Home » Opinion » China Knowledge
Givers 'take' more than takers
April 26, 2013, Friday
|
Print Edition
Print Edition
EDITOR'S Note:
New research by Wharton Management professor Adam Grant shows that givers tend to be more successful than takers. In a recent interview with Knowledge@Wharton, professor Adam Grant delineates the differences between givers, takers and matchers, and explores who gets ahead and why.
Q: You divide people into givers, takers and matchers. Could you begin by explaining the difference?
A: The takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have this strange breed of people that I call "givers." It's not about donating money, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, providing mentoring or sharing knowledge, without any strings attached.
Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between. That brings us to the third group of people, who are matchers. A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take. If I help you, I expect you to help me in return.
Q: It seems logical enough that in fields like engineering and medicine, givers end up at the bottom of the heap. But who ends up at the top of the heap?
A: The givers are overrepresented at the bottom. Putting other people first, they often put themselves at risk for burning out or being exploited by takers.
A lot of people look at that and say, "Well, it's hard for a taker to rise consistently to the top, because oftentimes, takers burn bridges. So, it must be the matchers who are more generous than takers, but also protect their own interests."
When I looked at the data, I was really surprised to see that those answers were wrong. It's actually the givers again. Givers are overrepresented at the top as well as the bottom of most success metrics. I found that in sales, the most productive sales people are those who put their customers' interests first.
Q: Among the stories you tell, there is one about a person called Peter Audet. Did being a giver help him or hurt him?
A: Peter Audet is a financial advisor, and he's the kind of guy who goes out of his way to help everyone he meets.
A lot of times, this orientation toward helping others got him in trouble. In one case, he had a colleague who I ended up calling Brad in the book, who essentially was getting out of the business, and he needed somebody to buy his clients quickly.
Peter said, "Sure, I'll do it." He basically paid about US$10,000 for Brad's clients on the spot, just to help him out. Then a couple months later, Peter started losing his clients.... He discovered that all of those clients that he was losing were former clients of Brad's that he had bought.
He did a little bit of homework and found out that Brad was back in the business. He was basically taking his clients back and not paying Peter a dime for them. It cost Peter a ton of money. He really got burned by a taker in that situation.
Yet, Peter will tell you that he has been enormously successful in his career. He runs a financial advisory firm that's well over seven figures, in terms of annual revenue. And he will tell you that being a giver is how he has gotten ahead.
Oftentimes givers put themselves at risk in the short run. But in the long run, they end up building the kind of social capital that's important for success in a very connected world.
Q: How do successful givers approach networking? How does their approach differ from, say, takers or matchers?
A: Takers tend to actually have incredibly broad networks. In part, because when they burn one bridge, they have to go and find new people to exploit, in order to keep the network going.
Matchers tend to have much narrower networks. They will typically only exchange with people who have helped them in the past or who they expect to be able to help them in the future.
Givers tend to build much broader networks than matchers, but in a very different way than takers.
What givers will typically do when they meet somebody new is try to figure out, "How can I add value to this person's life?"
What that means is they end up creating a lot of good will in the relationships that they build that often lies dormant until they may actually need it.
Adapted from Knowledge@Wharton, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu. To read the original version, please visit: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3224
New research by Wharton Management professor Adam Grant shows that givers tend to be more successful than takers. In a recent interview with Knowledge@Wharton, professor Adam Grant delineates the differences between givers, takers and matchers, and explores who gets ahead and why.
Q: You divide people into givers, takers and matchers. Could you begin by explaining the difference?
A: The takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have this strange breed of people that I call "givers." It's not about donating money, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, providing mentoring or sharing knowledge, without any strings attached.
Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between. That brings us to the third group of people, who are matchers. A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take. If I help you, I expect you to help me in return.
Q: It seems logical enough that in fields like engineering and medicine, givers end up at the bottom of the heap. But who ends up at the top of the heap?
A: The givers are overrepresented at the bottom. Putting other people first, they often put themselves at risk for burning out or being exploited by takers.
A lot of people look at that and say, "Well, it's hard for a taker to rise consistently to the top, because oftentimes, takers burn bridges. So, it must be the matchers who are more generous than takers, but also protect their own interests."
When I looked at the data, I was really surprised to see that those answers were wrong. It's actually the givers again. Givers are overrepresented at the top as well as the bottom of most success metrics. I found that in sales, the most productive sales people are those who put their customers' interests first.
Q: Among the stories you tell, there is one about a person called Peter Audet. Did being a giver help him or hurt him?
A: Peter Audet is a financial advisor, and he's the kind of guy who goes out of his way to help everyone he meets.
A lot of times, this orientation toward helping others got him in trouble. In one case, he had a colleague who I ended up calling Brad in the book, who essentially was getting out of the business, and he needed somebody to buy his clients quickly.
Peter said, "Sure, I'll do it." He basically paid about US$10,000 for Brad's clients on the spot, just to help him out. Then a couple months later, Peter started losing his clients.... He discovered that all of those clients that he was losing were former clients of Brad's that he had bought.
He did a little bit of homework and found out that Brad was back in the business. He was basically taking his clients back and not paying Peter a dime for them. It cost Peter a ton of money. He really got burned by a taker in that situation.
Yet, Peter will tell you that he has been enormously successful in his career. He runs a financial advisory firm that's well over seven figures, in terms of annual revenue. And he will tell you that being a giver is how he has gotten ahead.
Oftentimes givers put themselves at risk in the short run. But in the long run, they end up building the kind of social capital that's important for success in a very connected world.
Q: How do successful givers approach networking? How does their approach differ from, say, takers or matchers?
A: Takers tend to actually have incredibly broad networks. In part, because when they burn one bridge, they have to go and find new people to exploit, in order to keep the network going.
Matchers tend to have much narrower networks. They will typically only exchange with people who have helped them in the past or who they expect to be able to help them in the future.
Givers tend to build much broader networks than matchers, but in a very different way than takers.
What givers will typically do when they meet somebody new is try to figure out, "How can I add value to this person's life?"
What that means is they end up creating a lot of good will in the relationships that they build that often lies dormant until they may actually need it.
Adapted from Knowledge@Wharton, http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu. To read the original version, please visit: http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article.cfm?articleid=3224
- About Us
- |
- Terms of Use
- |
-
RSS - |
- Privacy Policy
- |
- Contact Us
- |
- Shanghai Call Center: 962288
- |
- Tip-off hotline: 52920043
- 沪ICP证：沪ICP备05050403号-1
- |
- 互联网新闻信息服务许可证：31120180004
- |
- 网络视听许可证：0909346
- |
- 广播电视节目制作许可证：沪字第354号
- |
- 增值电信业务经营许可证：沪B2-20120012
Copyright © 1999- Shanghai Daily. All rights reserved.Preferably viewed with Internet Explorer 8 or newer browsers.
