Are You a Giver or a Taker?

“Shouldn't have took more than you gave; Then we wouldn't be in this mess today”

In his recent book, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success,  Wharton professor Adam Grant explores the implications of our reciprocity style on success at work and relationships in general.

Every time we interact with another person at work, we have a choice to make: do we try to claim as much value as we can, or contribute value without worrying about what we receive in return?

People differ dramatically in their preferences for reciprocity – their desired mix of taking and giving.

Takers like to get more than they give. They tilt reciprocity in their own favor, putting their own interests ahead of others’ need. If you’re a taker you help others strategically, when the benefits to you outweigh the personal costs.

Givers are relatively rare. They tilt reciprocity in the other direction, preferring to give more than they get. Whereas takers tend to be self-focused, evaluating what other people can offer them, givers are other-focused, paying more attention to what others need from them. If you’re a giver you help whenever the benefits to others exceed the personal costs.

Matchers strive to preserve an equal balance of giving and getting. Matchers operate on the principle of fairness: when they help others, they protect themselves by seeking reciprocity. If you’re a matcher, you believe in tit for tat, and your relationships are governed be even exchanges of favors.

The vast majority of people develop a primary reciprocity style which captures how they approach most of the people most of the time. You can assess your reciprocity style by completing the self-assessment available on this site:

http://giveandtake.com/

 

Changing My Script - Part 2

In my last post I described the script changes required of me when I decided to join a new gym. That decision should have been made a while back. The conditions prompting the decision have been present for quite a while.

Why did I wait so long?

Perhaps I had some form of commitment to the old gym ...

Organizational behaviorists talk about different kinds of commitment to an organization. The first is normative commitment. This refers to a deeply internalized set of values. People who have normative commitment stay because they feel that they “ought to.”


The second kind of commitment is affective commitment. This is staying because you believe in the organization’s mission and values. You feel you have an opportunity to contribute to something bigger than your self. You are staying because you “want to.”

The third kind of commitment is called continuance commitment. This is staying because “I can’t afford to leave.” It may take the form of “I don’t have another place to go,” or “I have too much invested here,” or “I wouldn’t get the same level of compensation (pay, recognition, title) someplace else.”

Or, it may be because you would have to give up your comfort to change.

Hopefully you realize that affective commitment is the “higher level” of commitment.

But, I wonder how many of us are staying put because of continuance commitment?

Perhaps it’s time to allow yourself the discomfort of changing your script and finding the place where you can commit because you want to!

Changing My Script - Part 1

… and allowing myself the discomfort.

I made a decision to change something this week, and as with most changes it has created some discomfort.

For the last 12 years I have maintained – and actually used – a membership at the same fitness center. However, over the last couple of years the gym has become “old” – there have been no equipment upgrades and much of the existing equipment breaks frequently and the repairs have not been timely.

So I joined a new gym.

And this is requiring multiple script changes. First, the new gym is in a different area. So, the “driving to the gym” script will have to change. There are multiple routes to and from the new place. I have only been 3 times so far, so a new “driving to the gym” script has not been developed.

The “workout script” will also have to change. New machines, new layout. The familiar is gone. It will take a while to get comfortable here.

As I contemplated this decision this week, I realized that a major script change would be required and I almost didn’t do the deal. It would have been much easier – and comfortable – to stay with the old gym, even in decline.

But, I decided to allow myself the discomfort.

As I contemplate all of this, I wonder if people stay in the same job, or go to the same gym, or continue to attend the same church for similar reasons. The thrill of a challenge is gone, needs aren’t being met: yet, it’s comfortable. I know what to expect here and I know what is expected of me.

And besides, change creates discomfort.

Are you willing to allow yourself the discomfort?

Projection

I don't know about you, but when someone tells me to trust them, a warning sign goes off. When someone says, "Trust me on this," it automatically causes me to wonder about their trustworthiness.

You see, I am a high-trust person and my tendency is to trust people until they give me a reason not to. So when someone tells me to trust them, I am suspect. Why are you having to tell me to trust you?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

One explanation for this phenomena may be provided by the pyschological concept of projection. Projection is the tendency to project on to others the same traits we possess, yet deny. Projection occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else.

I have been working my way through a series of studies in the Older Testament. Recently, I came across this description of Jacob:

"Jacob was also hindered by his own bad character. He had been deceitful and treacherous to others, including his own twin brother (whose birth-right he had stolen), and he therefore expected others to treat him in the same manner. Men who are not trustworthy have a very difficult time trusting others - including God, the only One who is truly trustworthy." (MacArthur, The Father of Israel, p. 89).

Trust is a key component of any relationship and it is particularly important in the leader-follower relationship. Think about it: Do you want to follow a leader you don't trust?

So, when a leader begins to demand that we trust them, or to demand our loyalty, I begin to wonder about this idea of projection.

• Are you demanding trust and loyalty because you are not trustworthy and loyal?
• Are you expecting me to breach trust and become disloyal because you yourself aren't trustworthy and loyal?

Selective Exposure

Early in my teaching career I had the opportunity to teach a course called Human Behavior in Organizations. The title is somewhat misleading because we actually used a Social Psychology textbook. The link between the text and organizational behavior was an easy one, but that link had to be supplied in the lectures and application exercises I integrated into the course.


I enjoyed teaching the course and there are several concepts and models that are so relevant and practical in everyday life. So, this is the first of several posts I will be making on the practical application of concepts from social psychology.

Here's a very interesting concept. It describes something we all do - and probably didn't know it had a name. Here's how it works: I am facing a decision and I am leaning one way as opposed to another? But I know I need to "seek wise counsel," so I decide to ask for some advice. But here's what I do: I choose to ask someone I think will support the direction I'm leaning. And I avoid asking the person who might not support that direction.

Actually this behavior begins very early in life. Our children - and now I have discovered my grandchildren - learn who to ask depending on the issue or desire. "Ask Dad, he always says yes. Don't ask Mom, she never let's us do that."

This is called selective exposure. This is the tendency to seek out information that supports our idea or position and to discount or avoid information that contradicts or opposes our ideas.

We do this a lot with reading books. We tend to read stuff that reinforces our position. And we don't read stuff that might criticize our positions - or expand our perspective. We avoid information that might cause us to see another point of view or another dimension to a complex issue. It reminds me of a statement I heard once - "Don't confuse me with the facts. I have made up my mind."

Recently I observed a very interesting case of selective exposure. There was a discussion concerning the need for leaders to make tough calls on personnel and provide some employees - even long-term employees - the opportunity to "thrive elsewhere."

Interestingly, support for this decision-making process was selected from Jim Collins' idea of getting the right people on the bus and getting the wrong people off the bus. This comes from his book Good to Great. I agree with this principle, and have had to make those tough decisions on numerous occasions.

But there is another principle in that book that was not selected as part of this recent discussion. Collins also discusses what he calls the Level 5 Leader. These leaders are characterized by a "paradoxical blend of professional will and personal humility." They practice what Collins calls "The Window and the Mirror."

According to this principle, when things are going well, the leader looks out the window to see who they can give the credit to. When things aren't going well, the Level 5 Leader looks in the mirror to examine himself and ask: "what do I need to change about my self in order to fix this? What could I have done differently to prevent this? What do I need to differently in the future to keep this from happening again?"

I am sure that you have worked for people who practiced the window and the mirror in the exact opposite way: They take the credit for success (mirror) and seek to blame others for failures (window). The Bohicans were very good at this.

Which brings me back to selective exposure: The recent leadership discussion focused on the "get the right people on the bus" principle. That principle supported the ideas being advanced. But that principle also needs to be balanced with the "window and the mirror." As leaders we need to first examine ourselves by spending some intense time "looking in the mirror" and asking ourselves some tough questions.

Gandhi said "I need to be the change that I want to see in the world." I think that's a good point of beginning for leaders. We need to examine ourselves and make the necessary changes in our own behaviors and attitudes first.

When we have done that, then we can deal with who should or shouldn't be on the bus.