Brunch to discuss "Givers, Takers and Matchers"

Join us for Saturday brunch to discuss the topic of "givers", "takers" and matchers", based on the research from this Ted Talk video

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0 ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0)

Where do you fall on this spectrum? What observations have you made in life about how givers, takers and matchers fair in the workplace, familial relationships or romantic relationships? Come along and enjoy a warm brunch and good conversation to ease into the weekend.
Hope to see some of you there!

Cheers,
Colin

***UPDATE SUMMARY AND QUESTIONS

A summary of some of the points from this video, and other parts of Grant’s work, is below to help stimulate discussion and focus on a few specific topics.

When in a team setting (e.g. work), and someone asks for help, what type of motivation informs your response?
#1. Do you ask yourself: “What is in it for me?” [Taker]
#2. “Will this person repay the favour?” [Matcher- “tit-for-tat”]
#3. “I’m happy to help” (and expect nothing in return) [Giver]

In different contexts (e.g. work, family, etc.) we might have different default motivations. In a romantic relationship one might be a matcher, but as a parent they are a giver, and at work they act as a taker. In other words, we do not necessarily have one unifying default motivation that dominants all our social interactions (though perhaps some people do).
For his research, Grant surveyed 30 000 individuals from engineering, medical students and sales people. He found most people are matchers- they strive for an even balance of give and take. This understanding of reciprocity is reducible to a “quid pro quo”- “I’ll scratch your back if you scratch mine (and if you don’t scratch me back, I make sure you are punished appropriately for your free riding!”).
But is the “matcher” motivation the most effective way to life your live? Grant argues “maybe”.

His research found that the worst performing engineers, medical students, and sales people were “givers”. By being so busy doing other people’s jobs/helping others, their own success suffered.
But there is an interesting twist: who were the best performers? Not the “takers”, because “matchers” want to punish them and so “takers” don’t typically succeed as well over the long run. The best results belonged to the “givers”! In other words, “givers” go to both extremes- they are among the most successful AND the least successful. Why?
Grant argues that the unsuccessful givers are prone to burn out, and, in time, they get jaded and become matchers.

But how were the successful givers able to avoid this, and thus capitalize on their giving? Grant contends that for the successful givers the “Why give?”, “When to give?” and “For whom?” questions were diligently addressed by successful givers. These givers “give” out of a sense of purpose and meaning, which energizes them versus burns them out. By contrast, the unsuccessful givers often gave out a sense of obligation. The successful givers were also very diligent about *when* they give, ensuring that their giving does not undermine their success in producing (e.g. meeting deadlines). Carving out time to give, versus dropping everything anytime someone asked for help, makes a big difference.

And, finally, the successful givers give to help the greater good, but if “takers” are trying to exploit their good will the successful takers let them go. By contrast, unsuccessful givers are prone to being taken advantage by takers because they do not adequately scrutinize who they were trying to benefit.

A few questions we might consider:

#1. Firstly, I think we should be highly sceptical of our own self-evaluations of whether we are givers, takers or matchers. No one is likely to identify as a taker, and certainly they would not acknowledge that in public given it would be very costly to them. So how could we validate which default setting is typical of ourselves? Our own self-reporting? The opinion of our co-workers? Strangers? Friends and family?

#2. Can you think of exemplar examples from your life that represent the three different default settings? What behaviour or traits did you observe that makes you classify someone as a taker, giver or matcher? What life lessons did your interaction with such individuals teach you? Do you think interacting with these individuals altered, for better or worse, your own default motivation setting?

#3. As a culture, which of these motivations do you think we should be trying to inculcate the most and what can be done to achieve this? How can givers best avoid burnout?

#4. How can we weed out takers? As Grant notes, we cannot rely on first impressions. Agreeable people are often assumed to be givers. And disagreeable people to be takers. But this is not so. These are only the outer veneer.

#5. Grant contends that disagreeable givers are the most important to organizations because they give the critical feedback that no one wants to hear, but everyone needs to hear. And a faker is the most dangerous (they kiss up but kick down). Fakers don’t care about those who can’t help them advance themselves. In your work place, how do you feel givers and fakers have been treated?

#6. Successful givers have healthy boundaries, they will say “no” to requests that are not compatible with their giving instincts. This does not mean they are not givers, just that they are not door mats or people pleasers. Do you have any thoughts or experiences with this issue you want to share with the group?

Looking forward to the discussions!
Cheers,
Colin

PS- seating is limited so please be sure to update your RSVP before the event if you cannot make it so anyone on the wait list can attend. thanks!