GOOD RETURNS:

There is an ingredient, critical but often neglected: success depends heavily on how we
approach our interactions with other people. Every time we interact with another person
at work, we have a choice to make: do we try to claim as much value as we can, or
contribute value without worrying about what we receive in return?

Givers, takers and matchers:

Giving, taking, and matching are three fundamental styles of social interaction, but the
lines between them aren’t hard and fast.

Takers have a distinctive signature: they like to get more than they give. They tilt
reciprocity in their own favor, putting their own interests ahead of others’ needs. Takers
believe that the world is a competitive, dog-eat-dog place.

Givers strive to be generous in sharing time, energy, knowledge, skills, ideas, and
connections with other people who can benefit from them.

But in the workplace, give and take becomes more complicated. Professionally, few of us
act purely like givers or takers, adopting a third style instead. We become matchers,
striving to preserve an equal balance of giving and getting. Matchers operate on the
principle of fairness: when they help others, they protect themselves by seeking
reciprocity.

HOW GIVERS, TAKERS AND MATCHERS BUILD NETWORKS:

For centuries, we have recognized the importance of networking. Networks come with
three major advantages: private information, diverse skills, and power. By developing a
strong network, people can gain invaluable access to knowledge, expertise, and
influence.

Spotting the taker in givers clothes

When we see a taker coming, we protect ourselves by closing the door to our networks,
withholding our trust and help. To avoid getting shut out, many takers become good fakers,
acting generously so that they can waltz into our networks disguised as givers or matchers.

When takers deal with powerful people, they become convincing fakers. Takers want to
be admired by influential superiors, so they go out of their way to charm and flatter.

Takers may rise by kissing up, but they often fall by kicking down. As takers gain power, they pay less
attention to how they’re perceived by those below and next to them. Over time, treating peers and
subordinates poorly jeopardizes their relationships and reputations. After all, most people are
matchers: their core values emphasize fairness, equality, and reciprocity. When takers violate these
principles, matchers in their networks believe in an eye for an eye, so they want to see justice served.
How to recognise a taker

First, when we have access to reputational information, we can see how people have
treated others in their networks.

Second, when we have a chance to observe the actions and imprints of takers, we can look
for signs of lekking. Self-glorifying images, self-absorbed conversations, and sizable pay
gaps can send accurate, reliable signals that someone is a taker.

The transparent network

Now, it’s much harder for takers to get away with being fakers, fooling people into
thinking they’re givers. On the Internet, we can now track down reputational
information about our contacts by accessing public databases and discovering shared
connections. Tiny cues like words and photos can reveal profound clues about us.

RECIPROCITY:

Reciprocity is a powerful norm, but it comes with two downsides, both of which
contribute to the cautiousness with which many of us approach networking. The first
downside is that people on the receiving end often feel like they’re being manipulated.

There’s a second downside of reciprocity, and it’s one to which matchers are especially
vulnerable. Many matchers operate based on the attitude of “I’ll do something for you, if
you’ll do something for me,” so they limit themselves to deals in which their immediate
benefit is at least as great as the benefits for others . . . If you insist on a quid pro quo
every time you help others, you will have a much narrower network.

WEAK TIES

Weak ties are our acquaintances, the people we know casually. Testing the common
assumption that we get the most help from our strong ties. But surprisingly, people are
significantly more likely to benefit from weak ties.

Strong ties provide bonds, but weak ties serve as bridges: they provide more efficient
access to new information. Our strong ties tend to travel in the same social circles and
know about the same opportunities as we do. Weak ties are more likely to open up
access to a different network, facilitating the discovery of original leads.
 DORMANT TIES:

Dormant ties—people you used to see often or know well, but with whom you have since fallen out of
contact.

The dormant ties provided more novel information than the current contacts. Over the
past few years, while they were out of touch, they had been exposed to new ideas and
perspectives. The current contacts were more likely to share the knowledge base and
viewpoint that the executives already possessed.

THE FIVE MINUTE FAVOUR

In traditional old-school reciprocity, people operated like matchers, trading value back and
forth with one another. But today, givers are able to spark a more powerful form of
reciprocity. Instead of trading value, aim to add value. You should be willing to do
something that will take you five minutes or less for anybody.

FINDING THE DIAMOND IN THE ROUGH

Spotting and cultivating talent are essential skills in just about every industry; it’s
difficult to overstate the value of surrounding ourselves with stars. As with networking,
when it comes to discovering the potential in others, reciprocity styles shape our
approaches and effectiveness. Givers actually succeed by recognizing potential in others.

The star search

Evidence shows that leaders’ beliefs can catalyze self-fulfilling prophecies in many
settings.

As in schools, teachers’ beliefs create self-fulfilling prophecies. When teachers believe

their students are bloomers, they set high expectations for their success. As a result, the
teachers engaged in more supportive behaviors that boost the students’ confidence and
enhances their learning and development.

THE POWER OF POWERLESS COMMUNICATION

 In To Sell Is Human, Daniel Pink argues that our success depends heavily on influence
skills. To convince others to buy our products, use our services, accept our ideas, and
invest in us, we need to communicate in ways that persuade and motivate. But the best
method for influence may not be the one that first comes to mind.

Establishing dominance

These two paths to influence are closely tied to our reciprocity styles. Takers are
attracted to, and excel in, gaining dominance. In an effort to claim as much value as
possible, they strive to be superior to others. To establish dominance, takers specialize
in powerful communication by:

 speaking forcefully
 raising voices to assert their authority
 expressing certainty to project confidence
 promoting their accomplishments
 selling with conviction and pride
 displaying strength by spreading their arms in dominant poses
 raising their eyebrows in challenge
 commanding as much physical space as possible

As a result, takers tend to me much more effective in gaining dominance.

In opposition

The opposite of a taker’s powerful communication style is called powerless

Communication. Powerless communicators tend to;

 speak less assertively

 expressing plenty of doubt
 rely heavily on advice from others
 talk in ways that signal vulnerability
 reveal their weaknesses
 make use of disclaimers, hedges, and hesitations

It turns out that takers style doesn’t always serve us well, and givers instinctively adopt
a powerless communication style that proves surprisingly effective in building prestige.

The value of vulnerability

Takers tend to worry that revealing weaknesses will compromise their dominance and
authority. Givers are much more comfortable expressing vulnerability. By making
themselves vulnerable, givers can actually build prestige. However, expressing
vulnerability is only effective if the audience receives other signals establishing the
speaker’s competence.
 MOTIVATION MAINTENANCE

Successful givers, it turns out, are just as ambitious as takers and matchers. There are
two types of givers, and they have dramatically different success rates.

 Selfless givers are people with high other-interest and low self-interest. They give their
time and energy without regard for their own needs, and they pay a price for it.
 Successful givers are otherish: they care about benefiting others, but they also have
ambitious goals for advancing their own interests.

Being otherish means being willing to give more than you receive, but still keeping your
own interests in sight, using them as a guide for choosing when, where, how, and to
whom you give.

OVERCOMING THE DOORMAT EFFECT

As a giver, you need to recognize that some people operated like takers: they’re so self-
focused that they will take what they can and move on. Be systematic in how you help
other people:

1. Pay more attention to who is asking

2. Pay attention to how they treat you
3. Make a list of reasons to say no.

Once givers start to use their skills in sincerity screening to identify potential takers,
they know when to put up their guard. But sometimes, this awareness sets in too late:
givers have already become loyal to a taker.
.
THE SCROOGE SHIFT

What drives people to join a group with the intention of taking, but then end up giving?

The answer to this question opens up another way that givers avoid the bottom of the
success ladder. When dealing with individuals, it’s sensible for givers to protect
themselves by engaging in sincerity screening and acting primarily like matchers in
exchanges with takers. But in group settings, there’s a different way for givers to make
sure that they’re not being exploited: get everyone in the group to act more like givers.
If a group develops a norm of giving, members will uphold the norm and give, even if
they’re more inclined to be takers or matchers elsewhere. This reduces the risks of
giving: when everyone contributes, the pie is larger, and givers are no longer stuck
contributing far more than they get. But what is it about groups that can tilt members in
the giver direction?

OUT OF THE SHADOWS

You might be underestimating the success of givers. It’s true that some people who
consistently help others without expecting anything in return are the ones who fall to
the bottom. But this same orientation toward giving, with a few adjustments, can also
enable people to rise to the top. Focus attention and energy on making a difference in
the lives of others, and success might follow as a by-product.

Although many of us hold strong giver values, we’re often reluctant to express them at
work. But the growth of teamwork, service jobs, and social media has opened up new
opportunities for givers to develop relationships and reputations that accelerate and
amplify their success.

Defining success

In the mind of a giver, the definition of success itself takes on a distinctive meaning.
Whereas takers view success as attaining results that are superior to others’ and
matchers see success in terms of balancing individual accomplishments with fairness to
others.

Givers are inclined to characterize success as individual achievements that have a positive
impact on others. Taking this definition of success seriously might require dramatic
changes in the way that organizations hire, evaluate, reward, and promote people. It
would mean paying attention not only to the productivity of individual people but also to
the ripple effects of this productivity on others. If success required benefiting others, it’s
possible that takers and matchers would be more inclined to find otherish ways to
advance personal and collective interests simultaneously.