When someone does you a favor, especially one done out of the blue, it often feels as though you owe them one in return. There is something implicit in human social behavior that makes us want to feel as though we are on an equal social footing with our friends, acquaintances, and coworkers. This is the category that most of us fall into, defined by Adam Grant as matchers.
Generosity exists on a spectrum, from givers on one end to takers at the other, with matchers (most of us) somewhere in the middle. In his book, Grant examines the processes of givers and takers in society and charts how well each do in their given field of expertise. The results are surprising. While we might assume that takers or matchers are the most successful in life, it turns out that people who are givers are more likely to find themselves at both the top and also the bottom of their respective hierarchies, regardless of whether they operate in business, academia, politics, or any other realm of life.
“According to conventional wisdom, highly successful people have three things in common: motivation, ability, and opportunity. If we want to succeed, we need a combination of hard work, talent, and luck.” But there is a fourth ingredient that Grant focuses on in his research, one that’s critical but often neglected: Networking. In addition to our work ethic and technical abilities, success also depends on how we approach our interactions with other people. Friends and acquaintances are how we find out about new job offers and new potential romantic partners. Knowing someone in the right office, or knowing someone who knows someone who can get you an interview, can often help you get that job you desire. It doesn’t matter how skilled or nice you are; the job seekers need to know you exist. Having someone they already trust vouch for you not only puts you on their radar, it gives you a step up on the rest of the competition.
So, how is it that givers are simultaneously both the most successful people and also the least? It depends where on the scale from giver to taker they land. Some people are too far out on the extreme of giving, and give to the point of neglecting themselves—these are the people who struggle to find success because they are too busy helping others. Some people are too often takers, doing everything for themselves and neglecting others. The sweet spot is being generous with others while also keeping our boundaries set so as not to neglect our own priorities. Grant calls this ‘otherish’ giving—these are the givers who succeed in spectacular fashion.
Most people assume that self-interest and other-interest are opposite ends of one continuum, but the reality is that you can have both of them at the same time. “There are two great forces of human nature: self-interest, and caring for others,” Bill Gates once said at the World Economic Forum. “People are most successful when they are driven by a hybrid engine of the two.” This is an important balance, one that the most successful givers are able to find and keep. Givers who find this balance describe their definition of success differently than the average matcher or taker might: “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,” Grant reports, givers understand “success as individual achievements that have a positive impact on others.” Equal parts helping others and helping yourself is how you rise to the top.
Yes, it is possible to achieve great wins as a taker, but that is a different type of success. When takers win, there’s usually someone else who loses—takes live in a zero-sum world. Givers succeed in a way that expands the pie so that everyone gets a larger slice. They rise to the top without cutting others down, finding ways to benefit themselves and the people around them. Which type of success would you prefer: one that others envy, or one that everyone applauds?