Success is usually sold to us as a mix of grit, IQ, and maybe a bit of luck. We’re told to "lean in" or "hustle harder." But honestly, if you look at the research Adam Grant laid out in his breakout book, that's only half the story. The other half—the part that actually determines if you’ll burn out or reach the C-suite—comes down to how you handle the person sitting across from you.
Basically, you’re either a giver, a taker, or a matcher.
Most of us think givers are the "nice guys" who finish last. Takers are the sharks who win. Matchers are the "fair" ones. It sounds logical, right? Except the data shows something way more weird and interesting. Givers actually occupy both the very bottom and the very top of the success ladder.
If you want to know why some generous people get trampled while others become billionaires, you have to look at the nuance of the Give and Take Adam Grant philosophy. It’s not about being a doormat. It’s about a specific kind of strategic generosity.
The Three Styles: Which One Are You?
Most people don't walk around with a label on their forehead. But in the workplace, our "reciprocity style" comes out the moment someone asks for a favor.
👉 See also: Why 77 W Jackson Chicago is the Most Understated Powerhouse in the Loop
Takers see the world as a zero-sum game. For them to win, you have to lose. They’re great at "kissing up and kicking down"—acting like givers to their bosses while being total nightmares to the people working for them. They use "I" and "me" a lot. If they help you, it’s because they’ve already calculated what they can get back from you later.
Matchers are the most common. They live by the "tit-for-tat" rule. If you do something for me, I’ll do something for you. It’s safe. It’s fair. But it’s also limiting because it keeps your network small. You only help people who can help you back, which means you miss out on the "black swan" opportunities that come from unexpected places.
Then there are the Givers. These folks help without a scorecard. They share knowledge, make introductions, and mentor others because they genuinely want to see people succeed.
Why Givers Fail (And Why They Win)
Here is the kicker: Grant found that givers are the worst performers in many industries.
In a study of medical students, the givers had the lowest grades. In engineering, the givers were the least productive. Why? Because they were so busy helping everyone else with their homework or their code that they didn't have time to finish their own work. They became "selfless givers"—people who give until they have nothing left.
But when Grant looked at the very top performers—the engineers with the most patents, the salespeople with the highest revenue—they weren't takers. They weren't matchers.
They were also givers.
The difference is that the successful ones are "otherish." They care about others, but they also have high self-interest. They set boundaries. They don't help the "takers" who just drain them; they focus their energy on other givers and matchers. They use what Adam Rifkin calls the "five-minute favor." If a favor takes less than five minutes, they do it for anyone. If it takes more, they get selective.
✨ Don't miss: UAE Currency Dirham to INR: Why the Rate is Hitting New Highs in 2026
Real-World Examples: The Case of David Hornik vs. The Taker
In the book, Grant tells a great story about David Hornik, a venture capitalist. Hornik is a classic giver. He once spent hours helping an entrepreneur named Danny Shader, giving him advice and connections before they even signed a deal.
A "taker" VC would have pressured Shader to sign immediately. Hornik didn't. He told Shader to take his time and talk to other people. Shader actually ended up signing with another firm initially because they were faster, but he felt so much loyalty to Hornik’s generosity that he eventually brought him back into the deal and recommended him to everyone he knew.
Over the long haul, Hornik’s "giving" reputation became his biggest competitive advantage. Takers win in the short term, sure. But in a connected world where everyone has a "reputation score" on LinkedIn or Glassdoor, takers eventually run out of people to exploit. Givers, meanwhile, build a "dormant tie" network—people they helped ten years ago who are now in positions of power and are dying to help them back.
Spotting a "Faker" Taker
Honestly, the hardest part of the Give and Take Adam Grant framework is that takers are often really good at pretending. Grant suggests looking at two things:
- Lekking: Takers often have "grandiose" photos of themselves. On social media or in company reports, they want to be the center of attention. They use "I" instead of "we."
- The Treatment of "Nobodies": A taker is wonderful to the CEO but rude to the janitor or the junior intern. A true giver treats everyone with the same level of respect because they aren't calculating the ROI of their kindness.
The Strategy for Success
If you want to move from the bottom of the pile to the top, you don't start acting like a taker. That's a trap. Instead, you need to "otherish" your giving.
Stop being a "selfless" giver. You can't help anyone if you're burnt out and broke.
Start by screening out the takers. If you realize you’re dealing with someone who only takes, switch to being a "matcher" with them. Demand reciprocity. Save your true "giver" energy for the people who actually appreciate it and pay it forward.
📖 Related: Coal India Stock Rate: Why the BCCL Listing Changes Everything
Research shows that even one taker on a team can tank the whole group’s productivity. They create a culture of paranoia. But if you can build a group of givers and matchers, the "pie" actually gets bigger. Everyone wins because nobody is worried about getting their ideas stolen.
Actionable Next Steps
- Audit your "Five-Minute Favors": Look for small ways to help—like a quick LinkedIn intro or a piece of feedback—that don't drain your schedule but provide massive value to someone else.
- Identify the Takers: Look at your network. Who always asks but never offers? Start setting "matcher" boundaries with them to protect your energy.
- Ask for help: This is the most counterintuitive part. Givers often hate asking for help because they don't want to be a burden. But by asking, you give other givers a chance to shine and feel good.
- The "Reciprocity Ring": Try a group exercise where everyone asks for something they need and everyone else tries to fulfill it. It turns giving into a structured, safe social norm.
The world is moving away from "command and control" hierarchies and toward collaborative networks. In that world, the Give and Take Adam Grant model isn't just a "nice" way to live—it's the only way to stay relevant in the long run.