Give and Take
Before reading this book, I had read Adam Grant’s two newer books: Think Again and Hidden Potential. This book has some overlap with them, but its main message is “Be a giver, and success will naturally come.” We have a similar concept in the Chinese book “老子 (Laozi)” in Eastern culture. Although his book always tells us simple concepts that have been repeated throughout history, he supports the idea by providing extensive scientific research.
My notes
The top and the bottom of the success ladder are dominated by givers.
It’s easier to win if everybody wants you to win.
Most of life is not zero-sum.
Instead of aiming to succeed first and give back later, you might decide that giving first is a promising path to succeeding later.
The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.
In networks, when people get burned by takers, they punish them by sharing reputational information.
Identify takers: 1. how they treat others 2. lekking (show-off, egocentric behavior).
Dormant ties offer access to novel information that weak ties afford, but without the discomfort. Why? Because when people reconnect, they still have feelings of trust.
Adam Rifkin’s giving rule: “You should be willing to do something that will take you five minutes or less for anybody.”
Matchers exchange value, while givers add value.
The presence of a single giver is enough to establish the norm of giving.
Givers get extra credit when they offer ideas that challenge the status quo.
Meyer’s Code of Honor: 1. Show up 2. Work hard 3. Be kind 4. Take the high road.
Mistake: saw self as independent rather than interdependent.
Consider how the actions you take affect others from their perspective.
Self-fulfilling prophecies are real.
Givers are inclined to see the potential in everyone.
Interest precedes the development of talent.
Do you want to look good or do good?
Why takers/matchers choose looking good: sunk cost has a small effect. 1. anticipated regret 2. project completion 3. ego threat – people protect their pride by refusing to believe that they made poor decisions when criticized.
Givers are more concerned with others and more willing to admit initial mistakes.
Two paths to influence: dominance & prestige. The former is what takers do and it’s zero-sum, while the latter is what givers do and it’s not zero-sum.
Takers worry that revealing weaknesses will compromise their dominance and authority.
Givers are interested in helping others, not gaining power over them, so they’re not afraid of exposing chinks in their armor. (But givers need to be experts.)
Questions are effective persuasive devices.
You can have both self-interest and other-interest at the same time.
Two hours per week is the sweet spot of giving to avoid burnout.
Give more, earn more (money, mood, etc.).
It is difficult to judge givers and takers in the blink of an eye. Disagreeable givers exist.
If we help people who belong to our group, we’re also helping ourselves, as we’re making the group better off.
Oftentimes, we fail to identify with people because we’re thinking about ourselves–or them–in terms that are too specific and narrow. If we look more broadly at commonalities between us, it becomes much easier to see giving as other-oriented.
When similarity is rare, we are more likely to help.
We spend the majority of our waking hours at work. This means that what we do at work becomes a fundamental part of who we are. If we reserve giver values for our personal lives, what will be missing in our professional lives? By shifting ever so slightly in the giver direction, we might find our waking hours marked by greater success, richer meaning, and more lasting impact.
