Give and Take Flashcards
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. Extensive research demonstrates that people with rich networks achieve higher performance ratings, get promoted faster, and earn more money.
If we create networks with the sole intention of getting something, we won’t succeed.
We can’t pursue the benefits of networks; the benefits ensue from investments in meaningful activities and relationships.”
When favors come with strings attached or implied, the interaction can leave a bad taste,
feeling more like a transaction than part of a meaningful relationship.
At its core, the giver approach extends a broader reach, and in doing so enlarges the range of potential payoffs,
regardless of who they are, “you should be asking yourself, ‘How can I help the other person?
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.
Here’s the wrinkle: it’s tough to ask weak ties for help.
Although they’re the faster route to new leads, we don’t always feel comfortable reaching out to them. The lack of mutual trust between acquaintances creates a psychological barrier. But givers like Adam Rifkin have discovered a loophole.
It’s possible to get the best of both worlds: the trust of strong ties coupled with the novel information of weak ties.
The key is reconnecting, and it’s a major reason why givers succeed in the long run
His secret was deceptively simple:
he asked thoughtful questions and listened with remarkable patience.
“Where do you need Help?”
The takers were black holes. They sucked the energy from those around them. The givers were suns: they injected light around the organization.
Givers created opportunities for their colleagues to contribute, rather than imposing their ideas and hogging credit for achievements. When they disagreed with suggestions, givers showed respect for the people who spoke up, rather than belittling them.
He believes that we should see networks as a vehicle for creating value for everyone,
not just claiming it for ourselves.
Instead of Trading Vale
Look to Add Value. You should be willing to do something that will take you five minutes or less for anybody
The takers had the lowest status. They burned bridges by constantly asking for favors but rarely reciprocating
Their colleagues saw them as selfish and punished them with a lack of respect. The givers had the highest status, outdoing the matchers and takers.”
Of all engineers, the most productive were those who gave often—and gave more than they received. These were the true givers, and they had the highest productivity and the highest status:
they were revered by their peers. By giving often, engineers built up more trust and attracted more valuable help from across their work groups—not just from the people they helped.”
By virtue of the way they interact with other people in their networks, givers create norms that favor adding rather than claiming or trading value, expanding the pie for all involved.
When they truly need help, givers can reconnect with dormant ties, receiving novel assistance from near-forgotten but trusted sources.
“I’ll sum up the key to success in one word: generosity,”
“If your interactions are ruled by generosity, your rewards will follow suit.”
a defining feature of how givers collaborate:
they take on the tasks that are in the group’s best interest, not necessarily their own personal interests. This makes their groups better off
highly talented people tend to make others jealous, placing them“selves at risk of being disliked, resented, ostracized, and undermined.
But if these talented people are also givers, they no longer have a target on their backs. Instead, givers are appreciated for their contributions to the group.
By taking on tasks that his colleagues didn’t want, Meyer was able to dazzle them with his wit and humor without eliciting envy.
Meyer summarizes his code of honor as “(1) Show up. (2) Work hard. (3) Be kind. (4) Take the high road.”
when people act generously in groups, they earn idiosyncrasy credits
positive impressions that accumulate in the minds of group members. Since many people think like matchers, when they work in groups, it’s very common for them to keep track of each member’s credits and debits.
Once a group member earns idiosyncrasy credits through giving, matchers grant that member a license to deviate from a group’s norms or expectations. As Berkeley sociologist Robb Willer summarizes, “Groups reward individual sacrifice.
there’s something magical about getting the reputation as someone who
cares about others more than yourself
“The key to balancing our responsibility judgments is to focus our attention on
what others have contributed. All you need to do is make a list of what your partner contributes before you estimate your own contribution.”
The givers shouldered the blame for failures and gave their partners more credit for successes.”
he’s incredibly tough on himself when things go badly, but quick to congratulate others when things go well
This ability to imagine other people’s perspectives, rather than getting stuck in our own perspectives
is a signature skill of successful givers in collaborations
When we treat man as he is, we make him worse than he is;
when we treat him as if he already were what he potentially could be, we make him what he should be.
They see people as bloomers naturally, without ever being told.
This is rarely the case for takers, who tend to place little trust in other people.
Even when takers are impressed by another person’s capabilities or motivation, they’re more likely to see this person as a threat, which means they’re less willing to support and develop him or her.
As a result, takers frequently fail to engage in the types of supportive behaviors that are conducive to the confidence and development of their peers and subordinates.”
By default, givers start by viewing people as bloomers. This is exactly what has enabled C. J. Skender to develop so many star students.
He isn’t unusual in recognizing talented people; he simply starts by seeing everyone as talented and tries to bring out the best in them.”
Today, we have compelling evidence that interest precedes the development of talent
It turns out that motivation is the reason that people develop talent in the first place.”
Setting high expectations is so important,
You have to push people, make them stretch and do more than they think possible.
One of the keys to cultivating grit is making the task at hand more interesting and motivating.
The givers, on the other hand, were primarily concerned about protecting other people and the organization
so they were more willing to admit their initial mistakes and de-escalate their commitment.
Other studies show that people actually make more accurate and creative decisions when they’re choosing on behalf of others than themselves. When people make decisions in a self-focused state, they’re more likely to be biased by ego threat and often agonize over trying to find a choice that’s ideal in all possible dimensions.
Research suggests that there are two fundamental paths to influence: dominance and prestige.
When we establish dominance, we gain influence because others see us as strong, powerful, and authoritative. When we earn prestige, we become influential because others respect and admire us.”
When our audiences are skeptical, the more we try to dominate them, the more they resist
Powerless communicators tend to speak less assertively, expressing plenty of doubt and relying heavily on advice from others. They talk in ways that signal vulnerability, revealing their weaknesses and making use of disclaimers, hedges, and hesitations
givers develop prestige in four domains of influence: presenting, selling, persuading, and negotiating.
Because they value the perspectives and interests of others, givers are more inclined toward asking questions than offering answers, talking tentatively than boldly, admitting their weaknesses than displaying their strengths, and seeking advice than imposing their views on others.
Givers are much more comfortable expressing vulnerability:
they’re interested in helping others, not gaining power over them, so they’re not afraid of exposing chinks in their armor.
By making themselves vulnerable, givers can actually build prestige.
But there’s a twist: expressing vulnerability is only effective if the audience receives other signals establishing the speaker’s competence. ”
When the average candidate was clumsy, audiences liked him even less.
But when the expert was clumsy, audiences liked him even more.
Psychologists call this the pratfall effect.
the same blunder helped the expert appear human and approachable—instead of superior and distant”
“It’s the givers, by virtue of their interest in getting to know us, who ask us the questions that enable us to experience the joy of learning from ourselves.
And by giving us the floor, givers are actually learning about us and from us, which helps them figure out how to sell us things we already value.”
