Reflections on Takers, Matchers, and Givers
Adam Grant is the youngest-tenured and highest-rated professor at the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania where he teaches organizational psychology. He advises companies about how to get the most out of their employees and how to help their employees get the most out of their jobs. Helpfulness is Grant’s credo. He is always nominating others for awards or taking the time to offer thoughtful advice or assistance. Grant’s research, about the study of relationships at work is published in his book, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success (Viking 2013). The greatest source of motivation, he argues, is service to others, the contribution of our work to other people’s lives. Prosocial motivation—the desire to help others, independent of easily foreseeable payback—can and does increase productivity and job satisfaction.
Grant’s book, which incorporates several decades of social-science research on reciprocity, divides the world into three categories: givers, matchers and takers. Givers give without expectation of immediate gain; they give to others without seeking anything in return; they are never too busy to help, share credit, or mentor generously. Matchers go through life with a master chit list in mind, giving only when they can see how they will get something of equal value back and to people who they think can help them. Most people Grant surveyed fall into the matcher category. Takers seek to come out ahead in every exchange; they try to get other people to serve their interests thereby promoting their own well being and protecting their time.
Givers, according to Grant, are found at both ends of the spectrum of success: they are the doormats who go nowhere or burn out, and they are the stars whose giving motivates them or distinguishes them as leaders. The most successful givers are those who rate high in concern for others and in self-interest. They are strategic in their giving—they give to other givers and matchers; they are cautious about giving to takers; they give in ways that reinforce their social ties; and they consolidate their giving so that the impact is intense enough to be gratifying.
The willingness to help others drives effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement, service excellence, problem solving, profitability, productivity, efficiency, and job satisfaction. However, many organizations do not reward this kind of altruism: only one employee gets a promotion; the most productive employee gets the biggest bonus; and in forced-ranking performance evaluations, for every employee who gets a “5” another must get a “1”.
(See generally, Susan Dominus, Is Giving the Secret to Getting Ahead? NEW YORK TIMES MAGAZINE (March 27, 2013) http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/magazine/is-giving-the-secret-to-getting-ahead.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.)
I’m in a workplace environment, where the managing model is to profess the access of growth in your job, that you are important and your voice is heard and will make a difference to the job and yet they berate, belittle, and ultimately make you feel worthless. If only more employers were looking out for their employees, not just to make their bonuses.
That’s incredibly interesting to me! I’ve struggled in my search for a career to find something that I would find satisfying and I’ve reached the conclusion that the only way for me to personally feel satisfied is to do something that I can see meaningfully helps others. For now, I’m content if I know I’m making a valuable contribution to my employer, worth more than he or she is paying me.
This was really interesting to me, I feel it is so important to make sure a company really takes care of their employees. If the employees of a company are taken care of and they know they are respected then they are more likely to work harder and be more respectful to their superiors. For example, my wife worked for a company that treated their employees very poorly and this has caused a revolving door so to speak within the company where employees come and go on a regular bases.
Growing up in a family where both of my parents own their own companies I heard these terms used quite a bit. It’s very interesting to me how they are put now that I am an adult and am able to see for myself the consequences of each of these categories. I hope to model my life around a successful giver. I feel like this is something that both of my parents have done as they have built their own businesses.
After spending the past few years in the corporate world and experiencing the extremes of a very positive, rewarding work environment Verses a work environment that is toxic. I have come to realize that I would prefer to make less money but be emotionally edified and valued than have all the money I would ever want and feel horrible about myself and the people with whom I work. I have recently come from a pretty bad working environment and I am grateful to be gone. That all stemmed from the attitude of the employer, his attitude was terrible and it made everyone who worked there miserable. If you are the boss it is your responsibility to make work as rewarding and fulfilling as possible. the benefits are a much happier work environment, better office relationships, and better production.
I find this very interesting, I kind of have always thought of people in those three categories, but to apply it to the work place is very fascinating. I have worked in many low-end crappy jobs and completely understand the whole idea of “For every employee who gets a 5, another gets a 1.” I never understood why it has to be that way. In some of my jobs I have become a supervisor and realized that the only way to gain trust and a good relationship with employees is by treating them equally and sometimes even better. When if they see me always taking the harder work from them, they learn to trust me and respect me. However, you still get those odd few “Takers” that just take advantage. I feel that if most businesses would try to uplift their employee’s more they would see a lot more success.
I found this kind of relevant to my life. I’m between a giver and a matcher. I can give, and give, and give, but I know where I have my limit. I’m going to try and keep this in mind while I’m at school, at work, and in my social life, so that I can live a more fulfilling life.
I’ve often wondered which of these categories that I fall under. My goal is to be a giver, but I feel like others can classify myself in a different category. As I was reading this, I was reflecting on others that I affiliate with and thinking of the tone that they’ve set in the workplace and have allowed that to affect the way that I present myself.
I absolutely loved this article. I am a giver and love to help others around me regardless of reciprocation. I have been hurt by the takers of the world and it is tragic. I had experience in my childhood that I learned this concept very well and lived out consequences of a father who left our family for selfish reasons. I truly believe what you give to the Universe comes back to you. I have seen it time and time again. I believe societies attitude is that there is only one winner and the rest are losers and this is a very black and white perspective. Everyone can win, it just depends on what you choose to see.
This was interesting and made me think, what would a world be like if it was only made up of givers? How about takers? Both would be dysfunctional, you need a mixture of all types to make the world work. The three types compliment each other, each one is just as necessary as the others. Another thing this made me wonder is where I lie among these categories, I’ve come to the conclusion that I probably lie with the majority of people in being a matcher. I do not give naturally and I do find myself looking for personal gain, hopefully not to the point of a taker though. I would like to become more on the giver side, however I don’t think I could ever completely become one, it’s just too far against my nature, but I would like to improve some.