Abstract
Every few years, a new idea appears on the scene that offers a remarkably simple solution for improving employee productivity. The latest idea comes in a book that has quickly moved up on the best sellers’ list, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success (Penguin Books, 2013), by Adam Grant. His main thesis is that the amount of help that employees give each other is a hidden dimension of organizational culture that significantly affects productivity in today’s highly networked organizations.
Grant has a PhD in organizational behavior from the University of Michigan and is a professor of management at the Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania. He has done extensive research into the behavioral dynamics of reciprocity and is a prolific giver in his professional life. His consulting and speaking clients include Google, IBM and Goldman Sachs. These credentials give us confidence that he is a knowledgeable source of information. In addition, he writes in a lively, journalistic style that makes the book an enjoyable, easy read.
The book is based on scientific studies of the past three decades that show people differ dramatically in their preferences for reciprocity, which is their desired mix of giving and taking in social interactions. People tend to fall into one of three groups—takers, givers and matchers.
Takers strive to get more than they receive and place their own interests above others’ needs. They are competitive and self-promoting. Givers, a relatively rare breed in the workplace, prefer to give more than they receive. They are focused more on other people’s needs. They are generous in sharing their time, energy and knowledge and do not expect something in return. Matchers, who represent the largest group, strive for an equal exchange of giving and getting. They are willing to help others but expect something in return. The author provides a link to a free tool for people to identify their personal reciprocity style.
By using examples of successful venture capitalists, CEOs, TV comedy writers and professional basketball executives and by citing research studies, Grant builds the case about why givers and giving in general are beneficial to organizations. Some of his reasons are as follows. Because they are held in high regard by their peers, givers create a safe environment in which to share information that facilitates learning and innovation. Givers are particularly valuable to teams that seem to function best when people share information, volunteer for unpopular tasks and give help to others, which givers do in abundance. In a study of CIA intelligence units cited by Grant, the strongest predictor of group effectiveness was not having a clear vision, appropriate rewards and strong leadership but the amount of help analysts gave each other.
Grant issues warnings and suggests safeguards for givers who have a tendency to give too much, burn out and become doormats. He claims that the most effective givers are able to separate their feelings about being interested in others and their own self-interest. Selfless, successful givers care about benefiting others, but they balance it by pursuing personal goals and ambitions. Grant believes that self interest and other-interest are not opposite ends of the same continuum but are on different ones.
Grant provides interesting and research-backed guidance on what drives giving, how to spot takers posing as givers and how givers build social networks, collaborate, develop others and communicate. Readers cannot help by being impressed by the amount of relevant academic research that has been conducted. However, research with organizations that would tend to attract givers and provide a rich source of data, such as hospitals and social agencies, does not seem to exist. Although the book has many citations, one to support this statement could not be found: “Extensive research reveals that the people who give their time and knowledge regularly to help their colleagues end up earning more raises and promotions in a wide range of settings, from banks to manufacturing companies.”
Several actions are recommended to stimulate giving. One is peer-to-peer recognition programs. A 2011 survey of 641 U.S. organizations by WorldatWork found that 43% had such programs. Grant notes that takers are more inclined to help others when they get public recognition for doing so, as is the case in peer-to-peer recognition programs. Another is job crafting, which allows employees to design their job to include more giving opportunities.
Grant’s book provides what will probably be thought-provoking ideas for many HR professionals. He appears to be on the cutting edge in thinking about how work gets done in today’s highly networked organizations and has considerable research to support his views. It is a must-read for those who wish to lead efforts to improve HR processes and outcomes by using a relatively simple, low-cost approach that has potential.