More on this book
Community
Kindle Notes & Highlights
givers and takers differ in their attitudes and actions toward other people.
matcher, you believe in tit for tat,
The worst performers and the best performers are givers; takers and matchers are more likely to land in the middle.
those who give first are often best positioned for success later.
Taking is using other people solely for one’s own gain. Receiving is accepting help from others while maintaining a willingness to pay it back and forward.
Givers succeed in a way that creates a ripple effect,
In purely zero-sum situations and win-lose interactions, giving rarely pays off.
It takes time for givers to build goodwill and trust, but eventually, they establish reputations and relationships that enhance their success.
takers sometimes win in independent roles where performance is only about individual results, givers thrive in interdependent roles where collaboration matters.
successful givers have unique approaches to interactions in four key domains: networking, collaborating, evaluating, and influencing.
Takers want to be admired by influential superiors, so they go out of their way to charm and flatter.
“The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”
to reputational information, we can see how people have treated others in their networks.
observe the actions and imprints of takers, we can look for signs of lekking.
takers and matchers often proactively offer favors to people whose help they want in the future.*
When favors come with strings attached or implied, the interaction can leave a bad taste, feeling more like a transaction than part of a meaningful relationship. Do you really care about helping me, or are you just trying to create quid pro quo so that you can ask for a favor?
insist on a quid pro quo every time you help others, you will have a much narrower network.”
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 key is reconnecting, and it’s a major reason why givers succeed in the long run.
Dormant ties offer the access to novel information that weak ties afford, but without the discomfort.
see networks as a vehicle for creating value for everyone, not just claiming it for ourselves.
“You should be willing to do something that will take you five minutes or less for anybody.”
Giving, especially when it’s distinctive and consistent, establishes a pattern that shifts other people’s reciprocity styles within a group.
When giving starts to occur, it becomes the norm, and people carry it forward in interactions with other people.
givers were more productive than the takers: they worked harder and got more done. But the matchers had the highest productivity,
givers only took a productivity dive when they gave infrequently.
most productive were those who gave often—and gave more than they received. These were the true givers,
givers create norms that favor adding rather than claiming or trading value, expanding the pie for all involved.
takers often have the confidence to generate original ideas that buck traditions and fight uphill battles
gap between our natural tendencies to attribute creative success to individuals and the collaborative reality that underpins much truly great work.
Even in seemingly independent jobs that rely on raw brainpower, our success depends more on others than we realize.
depended heavily on collaborators who knew them well or had strong skills of their own.
If they depend too much on others, takers believe, they’ll be vulnerable to being outdone.
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.
givers collaborate: they take on the tasks that are in the group’s best interest, not necessarily their own personal interests. This makes their groups better off:
Expedition behavior involves putting the group’s goals and mission first, and showing the same amount of concern for others as you do for yourself.
the more he contributed to the success of his shows, the more success there was for the whole team to share.
when people act generously in groups, they earn idiosyncrasy credits—positive impressions that accumulate in the minds of group members. Since many people think like matchers, when they work in groups, it’s very common for them to keep track of each member’s credits and debits.
when ideas that might be threatening were proposed by givers, their colleagues listened and rewarded them for speaking up, knowing they were motivated by a genuine desire to contribute.
matchers grant a bonus to givers in collaborations, they impose a tax on takers.
responsibility bias: exaggerating our own contributions relative to others’ inputs. It’s a mistake to which takers are especially vulnerable, and it’s partially driven by the desire to see and present ourselves positively.
When we think about who deserves the credit, we have more knowledge of our own contributions.
modus operandi: he’s incredibly tough on himself when things go
psychological safety—the belief that you can take a risk without being penalized or punished.
perspective gap: when we’re not experiencing a psychologically or physically intense state, we dramatically underestimate how much it will affect us.
takers rarely cross this perspective gap. They’re so focused on their own viewpoints that they never end up seeing how others are reacting to their ideas and feedback.
givers are motivated to benefit others, so they find ways to put themselves in other people’s shoes.
successful givers shift their frames of reference to the recipient’s perspective.
When we treat man as he is, we make him worse than he is; when we treat him as if he already were what he potentially could be, we make him what he should be.
difficult to overstate the value of surrounding ourselves with stars.
