Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success

Grant opens the chapter by describing the life of a man who seems to be honest, humble, giving, and full of integrity, but then reveals him to be Kenneth Lay, “a primary villain in the Enron scandal” (27). According to Grant, Lay was a “faker,” a taker pretending to be a giver. Even though Lay rose from poverty, served in the Navy and US government, headed a company that was named one of the best places to work, and claimed that one of his favorite values was the golden rule, Lay’s behavior demonstrated a disconnect between his words and actions.

Grant discusses various ways to spot a taker, especially one who is in a position of power, such as the chief executive officer (CEO) of a company. He mentions that takers often display deference and charm to those in positions of power but treat their subordinates poorly. Since most people at work are matchers, individuals who value fairness, they tend to punish takers by spreading information about them. As a result, the reputations of takers suffer.

Apart from reputational information, other clues that a CEO may be a taker include: “lekking” (a term Grant borrows from the animal kingdom, which is akin to peacocking, or showing off); overusing first-person singular pronouns (I, me, myself) when talking about their company; receiving a disproportionately high amount of compensation compared to the next-highest earner in their company; and including overly large photos of themselves in annual reports.

Grant points out that Lay benefited from a particular point in history. In previous centuries, people had smaller, tighter networks, in which word traveled fast; news of a taker or faker would spread quickly and their reputation would be tarnished. But during Lay’s time at Enron, social networks were more dispersed, and he could move from contact to contact without much information about his true character or intentions reaching others. However, since the fall of Enron, the proliferation of social media has made it incredibly easy to spread information and expose the true character of individuals in positions of power. Grant mentions a study that found that takers could be spotted by examining their Facebook profiles; they tended to have profiles that were vainer and more self-absorbed.

Grant examines the ways in which people of different reciprocity styles build networks. Despite being a taker, Lay was successful because he built a vast network of powerful contacts that he would call upon for favors; he aligned himself with prominent politicians like George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and George W. Bush. According to Grant, matchers and takers give strategically, with an expectation of quid pro quo (giving a favor with the expectation of a favor in return), something Grant describes as a “norm of reciprocity” (43). He points out two downsides to this norm of reciprocity. For one thing, people who interact with takers can feel manipulated. This was the case for George W. Bush, who pushed Lay to the outskirts of his social circle. Secondly, matchers tend to build smaller networks than givers or takers. While givers help widely, and takers seek favors from many, matchers are more selective in their interactions. As a result, the networks of matchers are often smaller and lower in quality. However, Grant claims that while givers and takers both have large networks, givers “produce far more lasting value through their networks” (31).

Grant cites a 2011 study by the publication Fortune, which identified the best networker in the United States. This person turned out to be Adam Rifkin (nicknamed “the Panda”), a shy programmer and startup founder. Rifkin was connected to a huge number of influential people. Grant points out he built his network by being a giver.

Rifkin has a personal mission to help others and to encourage others to do the same. In his interactions, he continually gives without expectation of reciprocation. He cofounded a group called 106 Miles, a professional network that aims to help and educate entrepreneurial engineers. Rifkin encourages everyone in the group to help each other generously, rather than acting transactionally. He tells members to assist each other in any way they can, with the belief that the act of giving will ultimately lead to personal and collective success.

Grant quotes one of Rifkin’s oft-repeated phrases, “I believe in the strength of weak ties” (47). Weak ties are connections with acquaintances or individuals outside of one’s immediate social circle. On the other hand, strong ties are connections with close friends or family members. Counterintuitively, weak ties are more beneficial for expanding one’s network and gaining access to new resources and opportunities because they introduce more novelty than strong ties.

Grant describes a third type of tie: dormant ties. Dormant ties are connections that were once strong but have weakened over time due to lack of interaction. He describes how dormant ties can be an untapped resource in networking; they provide the novelty of weak ties, but the easy familiarity and trust of strong ties. According to Grant, givers have an easier time than takers or matchers when it comes to rekindling dormant ties, because they’ve built up goodwill through their prior acts of giving.

Lastly, Grant points out that givers can influence other people to be more giving. He cites a study that showed that people who displayed giving behavior were more likely to inspire and motivate others to also make small sacrifices for the good of the collective.