Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success

by Adam M. Grant

The fear of being judged as weak or naïve prevents many people from operating like givers at work.

In the computer industry, a typical taker CEO took home more than triple the annual salary and bonus of anyone else in the company. By contrast, the average across the industry was for CEOs to earn just over one and a half times the next highest paid. The taker CEOs also commanded stock options and other noncash compensation of seven times higher than the next highest paid, compared with the industry average of two and a half times higher.*

The analysts’ ratings correlated almost perfectly with the size of the CEOs’ photos.

First, when we have access to reputational information, we can see how people have treated others in their networks.

Second, when we have a chance to observe the actions and imprints of takers, we can look for signs of lekking. Self-glorifying

This may strike some as a way to overinvest in others, but as Adam Rifkin once learned to great effect, we can’t always predict who can help us.

Strong ties provide bonds, but weak ties serve as bridges: they provide more efficient access to new information. Our strong ties tend to travel in the same social circles and know about the same opportunities as we do. Weak ties are more likely to open up access to a different network, facilitating the discovery of original leads.

The executives didn’t need to invest in building a relationship from the start with their dormant ties, as they would with weak ties.

“but I had tried to hide it and be more competitive so that I could get ahead. The important lesson I learned from Adam is that you can be a genuinely kind-hearted person and still get ahead in the world.”

your interactions are ruled by generosity, your rewards will follow suit.”

“Givers gain.”

anagram: I Find Karma.

juxtaposition

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

Meyer summarizes his code of honor as “(1) Show up. (2) Work hard. (3) Be kind. (4) Take the high road.”

They felt responsible for an investment that was going bad, so they committed more to protect their pride and save face.

Inman was the architect of the 1977 championship team, which had been last in the division the previous year, and remains the only team

According to Jack Ramsay, who coached the winning team, Inman was “never in the spotlight, and never taking proper credit for the team he assembled.”

reveals that givers don’t excel only at recognizing and developing talent; they’re also surprisingly good at moving on when their bets don’t work out.

the pratfall effect

New research shows that advice seeking is a surprisingly effective strategy for exercising influence when we lack authority

Giving more can be exhausting if it’s in the same domain. Instead of giving more in the same way, over and over, she expanded her contributions to a different group of people.

By shifting her giving to a novel domain, she was able to recharge her energy.

“spreading them over the course of a week might have diminished their salience and power or made them less distinguishable from participants’ habitual kind behavior.”

One hundred seems to be a magic number when it comes to giving.

She calls it tend and befriend. “One of the most striking aspects of the human stress response is the tendency to affiliate—that is, to come together in groups to provide and receive joint protection in threatening times.”