Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success

“As parents, we read our children books like The Giving Tree and emphasize the importance of sharing and caring. But we tend to compartmentalize giving, reserving a different set of values for the sphere of work. We may love Shel Silverstein for our kids, but the popularity of books like Robert Greene’s The 48 Laws of Power—not to mention the fascination of many business gurus with Sun Tzu’s The Art of War—suggests that we don’t see much room for giver values in our professional lives.”

This quote reflects the complex relationship between personal values, societal norms, and professional conduct. This passage uses the term “compartmentalize” to suggest that people consciously or unconsciously adopt different sets of values and principles when navigating their personal and professional lives. It highlights that, despite teaching and cherishing the values of giving at home, people often approach their workplaces with different, perhaps more competitive, and self-focused principles. The quote references two books as contrasting symbols of values. The Giving Tree represents selflessness and sacrifice. In contrast, The 48 Laws of Power signifies a pragmatic and potentially ruthless approach to achieving success in the professional world. Additionally, the quote invokes Sun Tzu’s The Art of War, emphasizing that professional environments are often characterized by fierce competition and a win-at-all-costs mentality, which may be at odds with the giving values that people teach in their homes.

“But if you do it only to succeed, it probably won’t work.”

Grant ends Chapter 1 with this brief warning. After several paragraphs of lighthearted optimism, this single line—separated from the rest of the text with its own line break—stands out with its cautionary tone. Grant advises readers that if they only adopt the giver reciprocity style in order to get something out of it in return, then they likely won’t achieve success. This sets up a fundamental tension of the book: Grant spends much of the book extolling the benefits of being a giver but acknowledges that these benefits will only arise when they are not directly sought.

“Luckily, research shows that takers leak clues. Well, more precisely, takers lek clues.”

Grant employs humor and wordplay to describe the antics of taker CEOs, likening their behavior to peacocks doing mating dances. He borrows a term from the field of animal behavior—lek—and pairs it with a near-homonym to make this concept memorable.

“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.”

Grant’s description characterizes takers as bold and daring when it comes to pushing their ideas forward. At the same time, it highlights the potential double-edged nature of confidence; while supreme confidence can enable creativity, it can also lead to self-serving behaviors and a disregard for the input of others. This quote also indirectly touches on the influence of social dynamics on creative thinking. Takers’ ability to disregard social approval hints at the constraints that society often places on creative thinking.

“Even though they were supposed to be individual stars, their performance wasn’t portable. When star analysts moved to a different firm, their performance dropped, and it stayed lower for at least five years.”

Grant cites a study to illustrate that geniuses do not act alone; their success often hinges on how well they know and work with the team that surrounds them. The passage hints at the intricate dynamics within workplaces, illustrating how personal success is often a product of not just individual competence but also the interplay with colleagues and environment, thus reinforcing The Importance of Interdependence. The quote specifies that the performance of top financial analysts remained lower for at least five years after the analysts switched firms; this emphasizes the enduring consequences of such a shift. This particular quote showcases how the book challenges conventional wisdom, as it is not intuitive that star analysts’ success would be so reliant on their team and context. Overall, this quote underscores that professional success, even for star performers, is often much more complex and context-dependent than commonly perceived.

“Just as matchers grant a bonus to givers in collaborations, they impose a tax on takers.”

The quote references matchers, individuals who aim for a balanced give-and-take relationship in their collaborations. Grant employs the terms “bonus” and “tax” as metaphors. When matchers interact with givers, they reward them with a “bonus” or additional goodwill. In contrast, when dealing with takers, they impose a “tax” or a penalty in response to the taker’s self-serving behavior. The passage underscores the notion that matchers play a crucial role in maintaining balance in social and professional interactions, promoting fairness and reciprocity. This implies that the behavior of takers has consequences—they face penalties in terms of lost opportunities or damaged relationships when dealing with matchers. Grant depicts matchers almost as a governing or regulatory body, determining who is rewarded and who is punished in the realm of reciprocity.

“When Inman saw a guy practice with grit and play like a giver, he classified him as a diamond in the rough […] Even when practice is no longer enjoyable, givers continue exerting effort out of a sense of responsibility to their team.”

The passage centers on Stu Inman’s approach to talent assessment; he was a prominent basketball figure known for spotting hidden potential. The term “diamond in the rough” signifies Inman’s ability to identify unpolished talent with great potential. Inman’s method serves as an example of how givers are adept at recognizing potential in individuals who might be overlooked by others. The quote indicates that Inman’s approach reshaped how talent was assessed, focusing on more than just immediate, observable skills, which aligns with the book’s argument that givers contribute to success by fostering potential in others.

“Inman’s experience, coupled with research evidence, reveals that givers don’t excel only at recognizing and developing talent; they’re also surprisingly good at moving on when their bets don’t work out.”

This quote underscores the adaptability, humility, and open-mindedness of givers; they can recognize and admit when a certain strategy or investment isn’t working as anticipated. It highlights that givers don’t doggedly persist in unproductive efforts but find a balance between optimism and pragmatism. This reinforces Grant’s suggestion that otherish givers—those who are less likely to burn out—are not naïve; rather, they are strategic and practical.

“In Western societies […] [w]e’re told that great leaders use ‘power talk’ and ‘power words’ to forcefully convey their messages. By using powerless communication, surely people wind up at a disadvantage when it comes to influence. Um, well, not quite.”

The quote presents a contrast between what’s conventionally seen as powerful communication and what Grant refers to as “powerless communication.” The phrase, “Um, well, not quite,” introduces a surprising reversal as well as a bit of humor. By using this phrase, Grant demonstrates powerless communication in action, in order to playfully suggest that assumptions about powerless communication are not entirely accurate. This hints at the idea that unconventional, more empathetic communication styles might have their own power and effectiveness, which aligns with Grant’s broader exploration of reciprocity styles and supports the overarching theme of The Subversion of Traditional Notions of Power in the Workplace.

“Studies demonstrate that […] seeking advice is among the most effective ways to influence peers, superiors, and subordinates. Advice seeking tends to be significantly more persuasive than the taker’s preferred tactics of pressuring subordinates and ingratiating superiors. Advice seeking is also consistently more influential than the matcher’s default approach of trading favors.”

Grant implies that influence built on collaboration and genuine interest in others’ opinions can have a more profound impact than self-serving or coercive tactics. This aligns with a central theme of the book, which suggests that giving generously and with authenticity can lead to more meaningful and sustainable success. Grant’s findings challenge stereotypes regarding power dynamics. He suggests that one need not wield power in the conventional sense to be influential; rather, influence can stem from the act of seeking advice, demonstrating a humble and open attitude, which is often associated with givers.

“In this situation, it seems that the natural way to recover and recharge would be to reduce her giving. But that wasn’t what she did. Instead, Conrey gave more.”

Grant acknowledges that the conventional wisdom for addressing burnout is to reduce one’s giving or workload, which is considered a natural response. What makes Conrey’s response notable is that she doesn’t follow the standard advice. Instead of pulling back on her teaching duties and reducing her giving, she decides to “give more.” This choice is a key aspect of what Grant terms “otherish” giving, which involves givers giving generously while also taking care of their well-being. The passage illustrates that givers’ resilience lies in the ability to navigate their burnout by finding ways to give that are personally fulfilling and meaningful to them.

“I got my answer one day when I paid a visit to the call center, and noticed a sign one of the callers had posted above his desk: ‘DOING A GOOD JOB HERE Is Like Wetting Your Pants in a Dark Suit YOU GET A WARM FEELING BUT NO ONE ELSE NOTICES.’”

The darkly humorous joke above the caller’s desk is both vivid and humanizing. This simile captures the essence of the givers’ experience in the call center. Despite putting in their best efforts and “doing a good job,” they are left feeling unfulfilled because their contributions often go unnoticed and unappreciated by others. This passage indirectly addresses giver burnout. Givers are motivated by the belief that their efforts contribute positively to individuals or their organizations. When this contribution goes unnoticed, the warm feeling derived from doing a good job diminishes, leading to feelings of unfulfillment. This suggests that creating a work environment where givers can see the impact of their contributions and receive acknowledgment for their efforts can be instrumental in preventing burnout.

“Imagine that you’re going to perform five random acts of kindness this week […] You can choose one of two different ways to organize your giving: chunking or sprinkling.”

The passage invites readers to imagine acts of giving. It suggests that giving can be organized intentionally, implying that the structure of giving can have a significant impact on its effectiveness. Grant’s approach prompts readers to think critically about the choices they would make, which engages the readers’ imaginations. This participation is intended to draw the reader into the content and encourages a stronger connection with the text.

“But the reasons for giving mattered immensely: on days that people helped others out of a sense of enjoyment and purpose, they experienced significant gains in energy. Giving for these reasons conferred a greater sense of autonomy, mastery, and connection to others, and it boosted their energy.”

The passage suggests that not all giving is equal in its effects on the giver. Grant touches on the psychological benefits of giving with the right intentions. This highlights the multifaceted advantages of giving, which go beyond the immediate act itself. Grant’s assertion that giving for the right reasons can boost an individual’s energy level underscores the potential vitality that can be gained from acts of kindness. This challenges the stereotype that giving necessarily depletes energy, suggesting that it can also be a source of personal renewal.

“Ironically, because concern for their own interests sustains their energy, otherish givers actually give more than selfless givers […] Otherish givers may appear less altruistic than selfless givers, but their resilience against burnout enables them to contribute more.”

Grant challenges the notion that selfless giving is the only way to maintain the energy and enthusiasm required for sustained giving. Grant acknowledges that otherish givers may appear less altruistic than selfless givers at first glance. This highlights the potential misperceptions surrounding different giving styles. Otherish givers may be seen as less “pure” in their altruism because they also attend to their self-interest, but they understand the importance of avoiding burnout for long-term, effective giving.

“Many people think they can judge givers and takers in the blink of an eye. But in reality, they’re wildly inaccurate. Blink again.”

The phrase “blink again” encourages the reader to reconsider their initial judgments and look beyond surface appearances. Grant suggests that a more thoughtful and nuanced evaluation is needed to truly understand whether someone is a giver or a taker. First impressions and surface clues will not suffice; rather, people need to use nuanced discernment to identify takers.

“Peter accomplished this maneuver by getting inside Rich’s head, rather than his heart. Studies led by Columbia psychologist Adam Galinsky show that when we empathize at the bargaining table, focusing on our counterparts’ emotions and feelings puts us at risk of giving away too much. But when we engage in perspective taking, considering our counterparts’ thoughts and interests, we’re more likely to find ways to make deals that satisfy our counterparts without sacrificing our own interests.”

Grant highlights a distinction between rational and emotional empathy, claiming that the former is more effective when dealing with takers. Grant introduces an appeal to authority by citing a specific expert, Adam Galinsky, from Columbia University. This adds credibility to the argument that follows. In advising givers on how to avoid being taken advantage of, Grant encourages them to be more strategic with their empathy and engage in self-protective behaviors when engaging with takers, implying that generosity is not the only key to givers’ long-term success.

“Most of the time that we give, it’s based on a cocktail of mixed motives to benefit others and ourselves.”

Grant characterizes the nature of giving as complex and multifaceted. The term “cocktail of mixed motives” suggests that when people engage in acts of giving, their motivations are not singular but rather consist of a blend of various elements. These motives can include a desire to benefit others, a sense of personal fulfillment, and even self-interest. Grant underscores that acts of giving can simultaneously serve the interests of both the giver and the recipient. This duality emphasizes that giving does not have to be solely altruistic, as it often benefits the giver in some way, whether through increased well-being, a sense of purpose, or other forms of personal gain.

“When people join a group, they look for cues about appropriate behavior. When new Freecycle members saw similar others modeling low-cost acts of giving, it became natural for them to follow suit. By making giving visible, Freecycle made it easy for people to see the norm.”

Grant underscores the idea that when people witness others practicing giving within the group, it becomes a natural or instinctive response for them to do the same. This emphasizes the power of social influence in shaping behavior. Grant highlights the importance of visibility in fostering a culture of giving. Making giving actions visible implies that they are recognized and acknowledged within the group, making it more likely for others to adopt similar behaviors.

“Why do we underestimate the number of people who are willing to give? According to Flynn and Bohns, when we try to predict others’ reactions, we focus on the costs of saying yes, overlooking the costs of saying no.”

In this quote, Grant delves into a common cognitive bias related to individuals’ perceptions of others’ willingness to give. He suggests that people tend to focus on the potential downsides of agreeing to give help while downplaying the negative consequences of refusing assistance. This bias may lead to an underestimation of the prevalence of giving behavior in society. Grant’s reference to specific researchers, Flynn and Bohns, reinforces the academic rigor of his work and positions his arguments within the context of established research in social psychology. This quote bolsters studies cited in Chapter 1 of the book that imply that the giver reciprocity style is underrepresented considering that, globally, most people prefer it.

“‘Ideas can have profound effects even when they are false—when they are nothing more than ideology,’ writes the psychologist Barry Schwartz. ‘These effects can arise because sometimes when people act on the basis of ideology, they inadvertently arrange the very conditions that bring reality into correspondence with the ideology.’”

This quote suggests that if individuals believe that their environment is highly competitive or zero-sum, they might adopt “taker”-like behaviors or become less inclined to give generously. Their actions are not necessarily a direct reflection of the actual conditions but rather a response to their perception of the ideology. When individuals adjust their behavior accordingly, they might inadvertently shape the group’s dynamics to match these beliefs. If people in a group start acting more competitively because they believe the group’s ideology is highly “taker”-oriented, they might, in turn, make the environment more competitive. This can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy, where the ideology influences actions, which, in turn, create conditions that correspond to the ideology.

“In the Reciprocity Ring, because everyone is making a request, there’s little reason to be embarrassed. By making requests explicit and specific, participants provide potential givers with clear direction about how to contribute effectively.”

This quote reflects the principles of psychological safety, transparency, and structured reciprocity that underlie the Reciprocity Ring. The activity aims to eliminate social barriers to requesting help or support, reduce embarrassment, and make giving and receiving more explicit and effective. Grant’s design of the Reciprocity Ring aligns with his broader message in the book: that by creating environments and structures that encourage and enable giving, individuals can foster a culture of generosity and reciprocity. This concept is a central theme in Give and Take, where Grant explores how such environments can lead to individual and collective success.

“Barry and Friedman broke down each party’s gains, expecting to find that the smarter negotiators got better deals for themselves. But they didn’t. The brightest negotiators got better deals for their counterparts.”

This quote emphasizes the effectiveness of a giving reciprocity style, particularly in negotiations. The stereotype of a powerful negotiator is that of a self-serving, calculating, and even cutthroat individual. This example underscores the central thesis of the book: that giving can be a successful strategy in various aspects of life, even in situations like negotiations, which are often perceived as inherently competitive and self-serving.