Give and Take

Peter and I have been reading Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success by psychologist Adam Grant. In short, it’s a fascinating book that delves into the different categorizations of people and specific character profiles that portend a more successful life. Though success is often captured in financial terms (as with many of his examples throughout the book), he also emphasizes the success in other endeavors, such as in personal relationships.

The book centers on three main categories of people: givers, takers, and matchers. While givers are great at networking and team-based, takers view others as threats to their own success. One of the main takeaways for me and Peter is that givers tend to enlarge the proverbial pie, so that everyone may have a larger slice, whereas takers want more of the pie for themselves. Matchers strike a balance, often with a tit for tat mentality. Takers by nature tend to peacock and are easily dislikable which often leads to being targeted when they’ve accomplished great success. Givers, on the other hand, are generally well liked—so much so that their success is often celebrated, rather than scrutinized and diminished.

There are some interesting points made in just the first few chapters. One example is that highly creative people (e.g., geniuses) are often takers—after all, they have the confidence to unabashedly place their ideas out into the world. On the other hand, givers tend to work more in the background, helping the creatives around them blossom. In essence, givers contribute to overall team success, even if it means not standing out personally. However, givers often reap positive karma in that good actions are often remembered.

For takers, their negative behaviors are not so easily forgotten. This is reminiscent of Maya Angelou’s expression that people do not remember what you said or did, but rather how you made them feel. Good deeds, no matter how small, go toward an emotional reserve that makes building, rekindling, or repairing bonds much easier. Stronger networks will often lead to greater success in most domains of life.

Givers help those around them feel good and flourish by understanding the preferences and perspectives of others. Takers encounter great difficulty adopting outside perspectives which results in overvaluing their own contributions in team settings while undervaluing contributions from others. One particularly interesting example to demonstrate our own biases is our tendency to “think outside of the box” when purchasing gifts for weddings, birthdays, and other celebrations. Our attentions are caught by gifts that are attractive to us, and we convince ourselves that our guests would also love it. Rather than going off a wishlist explicitly spelled out by the recipient, we get wrapped up in the excitement of surprising them—that somehow we know better than them what they truly want. But for whom are we getting the gift? Not ourselves!

Interestingly, throughout psychiatry and psychology, there are are similar concepts, such as mentalization or theory of mind, that describe a similar process of understanding others’ internal worlds, drives, and motivations. The mastery of such allows for more mature coping and navigation of the external world. To place ourselves in the other person’s shoes really is quite the understatement with so many benefits.

Taking on the perspective of others and appreciating their contributions have a direct impact on interpersonal relationships. Adam Grant in his book makes an obvious point: that the most successful couples are those where the individuals can appreciate what others have done for them.

Successful relationships arise when we attribute our success and wellbeing to others, rather than overestimating our own contributions. This also presents as being less likely to blame the other partner for shortcomings in the relationship. One thing I’ve really appreciated in my own relationship with Peter is our tendency to avoid “you” statements which can often come off accusatory and removes oneself from blame or responsibility. Instead, we try (not always perfectly) to lead with “I” statements which inevitably results in better negotiation and conflict resolution.

We really love the analogy of the pie because it helps us understanding what it means to add value to the environment around us. Adam Grant delves into studies that looked at students designated from an early age as “gifted”—those who had the care, attention, and expectations to nurture this gift inevitably performed better in the longterm. As it would turn out, this blossoming can happen not just to those who are gifted or have a natural talent, but to everyone.

There is a latent potential in all individuals that can be unlocked simply from the nurture and care from our surroundings. It is in this way that givers help expand the pie and unlock greatness for those around them—not simply from nurturing the “right” person, but nurturing all who are receptive. Luck and talent are hugely important, but perseverance, opportunity, and having someone believe in you are equally powerful.

Though the author speaks to great detail about the impact givers have around them, he also highlights the ways in which givers themselves succeed. There is a tendency for givers to be “gritty”—that is, they work hard and passionately toward long-term goals. Interestingly, givers also invest in people who are similarly gritty. This tends to expand team-wide potential, whereas takers tend to be less gritty (i.e. take their portion of the pie and then leave).

Givers are also less prone to sunk cost fallacies because they’re not blinded by their own egos, or not as determined to prove themselves right. Takers, on the other hand, suffer immensely from narcissistic injuries and ego threats should they “abandon” a project. And often, doubling down or sticking to a failing project only results in greater disaster and resource squandered. Givers do what’s best for the team, often thinking of other people and at the expense of their own best interest, even if it means admitting failure.

Naturally, I found the chapters on how givers versus takers navigate interpersonal relationships very intriguing. Whereas takers tend to exert dominance, givers tend to prioritize prestige and respect for others (one being a finite resource, and the other being limitless). With dominance, there can only be one top dog and thus an agenda that is enforced or thrust upon others. Adam Grant makes a point that being genuinely inquisitive while allowing others to receive credit or recognition for success can be a powerful force of change often employed by givers.

One of the mantras I carry in my line of work is not to outright convince my patients but to lead horses to water. Asking open-ended questions allow others to feel like they are making the big, important decisions. This tends to produce more favorable outcomes, both in treatment and in a sense of personal achievement or agency. It is ultimately instilling in people internalized loci of control, or a sense that one can effect change unto one’s circumstance.

We really enjoyed this portion of the book because we fundamentally share the belief that we not only are the masters of own fulfillment (or lack thereof), but that together we can accomplish more than we would individually. We can have a bigger pie if done right, and who doesn’t love more pie? This book, with its clear descriptions and concrete examples, makes us think about the ways in which we probe and prod to help each other grow. These are but some of our thoughts from the first half of the book—more on the second half next week!