{"id":5263,"date":"2015-09-21T09:36:48","date_gmt":"2015-09-21T13:36:48","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/debmillswriter.com\/?p=5263"},"modified":"2015-09-21T10:10:35","modified_gmt":"2015-09-21T14:10:35","slug":"givers-takers-or-matchers-in-the-workplace-which-one-are-you-with-adam-grant","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/debmillswriter.com\/?p=5263","title":{"rendered":"Givers, Takers, or Matchers in the Workplace – Which One Are You? – with Adam Grant"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Blog<\/a>Photo Credit: Chuck Scoggins.com<\/a><\/p>\n

A smart and gifted friend of mine is going through a taxing time on her new job. Long hours, piling up responsibilities, with no end in sight. She lamented that maybe the problem is that she’s a people-pleaser.\u00a0That expression seems to communicate a character weakness, and I don’t see that operating so much with this friend of mine. What seems more her dilemma is that she’s what Adam Grant calls a “giver”…which is a good thing. The dilemma for my friend and her workplace is to establish a culture where she, and other givers, can thrive.<\/p>\n

Adam Grant is a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. He has also written this great book – Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/em> I\u00a0<\/em>heard him speak at the Global Leadership Summit<\/a> and bought his book. His take on the three tops of people who make up our work culture was both fascinating and practical.\"Blog<\/a>Photo Credit: Amazon.com<\/a><\/p>\n

Grant sees us all as either givers, takers, or matchers<\/strong>. “It\u2019s very hard to judge our own style. What values you live each day is in the eye of the beholder.” We may not\u00a0necessarily see ourselves in these categories, but our colleagues will. Ask them, if you have the courage. Then you might consider taking what you learn and thinking through how you might use that information to become a more effective employee and valued colleague.<\/p>\n

Takers<\/strong> are those who often manage to do the least amount of work yet gaining the most notice. They manage to get “the lion’s share of credit for collective achievements”, notes Grant. The Takers are the shirkers in the workplace. They are not at their desks because they are off schmoozing (oops, I meant networking, right?) in another department. They somehow get their jobs done partly by leaning on the strong work ethic of the Givers.<\/p>\n

Givers<\/strong> are the people who simply\u00a0enjoy helping others –\u00a0“no strings attached”. They get to work early and stay late, if necessary. Their core values resonate in the quantity and quality of their work.<\/p>\n

Matchers<\/strong> are most of us, really, doing our part in the workplace. Matchers\u00a0can be counted on to keep things “fair” at work. “I\u2019ll do something for you if you do something for me” is their mantra. They believe in “an eye for an eye” and “just worlds”.\u00a0 They are the “fairness” or “Karma” police in the workplace.<\/p>\n

Grant readily admits that we may\u00a0operate out of\u00a0all three styles from time to time, but we each have a dominant style at work.<\/p>\n

How do givers, takers, and matchers fare in the workplace? Which of these sinks to the bottom in terms of performance and impact?<\/p>\n

Givers are the worst performers (but keep reading). “The ones who get the least work done are the ones who help the others and never get their own jobs done”, reports Grant. \u00a0\u201cI love helping others\u201d is not the one on top of the heap of performers. “The lowest revenue accrues to the most generous salespeople.”<\/p>\n

It\u2019s sad news that givers sink to the bottom. If you want to boost your organization, have more givers\u2026.unfortunately the givers do it at their own expense –\u00a0unless the organization builds a culture that helps the givers to thrive.<\/p>\n

Who rises to the top?<\/p>\n

If givers are the worst performers, who are the best performers? You think it\u2019s takers? Takers rise quickly, and fall quickly. They often fall at the hands of the Matchers who can use gossip (or, said another way,\u00a0workplace channels of influence) to call out the abuse of the Takers. Beware, Takers, of the Matchers in the shadows. Also, other Takers can also take down those more abusive, or less-well-liked Takers.<\/p>\n

Are the Matchers the best performers? Not usually. The best results belong to the Givers. Wait! How can they also be the best performers? It\u2019s a both\/and situation.<\/p>\n

Grant encourages: “Helping others can sink your career but it can also accelerate your careers. Hang in there.”<\/p>\n

It takes a while for Givers to learn and build connections, but when they do, it’s a win-win for the organization.<\/p>\n

How can\u00a0we build cultures to help Givers be successful?<\/strong><\/p>\n

3 Things\u00a0We Can\u00a0Do:<\/strong><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Keep the wrong people off the bus. – Get the right people on the bus. <\/strong>If possible, keep Takers off the bus. “One Taker on the team and paranoia starts to spread.” Put one Giver on the team, and you don\u2019t necessarily have an explosion of generosity. It\u2019s not bringing in the Givers; it\u2019s weeding out the Takers. Matchers follow the norm. Matchers will follow the example of the Givers.<\/li>\n
  2. Redefine Giving.\u00a0<\/strong>\u00a0\u00a0Wisdom is to know who is who in the workplace. Or at least not be thrown off by behaviors vs. motives. Then we can shape our work culture to empower Givers, influence Matchers, and avoid\u00a0enabling Takers. In an interview with Adam Grant, Thinkers50<\/a>\u00a0spelled this process out very well. For instance, consider\u00a0Agreeableness vs. Disagreeableness<\/strong> \u2013 in Takers, Givers, and Matchers. We usually think Takers are disagreeable, but not necessarily so. Givers aren’t always agreeable either. Just because someone is nice to you\u00a0(an agreeable Taker) doesn\u2019t mean they care about you (Givers, in general, really care).\u00a0Adam Grant also talks about the importance of kindness in the workplace<\/strong>.\u00a0This is a strength of Givers, but it can also push them to over-work and exhaustion. Grant prescribes “5-minute favors (a microloan of your time, skills, or connections). Volunteering \u2013 100 hours a year<\/strong> \u2013 is the sweet spot. Greater than 100 hours\u00a0a year is too much. 2 hours a week.”<\/li>\n
  3. Encourage Help-Seekers –\u00a0<\/strong>A work culture of Help-Seekers will take silos down. “People step up when\u00a0others say ‘I\u2019m stuck; I need some help’. If no one asks for help, you have a lot of frustrated Givers in your organization.” Grant recommends an exercise called the Reciprocity Ring<\/a>\u00a0–\u00a0Gathering teams together and having each person state a\u00a0request\u00a0of something they want or need and then everyone else in the room tries to use their\u00a0expertise and networks to make it happen. “People are often unbelievably generous if you ask for help. Givers step up. The Takers become more generous. All the offers of help are visible. Takers don\u2019t want to get outed. The Matchers realize that matching is useful, but it\u2019s an inefficient way to run an organization. If you have given help to others without getting back, then you can increase your productivity because you don\u2019t have to just ask those you\u2019ve helped.”<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Givers ask the question “How can I be the rising tide that lifts all boats?” We can move our organizations in this direction of maximum impact and\u00a0satisfaction, by nurturing a Giver culture.\u00a0\u00a0Instead of workplace paranoia,\u00a0imagine a\u00a0culture\u00a0distinguished by a “Pro-noia” – the “delusion” that other people are plotting your wellbeing.\u00a0 May it not be a delusion but a daily reality.<\/p>\n