research and conclusions truly worth listening to, upon which would stem profound implications about the world we live in and the interactions we have with each other and that can have meaningful, lasting impacts. I’m making the claim that Give and Take is one such book.
Wharton professor Adam Grant’s research reveals that in professional settings, people act as takers, matchers or givers. These styles have a dramatic impact on success and it is in learning not just which styles correspond to what types of behaviour that can lead to a different level/s of success, but also how these different styles manifest themselves in the world, why they do, and what kind of implications a virtuous circle of generosity has for behaviour and success. The concept that some givers, those who contribute to others without expecting anything in return, turn out to be some of the most successful people is a strikingly counterintuitive notion in a world that commonly believes that success, especially business success, goes to those who strive to get as much as possible from others.
For its life-changing insights, the ability to leave one thinking about why and how to act in the future long after the final page is turned and potential to truly have meaningful, lasting impacts, all within a researched framework in an engaging style, Give and Take is one of the most impactful books I have read. This book is important enough to not just recommend but to actually buy and press into someone else’s hands.
Wharton professor Adam Grant’s research reveals that in professional settings, people act as takers, matchers or givers. These styles have a dramatic impact on success and it is in learning not just which styles correspond to what types of behaviour that can lead to a different level/s of success, but also how these different styles manifest themselves in the world, why they do, and what kind of implications a virtuous circle of generosity has for behaviour and success. The concept that some givers, those who contribute to others without expecting anything in return, turn out to be some of the most successful people is a strikingly counterintuitive notion in a world that commonly believes that success, especially business success, goes to those who strive to get as much as possible from others.
For its life-changing insights, the ability to leave one thinking about why and how to act in the future long after the final page is turned and potential to truly have meaningful, lasting impacts, all within a researched framework in an engaging style, Give and Take is one of the most impactful books I have read. This book is important enough to not just recommend but to actually buy and press into someone else’s hands.
June 13, 2013
As entrepreneurs, what kind of people do you think do best in business – the Givers, the Takers or the Matchers?
Adam Grant has an answer to that question, and it’s one he’s qualified to give. He’s the youngest tenured professor at the Wharton Business School, USA.
Most people, he says, expect that Takers will finish first. But the research he’s done has found an answer that will surprise you. Givers finish last, but Takers don’t finish first. While some Givers do finish last, other Givers come out on top. Takers and matchers settle in the middle. “Otherish Givers” – those who nurture themselves – are the ones that win.
Grant presents his argument well. He’s taken care to ground his opinion in scientific research and he uses case studies to bring his points to life.
But what makes this book of greatest value to an entrepreneur is that it’s practical. Grant reveals the mistakes Selfless Givers make that see them finish last, and explains why Otherish Givers win. At the end of the book there’s a section, “Actions for impact”.
Read this to be convinced of the need to become an Otherish Giver – and find a roadmap to get you there.
Adam Grant has an answer to that question, and it’s one he’s qualified to give. He’s the youngest tenured professor at the Wharton Business School, USA.
Most people, he says, expect that Takers will finish first. But the research he’s done has found an answer that will surprise you. Givers finish last, but Takers don’t finish first. While some Givers do finish last, other Givers come out on top. Takers and matchers settle in the middle. “Otherish Givers” – those who nurture themselves – are the ones that win.
Grant presents his argument well. He’s taken care to ground his opinion in scientific research and he uses case studies to bring his points to life.
But what makes this book of greatest value to an entrepreneur is that it’s practical. Grant reveals the mistakes Selfless Givers make that see them finish last, and explains why Otherish Givers win. At the end of the book there’s a section, “Actions for impact”.
Read this to be convinced of the need to become an Otherish Giver – and find a roadmap to get you there.
November 20, 2014
This is yet another "psychology lite" bestseller for professionals with short attention spans. Like others of its genre, it has a clear moral, anchored in modern-day anecdotes and Cliff-Notes-style research summaries.
The author's core claim: Acting generous is heathy, sexy, and profitable - it makes you feel good, makes others like you, boosts your odds of success, and can actually make you a better person over time.
I already believed this, more or less, and I appreciated seeing it played out in story format. The premise that everyone can be classified as a "giver," "taker," or "matcher" is thought-provoking and fun to think about, even if it isn't a very nuanced theory of human motives. Although the stories about real-life givers and takers felt cherry-picked and formulaic, I did come away with useful questions and critical thinking exercises to deploy in my career and my social life.
This book is perfect for the train or plane, if you don't want to think too hard and want something light, moderately well researched, and actionable. It's fun, well-written, and practically relevant enough to merit 3 stars. It lacks the wisdom and depth of a 4-star book.
The author's core claim: Acting generous is heathy, sexy, and profitable - it makes you feel good, makes others like you, boosts your odds of success, and can actually make you a better person over time.
I already believed this, more or less, and I appreciated seeing it played out in story format. The premise that everyone can be classified as a "giver," "taker," or "matcher" is thought-provoking and fun to think about, even if it isn't a very nuanced theory of human motives. Although the stories about real-life givers and takers felt cherry-picked and formulaic, I did come away with useful questions and critical thinking exercises to deploy in my career and my social life.
This book is perfect for the train or plane, if you don't want to think too hard and want something light, moderately well researched, and actionable. It's fun, well-written, and practically relevant enough to merit 3 stars. It lacks the wisdom and depth of a 4-star book.
July 31, 2019
2.75/5
I would like to start out by praising Adam Grant for his amazing prose, and compelling examples. I thought this book was the perfect length, and I finished it relatively quickly (for a non-fiction book). Still, I had some MAJOR problems:
There are three groups of people in this book. There are matchers, who expect equal trades. There are Takers, who take more than they give. And lastly, there are givers, who give more than they take. These seem like they should all have upsides and flaws, but this book failed to mention these. Grant writes about Takers like irredeemable jerks. Matchers (the most common reciprocity style) are presented like robots--"matchers would of course..." Givers, however, are portrayed as saints. Every time someone does something right they're a giver, and every time someone makes a self-serving decision they're OBVIOUSLY a taker. Matchers are just...There. completely unremarkable. If annoyed me that he failed to mention a spectrum, and instead only mentioned extreme cases. In the footnotes he even admitted that occasionally, when he wrote about givers he was instead measuring "agreeability". Therefore, it seems biased towards Givers.
I would like to start out by praising Adam Grant for his amazing prose, and compelling examples. I thought this book was the perfect length, and I finished it relatively quickly (for a non-fiction book). Still, I had some MAJOR problems:
There are three groups of people in this book. There are matchers, who expect equal trades. There are Takers, who take more than they give. And lastly, there are givers, who give more than they take. These seem like they should all have upsides and flaws, but this book failed to mention these. Grant writes about Takers like irredeemable jerks. Matchers (the most common reciprocity style) are presented like robots--"matchers would of course..." Givers, however, are portrayed as saints. Every time someone does something right they're a giver, and every time someone makes a self-serving decision they're OBVIOUSLY a taker. Matchers are just...There. completely unremarkable. If annoyed me that he failed to mention a spectrum, and instead only mentioned extreme cases. In the footnotes he even admitted that occasionally, when he wrote about givers he was instead measuring "agreeability". Therefore, it seems biased towards Givers.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 2,441 reviews