B00AFPTSI0 EBOK (47 page)

Second Life, 264

Seeley, Elizabeth, 179

Seinfeld
, 62, 93

Self-fulfilling prophecy, 99–102

teacher behaviors related to, 99–102

Self-interest, as motivation of givers, 156–58

Selfless giving

asking for help, avoiding, 176–77, 268

empathy trap, 195–201

as pathological altruism, 157–58, 170, 170n

in politics and giver, 12–15

productivity problem of, 172–73, 186–87

pushover effect and givers, 189–215

Selling

and givers, 137–42

and powerless speech, 136–42

stereotypical views of, 135

SendLove, 264

Service sector, givers in, 17–20

ServiceSpace, 266

Shader, Danny, 1–5, 8–9, 192–93

Shambora, Jessica, 42

Shields, James, 11–12

Shipp, Abbie, 187

Showtime, 53–54, 229

Sicoly, Fiore, 81

Silten, Bobbi, 16

Silverstein, Shel, 21

Simmons, Russell, talent in others, recognizing, 119–20

Simon, Carley, 128

Simon, Herbert, 155, 185

Simon, Sam, 63, 67, 88–89

Simonsohn, Uri, 231n

Simpsons, The
, 63–64, 66

as collaborative effort, 74, 76–77, 77n, 83–86

Sincerity screening, 189–94

and agreeable versus disagreeable persons, 191–93

Singer, Tania, 165

Skender, C. J.

habits of, 107n

talent in others, recognizing, 96–97, 101–2, 105–6, 117–18

Skilling, Jeff, 37

Small, Deborah, 231

Smith, Adam, 216, 220, 222

Smith, Charles Miller, 180

Smith, Dean, 123n

Smith, Tommie, 110–11

Smith, Will, 93, 158

Soccorsy, Ben, 168

Social networks.
See also
Networking

beginning of, 38

best networker (2011), 31, 41–43

reputational information, access to, 38–39

takers, recognizing on, 30, 39–41, 43

Social support, burn-out, benefits for, 177–78

Sonju, Norm, 118

Sonnentag, Sabine, 176n

Sorenson, Derek, as giver, shift to, 250–54

Spencer, Graham, 46–50

Spitznagel, Eric, 66

Sprinkling, versus chunking, 170–75

Stanton, Edwin, 16

Staw, Barry, 112–13

Stephen, Andrew, 231

Stern, Ithai, 150

Stockton, John, 109

Stossel, John, 128–29

Stress.
See also
Burn-out

fight or flight, 177

Student Advisory Centre, 184–85

Stuttering, 128–29

Success

of givers, 6–10, 15–17, 156–58

giver view of, 257

matcher view of, 256–57

taker view of, 256

traits related to, 4

wealth-giving connection, 181–82

Summit of Industrialized Nations, 29

Sunk cost fallacy, 113

Sun Tzu, 21–22

Superhero traits, 234–35

Sze, David, 41n

T

Tafel, Edgar, 68

Tag questions, in powerless speech, 144

Takers

advice seeking from, 153

becoming givers, 219–20, 245–49

board of director positions, 150

call center productivity, 162–63

CEO takers, recognizing, 34–38

and collaboration, 69–70

and creativity, 65, 67–69

disguised as givers, 31–39

and empathy trap, 195–201

and escalation of commitment, 113–17

expectations of others, low, 101

favors, expected return from, 44–45, 58

first impressions of, 32

geniuses as, 63

independence versus interdependence, 69–73, 81

influence, traits related to, 130

“kissing up, kicking down,” 32–33

losses/decline of, 28, 33–34, 45, 67–69, 80–81

negotiation by, 149

and networking, 29–30, 39–41, 43–46, 56

perspective gap, 88, 91–92

in power, behavior of, 33

powerful communication, 130, 133, 147

punished by matchers, 33–34

in Reciprocity Ring, 244–45

responsibility bias of, 82, 84

sincerity screening to identify, 189–94

social networks revelations about, 39–41, 43

success, view of, 256

tendencies related to, 4, 25

Talent development, 94–125

basketball players and coach, 108–11, 115–22, 124–25

concert pianist study, 104–5

disappointing candidates, investing in, 108–12

encouragement, effects of, 102–8

escalation of commitment concept, 112–17

and givers, 101–2, 106–7, 114–17

grit and success, 105–6

investment theory of intelligence, 104

and matchers, 101

practice and success, 104

self-fulfilling prophecy, 99–102

and takers, 101, 113–14

teachers and students, 96–97, 99–102, 105–8

from test results, 98–99, 100

traditional approach to, 103–4

undervalued persons, giving chance to, 118–25

Taliesin, 69

Taylor, Shelley, 178

Teachers

burn-out, 160–61, 165–66

as givers, 101–2, 106–7, 160–78

self-fulfilling prophecy, 99–102

student potential, developing, 96–97, 101–2, 105–8

Teach for America (TFA), 159–62

Team Vanguard, 175

Teams and teamwork.
See
Collaboration

Tentative markers, in powerless speech, 144–46

Thompson, Wayne, 111, 115, 117–18

Tit for tat

generous tit for tat, 198–201

as matcher strategy, 198

Tocqueville, Alexis de, 242

Todd, Mary, 199

Traynham, Beth, potential, recognized by others, 95, 97, 105

Trumbull, Lyman, 11–14, 199–200

Trusting others, 189–94

empathy trap, 195–201

sincerity screening, 189–94

Tutu, Desmond, 184

Twain, Mark, 1, 10

U

Ultimatum game, 33

Up Your Giggy
, 65

Uzzi, Brian, 30

V

Values, cross-cultural view, 20–21

Venture capitalists, as givers, 1–9, 17, 23–25

Virgin Unite, 184

Vitti, Jon, 77

Vohs, Kathleen, 183

Volkswagen, ads, success of, 142–46

Volunteers

and happiness, 183

hundred hour rule and happiness, 173–74

Vulnerability

and powerless communication, 151

and powerless speech, 133–35

W

Waal, Frans de, 223

Walker, Charls, 29

Walker, Larry, 156

Walker, Pinkney, 29

Wallaert, Matt, 265

Walter, Jorge, 50

Walton, Bill, 117, 119, 129

Walton, Dave, powerless communication style of, 126–29, 134–35, 141–42, 146

Ward, Elsie, 79

Wealth, -giving connection, 181–82

Webster, Gregory, 38

Weinberg, Larry, 122

Weiner, Jeff, 41

Weinstein, Dan, 44

Weinstein, Netta, 175

Welch, Jack, 128–29

Welle, Brian, 263

Weller, Thomas, 79, 82

Wentworth, John, 199–200

Westphal, James, 150

Wikipedia, 223

Willer, Rob, 34, 76, 218, 227

Williams, Evan, 31, 52

Wiseman, Liz, 63

Women

as givers versus men, 203–4n

glass ceiling, 201–3, 203–4n

Wonder Years, The
, 62

Workplace

givers, fears of, 22–23, 241–43, 254–55

job crafting, 262–63

reciprocity patterns in, 5–6

Wright, Frank Lloyd

career ups and downs of, 67–69

collaborative style of, 69, 78

credit for work, claiming, 78, 92

dishonesty of, 68, 78

family motto of, 73

and perspective gap, 91–92, 92n

taker traits of, 67–70, 78

Wright, John, 68, 92

Wrzesniewski, Amy, 262–63

Wuthnow, Robert, 242

Y

Younger, Julius, 79–81

YouTube, 49

Yurochko, Francis, 79

Z

Zak, Sonya, 218

Zellman, Harold, 68

ZocDoc, 267

*
Alan Fiske, an anthropologist at UCLA, finds that
people engage in a mix of giving, taking, and matching
in every human culture—from North to South America, Europe to Africa, and Australia to Asia. While living with a West African tribal group in Burkina Faso called the Mossi, Fiske found people switching between giving, taking, and matching. When it comes to land, the Mossi are givers. If you want to move into their village, they will automatically grant you land without expecting anything in return. But in the marketplace, the Mossi are more inclined toward taking, haggling aggressively for the best prices. And when it comes to cultivating food, the Mossi are likely to be matchers: everyone is expected to make an equal contribution, and meals are divided into even shares.

*
Interestingly, in ultimatum games, it’s rare for the divider to propose anything that’s so lopsided. More than three quarters of dividers propose a perfectly even split, acting like matchers.

*
In the computer industry study, when taker CEOs were at the helm, firms had more fluctuating, extreme performance, as measured by total shareholder returns and return on assets. They had bigger wins, but bigger losses. The takers were supremely confident in their bets, so they swung for the fences. They made bold, grandiose moves, which included more and larger acquisitions, as well as major upheavals to company strategy. Sometimes these moves paid off, but in the long run, the takers often put their companies in jeopardy.

*
This is a nod to a “Weird Al” Yankovic song about nerds, which includes the line, “I’m fluent in JavaScript as well as Klingon.” For the record, Rifkin worries about the amount of time that he has wasted in his life typing two spaces after a period, instead of one.

*
Technically, since LinkedIn employees have a host of advantages in connecting with people on LinkedIn, insiders were excluded from the
Fortune
analysis. Unofficially, it is noteworthy that Rifkin topped every LinkedIn employee except two: founder Reid Hoffman and board member and investor David Sze.

*
Of course, when takers and matchers give to receive, they do so with different aims. Takers are usually looking to get as much as possible, whereas matchers are motivated to maintain equal exchanges.

*
Although my focus is on George Meyer, it’s important to acknowledge that the comedy on
The Simpsons
has always been a collective achievement. In particular, Meyer is quick to praise Jon Swartzwelder, who has written five dozen episodes, more than double any other writer in show history. Other contributors with many writing credits include Joel Cohen, John Frink, Dan Greaney, Al Jean, Tim Long, Ian Maxtone-Graham, Carolyn Omine, Don Payne, Matt Selman, and Jon Vitti. Of course, Meyer notes, this list doesn’t include the creators and many other writers, producers, and animators who have shaped the show’s success. Meyer started sharing credit early on. “In
Army Man
, I felt if people were going to write, they should get credit for it, especially since they were doing it for free.” He used a unique Army symbol to acknowledge each writer’s contribution. “It was a bad decision,” Meyer says, laughing, “because I had to cut all of them out with an X-Acto knife, and rubber-cement them to this board I was using. It was hard to find them in the pattern on my bedspread.”

*
Many insiders believe that the credit-taking incident, coupled with the attention Salk gave to the media, was a major reason why the National Academy of Sciences never admitted Salk. But debate continues about why he wasn’t awarded a Nobel Prize. Some scientists have argued that although the polio vaccine made an invaluable applied contribution to public health, it wasn’t an original contribution to fundamental scientific knowledge.

*
Is there a dark side to psychological safety? Many managers believe that by tolerating mistakes, they’re sending a message that it’s okay to make mistakes. Such mistakes might not be disastrous on a television sitcom, but consider a setting where lives are on the line: hospital units. Edmondson asked members of eight hospital units to rate how much psychological safety they felt in the unit, and how many medication errors they made. Sure enough, the higher the psychological safety, the greater the number of errors reported. In units where health care professionals felt their mistakes would be forgiven, they seemed more likely to deliver the wrong medication to patients, putting them at risk for ineffective treatment or allergic reactions. It makes intuitive sense that tolerance for errors would cause people to become complacent and make more errors, but Edmondson wasn’t convinced. She reasoned that psychological safety was increasing comfort with reporting errors, not causing errors. Sure enough, the higher a unit’s psychological safety, the more errors reported. But when Edmondson examined more objective, independent data on medication errors, the psychologically safe units didn’t actually make more errors. In fact, the higher the psychological safety in a unit, the
fewer
errors they made. Why? In the units that lacked psychological safety, health care professionals hid their errors, fearing retribution. As a result, they weren’t able to learn from their mistakes. In the units with high psychological safety, on the other hand, reporting errors made it possible to prevent them moving forward.

*
Of course, my wife observed, our friends will love the candlesticks—they just didn’t know that such an exquisite gift existed. If they did, the candlesticks surely would have been on their registry. And she was right.

*
Growing up as the oldest child in his family, Meyer had plenty of opportunities to practice perspective taking. Studies show that having
younger siblings
develops our giver instincts by providing experience with teaching, child care, feeding, and cleaning. Experts have long recognized that as older siblings, particularly if we’re the firstborn, we’re charged with taking care of our younger siblings, which requires acute attention to their unique needs and wants—and how they differ from our own. But Frank Lloyd Wright and Jonas Salk were firstborns: Wright had two younger sisters and Salk had two younger brothers. There’s something else in Meyer’s family background that may have nudged him in the giver direction. In a series of studies led by the Dutch psychologist Paul van Lange, givers had more siblings than the takers and matchers. The givers averaged two siblings; the takers and matchers averaged one and a half siblings. More siblings meant more sharing, which seemed to predispose people toward giving. It may not be a coincidence that George Meyer is the oldest of eight siblings. Interestingly, van Lange’s data showed a sister effect, not just a sibling effect. The givers didn’t have more brothers than the takers and matchers, but they were 50 percent more likely to have sisters. It is noteworthy that of Meyer’s seven younger siblings, five are sisters.