Give and Take summary

Most of us can recall a time when we were touched by the generosity of another person. Perhaps they gave us advice, offered a job opportunity or helped us with a difficult task, all without expecting anything in return. These people are givers.

The keystone trait of the giver is that in most transactions they give far more than they get. They are generous with their knowledge and time, and they will often forgo personal credit for the good of a common goal. Their main focus is to provide value for others; having their help reciprocated is either irrelevant or a bonus. The way givers see it, helping other people is its own reward as it makes the givers themselves feel good too.

“I’ll do something for you if you do something for me.” This is the calling card of matchers: people who endeavor to give as much as they get. Matchers are easily recognizable for their tit-for-tat mentality. They can be seen striking a deal with their kids about mowing the lawn or enlisting the help of a friend who owes them a favor to drive them to the airport. However, contrary to takers or givers, the matcher’s goal in their negotiations is being fair and equitable to all parties, not just one.

To matchers, the world should be a level playing field where people exchange knowledge, skills and resources equally. Matchers are uncomfortable when exchanges are unbalanced, so if they help someone, they expect reciprocation or else they feel disgruntled. This works both ways, however: if a matcher receives a favor, they will feel obliged to promptly return it. This desire for reciprocity also means that if a matcher offers to help someone, there is usually an agenda to “cash in” the favor later, which they believe is entirely justified.

When was the last time you felt influenced by a group to behave in a certain way? Although each one of us has an individual governing style of either giving, taking or matching, we also adapt our behavior to suit specific people and circumstances.

It is part of our nature to conform to what we believe is expected of us in a group situation. For example, takers are usually more generous in public, as they don’t want to appear miserly to others. On the other hand, givers may suppress their generosity at work when they don’t want their kindness to be perceived as a weakness.

Common knowledge insists that to succeed, you must take what you want. However, historical examples show that when people take excessively, they lose respect. When this happens, their reputations sour, endangering their further chances of success as others no longer wish to interact with them.

Take, for example, the scientist Jonas Salk who, with the help of his research team, other scientists and thousands of health professionals and volunteers, developed the polio vaccine. During an infamous press conference announcing the achievement, Salk failed to thank those who had worked with him, upsetting his team to the point of tears. Eventually, his selfishness backfired: Salk was never inducted into the National Academy of Sciences – though many other polio researchers were – and was never awarded the Nobel Prize. Some claim it was his failure to acknowledge others that contributed to him not being considered for these honors.

Many believe that when it comes to achieving professional success, taking is more effective than giving. This is particularly true in traditionally cutthroat professions like business and politics. Interestingly though, it turns out givers often succeed in such environments, as their interest in helping others benefits them too.

Abraham Lincoln is a perfect example of someone who cared more about giving for the greater good than taking for himself. Before he was president, Lincoln dropped out of a senate race to allow competitor Lyman Trumbull to win. Lincoln relinquished his position because both he and Trumball shared the goal of abolishing slavery and Lincoln believed Trumball had a better chance of winning. Abolishing slavery was more compelling to Lincoln than personal advancement. Later on, Trumball repaid the favor by eventually becoming an advocate for Lincoln when he ran for senate again.

Have you ever felt awkward asking a favor of someone you haven’t seen in years? People who give tend not to feel this way. Although they may lose touch with some connections over time, a sense of trust and a willingness to help is maintained. This makes it easy for givers to ask favors for themselves or someone they know, even after long periods of being out of contact.

Adam Rifkin, a perpetual giver and Fortune Magazine’s 2011 best networker, co-founded the 106 Miles network, a twice-monthly gathering where entrepreneurs come together to connect and pool their knowledge. Through this event, Rifkin helps people get jobs, gives them feedback on their business ideas and connects them to others in his vast network.

When offered an opportunity to mentor someone, many people look for seeds of talent first to see whether it is worth investing their time. Givers, however, differ in this respect: rather than waiting for proof of ability, givers assume potential in everyone and nurture it from the start. Because of this early-stage support, their protégées are often highly successful, and this success is usually reflected back onto the givers.

Renowned NBA basketball manager Stu Inman provides an interesting illustration of a successful giver in the way he chose players for his teams. Although Inman passed up on some basketball legends including Michael Jordan, he found massive success in drafting the previously overlooked Clyde Drexler, who later made the Basketball Hall of Fame, ten All-Star teams and the Olympics. Inman was deeply respected for his ability to find undervalued players and for his dedication to those he helped develop.

If someone asked us what kind of communication creates the most success, we would probably say it requires confident, assertive language. But recent studies show that in contrast to raising voices and displaying conviction, we can succeed by communicating in a powerless way.

Powerless communication involves focusing on the other person; for example, by seeking advice and asking questions. Rather than being domineering, which evokes resistance, this softer approach has a remarkably persuasive effect. This technique comes easily to givers, as they are naturally interested in others.

Many givers flourish thanks to their generosity. Unfortunately, this is not always the case and some end up exhausting themselves trying to please everyone. To avoid such burnout, givers must learn how to stay energized and deal with takers that exploit their generosity.

Surprisingly, recent investigations show that the remedy for burnout lies not in reducing the hours spent helping others but in being able to witness the impact they have.