Are you a Giver, a Taker or a Matcher?

21 Feb

It’s not a trivial question according to Adam Grant, award winning author of ‘Give and Take, A Revolutionary Approach to Success’.  Grant’s premise, borne out of considerable research, is that our organisations are populated by three basic types of people: Givers - who strive to help people, often at their own expense, Takers – who relentlessly use others to get ahead, self-promote and take credit at every opportunity and avoid assisting others and finally Matchers, the majority, who keep score quid pro quo so to speak.

So who is the most successful? 

You may think that Takers are the most successful.  Takers appear to have early success but it’s not sustainable.  It turns out that Givers are both the most successful and the least successful in overall productivity and job performance.

At the low end of performance, Givers spend so much time helping others that they neglect their own work and their productivity falls.  They are also more likely to suffer burnout.  At the top end of performance these people earn the trust and support of their peers, customers and staff.  People rally around them and believe in them as individuals.  They form great enduring relationships.

It appears organisations that have a culture of giving are more successful than organisations where Takers seem to prevail.  Indeed, such organisations are dominated by paranoia where everyone is worried about what the other person is doing to them in a negative way.  Such an environment inhibits Givers.

Ideally, organisations need to develop a culture where Givers can thrive.  Such cultures support the people to ask for assistance and for Givers to provide assistance.  Givers make organisation better by sharing knowledge and help others to improve the team.

Does this mean that we should have an environment of just Givers?  

No, according to Grant, what is needed is the right team of Givers and Matchers.  The Matchers are the people who protect the Givers from the Takers.

The key idea is that organisations need to weed out the Takers, the narcissists.  The negative impact of a Taker is two to three times more than the positive impact of a Giver.  They trample on their peers and subordinates while they pander to their superiors.

Identifying Takers is a little more difficult to do at first sight.  Part of the problem is related to agreeableness.  At interviews, many people appear acceptable because of their charm and pleasantness.  We want people to be nice and we seek out confirmation of this.

We want people who share the right values that support the culture.  

So how do you tell if the person is a Taker?

You can tell how they treat people below them in the hierarchy.

According to Grant you can ask them to name four people whose career they have helped promote.  Takers can name four people who are usually senior to them – Takers kiss up and tromp down.
  
Givers are more likely to name people lower than them who have less opportunity to show their skills and contribution. 

You should also seek out references from subordinates and peers rather than asking their former Bosses.

The lesson is to weed out Takers, as well as avoid hiring them.  One caveat is that it is possible to come across a disagreeable Giver.  These people are very important to an organisation.  They are the risk managers who help organisation to avoid problems.  Grant points out that agreeable Takers are the deadliest type to have in the organisation – they are the back stabbers.

Are you a Giver, a Taker or a Matcher?  As Grant says – if you first response is that you are a giver – you may in reality be a Taker.
 

Give and Take, A Revolutionary Approach to Success - Adam Grant

Matching people with organisations is what we do best at CIS.