Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success

Evidence shows that at work, the vast majority of people develop a primary reciprocity style, which captures how they approach most of the people most of the time. And this primary style can play as much of a role in our success as hard work, talent, and luck.

Research demonstrates that givers sink to the bottom of the success ladder. Across a wide range of important occupations, givers are at a disadvantage: they make others better off but sacrifice their own success in the process.

So if givers are most likely to land at the bottom of the success ladder, who’s at the top—takers or matchers? Neither. When I took another look at the data, I discovered a surprising pattern: It’s the givers again.

The worst performers and the best performers are givers; takers and matchers are more likely to land in the middle.

When takers win, there’s usually someone else who loses.

Research shows that people tend to envy successful takers and look for ways to knock them down a notch.

In contrast, when givers like David Hornik win, people are rooting for them and supporting them, rather than gunning for them.

In the office, more than three times as many people prefer to be matchers than givers.

German psychologists found that when strangers first encountered people, the ones they liked most were those “with a sense of entitlement and a tendency to manipulate and exploit others.”

In networks, new research shows that when people get burned by takers, they punish them by sharing reputational information.

If we create networks with the sole intention of getting something, we won’t succeed. We can’t pursue the benefits of networks; the benefits ensue from investments in meaningful activities and relationships.

Of every ten words that the taker CEOs uttered referencing themselves, four were about themselves alone and no one else.

The taker CEOs earned far more money than other senior executives in their companies.

But the most interesting clue of takers was in the annual reports that the companies produced for shareholders each year.

The analysts rated whether each CEO had an “inflated sense of self that is reflected in feelings of superiority, entitlement, and a constant need for attention and admiration . . . enjoying being the center of attention, insisting upon being shown a great deal of respect, exhibitionism, and arrogance.” The analysts’ ratings correlated almost perfectly with the size of the CEOs’ photos.

Self-glorifying images, self-absorbed conversations, and sizable pay gaps can send accurate, reliable signals that someone is a taker.

The takers posted information that was rated as more self-promoting, self-absorbed, and self-important. They featured quotes that were evaluated as boastful and arrogant. The takers also had significantly more Facebook friends, racking up superficial connections so they could advertise their accomplishments and stay in touch to get favors, and posted vainer, more flattering pictures of themselves.

Matchers tend to build smaller networks than either givers, who seek actively to help a wider range of people, or takers, who often find themselves expanding their networks to compensate for bridges burned in previous transactions.

It’s possible to get the best of both worlds: the trust of strong ties coupled with the novel information of weak ties. The key is reconnecting, and it’s a major reason why givers succeed in the long run.

Just as matchers will sacrifice their own interests to punish takers who act selfishly toward others, they’ll go out of their way to reward givers who act generously toward others.

Dormant ties offer the access to novel information that weak ties afford, but without the discomfort.

Givers created opportunities for their colleagues to contribute, rather than imposing their ideas and hogging credit for achievements.

It turns out that giving can be contagious.

Giving spreads rapidly and widely across social networks.

Of all engineers, the most productive were those who gave often—and gave more than they received. These were the true givers, and they had the highest productivity and the highest status: they were revered by their peers. By giving often, engineers built up more trust and attracted more valuable help from across their work groups—not just from the people they helped.

Takers have a knack for generating creative ideas and championing them in the face of opposition. Because they have supreme confidence in their own opinions, they feel free of the shackles of social approval that constrict the imaginations of many people.

Overall, the surgeons didn’t get better with practice. They only got better at the specific hospital where they practiced. For every procedure they handled at a given hospital, the risk of patient mortality dropped by 1 percent. But the risk of mortality stayed the same at other hospitals. The surgeons couldn’t take their performance with them.

To reduce the risk of patient mortality, the surgeons needed relationships with specific surgical team members.

Hiring stars is advantageous neither to stars themselves, in terms of their performance, nor to hiring companies in terms of their market value.

A defining feature of how givers collaborate: they take on the tasks that are in the group’s best interest, not necessarily their own personal interests.

Studies show that on average, from sales teams to paper mill crews to restaurants, the more giving group members do, the higher the quantity and quality of their groups’ products and services.

Extensive research reveals that people who give their time and knowledge regularly to help their colleagues end up earning more raises and promotions in a wide range of settings, from banks to manufacturing companies.

By doing his best work for less coveted guests, Meyer was doing his colleagues a favor. Takers no longer felt that they needed to compete with him, matchers felt that they owed him, and givers saw him as one of them.

If these talented people are also givers, they no longer have a target on their backs. Instead, givers are appreciated for their contributions to the group.

When people act generously in groups, they earn idiosyncrasy credits—positive impressions that accumulate in the minds of group members.

Research shows that givers get extra credit when they offer ideas that challenge the status quo.

When takers presented suggestions for improvement, colleagues were skeptical of their intentions, writing them off as self-serving. But 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.

The takers blamed their partners for failures and claimed credit for successes. The givers shouldered the blame for failures and gave their partners more credit for successes.

When we’re giving a gift, we imagine the joy that we would experience in receiving the gifts that we’re selecting. But this isn’t the same joy that the recipient will experience, because the recipient has a different set of preferences.

Research shows that takers harbor doubts about others’ intentions, so they monitor vigilantly for information that others might harm them, treating others with suspicion and distrust.

Even when takers are impressed by another person’s capabilities or motivation, they’re more likely to see this person as a threat, which means they’re less willing to support and develop him or her. As a result, takers frequently fail to engage in the types of supportive behaviors that are conducive to the confidence and development of their peers and subordinates.

Since matchers tend to play it safe, they often wait to offer support until they’ve seen evidence of promise. Consequently, they miss out on opportunities to develop people who don’t show a spark of talent or high potential at first.

By default, givers start by viewing people as bloomers.

Today, we have compelling evidence that interest precedes the development of talent. It turns out that motivation is the reason that people develop talent in the first place.

Attaining expertise in a domain typically requires ten thousand hours of deliberate practice.

Grit is a major factor that predicts how close they get to achieving their potential.

Sunk costs do have a small effect—decision makers are biased in favor of their previous investments—but three other factors are more powerful. One is anticipated regret: will I be sorry that I didn’t give this another chance? The second is project completion: if I keep investing, I can finish the project. But the single most powerful factor is ego threat: if I don’t keep investing, I’ll look and feel like a fool. In response to ego threat, people invest more, hoping to turn the project into a success so they can prove to others—and themselves—that they were right all along.

Due to their susceptibility to ego threat, takers are more vulnerable to escalation of commitment than givers.

When people make decisions in a self-focused state, they’re more likely to be biased by ego threat and often agonize over trying to find a choice that’s ideal in all possible dimensions.

When people focus on others, as givers do naturally, they’re less likely to worry about egos and miniscule details; they look at the big picture and prioritize what matters most to others.