Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success

Grant discusses the difference between “geniuses” and “genius makers.” He argues that while geniuses are individuals who possess exceptional talent or intelligence, genius makers are those who cultivate and amplify the talents of others.

To illustrate the difference between these two types of individuals, he compares the famed architect Frank Lloyd Wright (someone Grant deems a taker) to The Simpsons writer George Meyer (a giver). According to Grant, Wright was a brilliant architect who produced numerous iconic buildings, but he often took credit for others’ ideas and rarely acknowledged or appreciated the apprentices and artisans who contributed to his success. Even with clients, Wright acted like a taker, pushing to realize his visions even if he went over budget or directly conflicted with their desires for the project. 

On the other hand, Meyer was known for his generous and collaborative approach, actively seeking input from others and acknowledging their contributions. Meyer empathized with his team members and created an environment that fostered creativity and collaboration. While he held all writers to high standards to ensure that The Simpsons was as funny as it could be, he also made the writers’ room a psychologically safe space to share ideas and take risks, leading to the creation of some of the show’s most memorable episodes. 

Whereas Frank Lloyd Wright valued his vision, his reputation, and his individual success above all else, Meyer valued the success of the show above his individual achievements. In the end, Meyer won several Emmys as well as the respect of his colleagues and the industry at large. He helped The Simpsons become a success, and his giving rippled outward to aid the careers of the writers he mentored and collaborated with. By contrast, Wright’s reputation suffered due to his “taker” behavior, and although he was a brilliant architect, few of his apprentices went on to have successful careers.

Grant refutes the common belief that geniuses act alone, citing studies to support the idea that collaboration and collective intelligence are central to breakthrough success. He points out a study of cardiac surgeons as well as one of security analysts. In both cases, performance hinged on how familiar the individuals were with their teams; the more time team members spent working together and getting to know each other, the better their collective performance.

Grant mentions the concept of “idiosyncrasy credits,” a term coined by Edwin Hollander that refers to the amount of leeway or freedom that individuals are given within a group to deviate from the norm. While givers earn idiosyncrasy credits, Grant says that takers are often punished within group contexts, usually by fairness-oriented matchers who impose a “taker tax” to get revenge. He illustrates this through the example of Jonas Salk, who developed the polio vaccine. At a 1955 press conference about the vaccine, Salk failed to give credit to the many collaborators and contributors whose work was instrumental in the vaccine’s development. These individuals felt crushed by Salk’s omission, and Salk chose not to correct the record, even decades later, maintaining that they must simply be jealous of his success. Salk’s reputation and career suffered as a result, as his actions violated the norms of fairness and collaboration within the scientific community.

Grant attributes mistakes like Salk’s to two possible factors: responsibility bias and perspective gap. Responsibility bias refers to the tendency for individuals to attribute their successes primarily to their own efforts and skills, while attributing failures or shortcomings to external factors or the actions of others. Since people inevitably have more information and firsthand knowledge of their own actions than the actions of others, they are likely to minimize others’ contributions and overestimate their own. According to studies, this effect can be mitigated by asking individuals to reflect on the contributions of their team members before they reflect on their own. Perspective gap refers to the fact that it’s difficult to imagine an intense or challenging situation when one is not currently experiencing it. Overall, takers tend to overestimate their own contributions and find it difficult to take the perspective of others, whereas givers tend to be more aware of the contributions of others and also are more likely to empathize with their perspectives.