Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (My 3 Takeaways)

As a child who grew up in the 1980s, my family had one of those TVs that predated remote controls and even pushbuttons. Our TV then had dials, which we alternated among our three local channels, 6 (NBC), 7 (ABC), and 10 (CBS).

The tiny selection of channels available to us exploded when my family purchased a cable TV subscription, giving us access to dozens of channels from across the country, including WGN from Chicago. At that time, WGN broadcasted the vast majority of the Chicago Bulls basketball games, featuring Michael Jordan, arguably the greatest player of all time.

Immersed by near-nightly examples of Jordan dominating his opponents, it was hard not to want to “be like Mike” as the ubiquitous Gatorade ad proclaimed. Jordan’s brand of fiery, my-way-or-the-highway leadership was on full display throughout 2020’s “The Last Dance.”

“To be successful you have to be selfish,” Jordan once remarked.

Although this self-centered motivation drove Jordan’s incredible success on the basketball court, it also may have kept him from finding success off the court in his front office roles for the Washington Wizards and Charlotte Bobcats, now Charlotte Hornets.

In his 2013 book, “Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success,” author Adam Grant cites Jordan’s inability to move on from the selection of Kwame Brown, the first overall draft pick of the Wizards in 2001 and Jordan’s first pick as team president, as evidence that Jordan’s over-sized ego had proven to be an obstacle to his success in management and team development.

Charles Barkley, one of Jordan’s former Olympic basketball teammates, said, “I don’t think Michael has hired enough people around him who will disagree.”

Grant contrasts Jordan with Stu Inman, an executive for the Portland Trail Blazers in the 1970s and 80s who infamously selected Sam Bowie one spot before the Bulls took Jordan. Although Inman made his share of mistakes in player selections, his under-sized ego and ability to identify and move on from mistakes enabled him to become one of the top basketball executives of all time.

“To the casual fan, it may appear that Inman was a failure, but basketball insiders regard him as one of the finest talent evaluators the sport has ever seen,” Grant wrote. “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.”

For Grant, Inman represents a “giver,” or a person whose reciprocity style prefers to give more than they get, which makes them give greater attention to what others may need from them as opposed to what they can get from others.

On the opposite side of the reciprocity spectrum are “takers,” who are much more interested in self-advancement and who focus on what others can offer them. Takers believe in a “dog eat dog” world where success is a zero-sum game. In other words, if one person wins, the other loses.

Finally, in the middle, are “matchers,” who strive for a balance between giving and taking.

Although givers, takers, and matchers all are capable of achieving success, the way in which they do so can be destructive or transformational for a team. “When takers win, there’s usually someone else who loses,” Grant said. “Givers succeed in a way that creates a ripple effect, enhancing the success of people around them. You’ll see that the difference lies in how giver success creates value, instead of just claiming it.”

Here are my three biggest takeaways.

Takeaway #1 - Success is a Team Sport

Whether Jordan, Jonas Salk, or Frank Lloyd Wright, Grant observes that Western culture tends “to privilege the lone genius who generates ideas that enthrall us, or change our world.” Americans, according to a research study Grant cites by three Stanford psychologists, see independence as a symbol of strength and view interdependence as a sign of weakness.

However, Grant cites a research study by Robert Huckman and Gary Pisano that reveals that success is more of a team sport than most Americans may acknowledge.

In a two-year study, Huckman and Pisano followed 38,577 procedures performed by 203 cardiac surgeons at 43 hospitals. They were trying to understand whether or not doctors’ success in such high-risk surgeries improved with more practice and repetition. However, when Huckman and Pisano examined the data, they found that the surgeons did not perform at higher levels with more practice, but rather that their success was greater at the specific hospital where they practiced.

Practice itself, it seemed, did not make perfect. What made a positive difference was the collegiality and familiarity surgeons developed with their teams.

This effect is not unique to healthcare settings.

Boris Groysberg designed a study of financial analysts over nine years at 78 different firms. The analysts were ranked, and the top 3 analysts in each of 80 industry sectors were deemed “stars.” Over the nine years of the study, 9 percent of those stars moved to different firms, which enabled Groysberg to see which ones maintained high levels of performance.

Groysberg found that the stars were 5 percent less likely to be ranked first and 8 percent more likely to be unranked after their moves, and firms lost an average of $24 million by hiring those star analysts.

However, that wasn’t universally true. Stars who moved with their teams had no decline in their performance. Compared to the stars who moved on their own, those who moved with their teams were twice as likely to be ranked first-the same as those who didn’t move to new firms. The results showed that high performance was easier to maintain when they maintained relationships with high-quality colleagues with whom they could share knowledge and new ideas.

It is this ability to see one’s self as a collaborator and equal contributor to a common goal that makes a difference. Grant cites a study by University of Minnesota researchers Eugene Kim and Theresa Glomb who found that highly talented people tend to make those around them jealous, which places them at risk for being disliked, resented, ostracized, and undermined. However, when those highly talented people display “giver” tendencies, they are no longer seen as targets or threats.

This is illustrated throughout the chapter by George Meyer, a long-time writer for The Simpsons who colleagues consistently point out is more responsible for the show’s success than is indicated by the number of times his name has appeared in an episode’s end credits.

“I tried to create a climate in the room where everybody feels that they can contribute, that it’s okay to fall on your face many, many times,” Meyer said.

In this way, Meyer identified success as those times when the best content made the show, not when his content was part of the show.

Takeaway #2 - What You See is What You Get

Grant shared the story of a research study led by Harvard psychologist Robert Rosenthal and elementary school principal Lenore Jacobson of 18 classrooms comprised of students from kindergarten to 5th grade. The students were administered a test of their verbal and reasoning skills. After the test, Rosenthal and Jacobson shared the results with teachers, which showed that 20 percent of the students were “bloomers,” or students with high potential.

After one year, the students completed the cognitive ability test a second time. The IQ scores of the so-called bloomers had increased by an average of 12 points, while the scores of their classmates increased by an average of just 8 points. After two years, the bloomers were still outperforming their classmates.

However, there was a problem. The bloomers hadn’t actually scored higher on the first test before being identified as bloomers. They were simply chosen at random. The only difference in the students’ ability, then, “was in the mind of the teacher.” That difference, however, made a very real difference in those students’ outcomes even two years later.

“Teachers’ beliefs created self-fulfilling prophesies,” Grant said. “The teachers engaged in more supportive behaviors that boosted students. confidence and enhanced their learning and development. Teachers communicated more warmly to the bloomers, gave them more challenging assignments, called on them more often, and provided them with more feedback.”

As Grant pointed out, these results have been replicated in professional settings, even in military settings, such as Dov Eden’s study with the Israel Defense Forces, which found, “The supportive behaviors of the platoon leaders boosted the confidence and ability of the trainees, enabling and encouraging them to achieve higher performance.”

Grant said, “Success depends heavily on how we approach our interactions with other people,” while Neil Barringham phrased this more quaintly as, “The grass is greener where you water it.”

This phenomenon, however, extends beyond the positive behaviors extended to those who are seen as having “high potential.” According to Grant, research shows that so-called “takers,” who believe in a “dog eat dog” “zero-sum” world are less likely to trust others around them. Thus, they are vigilantly watching for ways in which others may harm them, which creates doubt, mistrust, and suspicion. “These low expectations trigger a vicious cycle, constraining the development and motivation of others,” Grant said.

As I’ve said numerous times on this site, “if you want to get the best out of people, first look for the best inside of them.”

Takeaway #3 - The Power of Powerless Communication

In Chapter 5, Grant explores the impact of givers and takers as influencers, one of the core responsibilities of leadership, claiming 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,” Grant said. “When we earn prestige, we become influential because others respect and admire us.”

Not surprisingly, Grant argued that takers tend to favor assertive and dominant styles of communication and influence, which reflect the “zero-sum” way they see the world. The more authority and power I have, the less others have, and vice versa.

As a result, such dominant styles may not be sustainable, which may make powerless styles of communication more valuable in the long-term.

Powerless communication styles are characterized by speaking less assertively, expressing plenty of doubt, and relying heavily on advice from others, thus signaling vulnerability.

On the surface, this may seem like a flimsy way of influencing others, particularly in a heavily results-driven sales environment, but the effectiveness of powerless communication in such realms may surprise you.

In a study of the effectiveness of givers, matchers, and takers as salespeople for LensCrafters, Grant found that the average giver brought in over 30 percent more annual revenue than matchers and 68 percent more than takers. If all of LensCrafters salespeople were givers, the company’s annual revenue would increase from $11.5 million to $15.1 million.

Why are givers so effective at influencing through powerless communication? Grant cites a research study by Alison Fragale, which found that people respond more positively in collaborative situations when people speak more tentatively, which shows a willingness to take somebody else’s opinions into consideration. In such situations, most people tend to resist displays of dominance, which echoes Paul J. Zak’s work in The Trust Factor.

Likewise, powerless communication styles are far more effect in team settings. When managers use dominant communication styles, they discourage their employees from contributing. Fragale said that others perceive those who use dominant styles as “preferring and pursuing individual accomplishments at the expense of group accomplishments.”

Powerless communicators, however, are able to leverage prestige as an influence style, which promotes collaboration and openness while creating a space for others to share their ideas.