I recently came across several articles from Adam Grant, which ultimately led me to his 2016 TED talk. As I listened to his talk and read his articles, it reminded me of the importance of recognizing the characteristics of the individuals who comprise your workforce. Think about how you would describe your various employees; what words would you use? In Grant’s talk, he focuses on a different set of criteria that may not immediately come to mind.
Grant separates everyone into one of three categories: givers, takers, and matchers. He explains that the givers are those who will give to others, often going out of their way to give their help. The givers are those who are always wondering what they can do for someone else. The takers are those who will constantly take as much as they can from others. In comparison to the givers, the takers are always wondering what someone else can do for them. And, the matchers are those that will match whatever is being done. So, the matchers’ actions will, in large part, depend upon how other people deal with them, and they will reciprocate.
Using the premise that everyone falls into one of these categories, Grant conducted a study to find a correlation between those traits and productivity. What he found was that the givers were the least productive. The reasons ranged from the givers helping others to the point of falling behind on their own work, to givers refusing to recommend products that they themselves did not believe in. Takers also were not the best performers, and neither were the matchers. It turns out that apparently the best and worst performers are the givers. He found that “[t]he first thing that’s really critical is to recognize that givers are your most valuable people, but if they’re not careful, they burn out. So you have to protect the givers in your midst.”
He also concluded that the best way to foster a positive work environment is to consider who you let onto your team in the first place. That seems obvious enough, but you may be inclined to think: hire givers! Apparently, not so. A bigger impact would be felt if rather than hiring givers, you minimized the hiring of takers. This is because takers will negatively affect the morale of the team:matchers will match the taker, and the givers will become less likely to give to someone who is always taking. If your team, however, were to consist of givers and matchers, you would have a team of people who are naturally givers, and those who will match givers and, therefore, become givers themselves.
While Grant’s thoughts may not appear groundbreaking, I found that when I applied these concepts to different interactions, they certainly explained things in a way I had not previously considered. Right now, you may even be separating your employees into separate categories in your head. I certainly think this is a worthwhile concept to consider for your organization, but I would also recommend against defining people solely based on these ideas. I tend to think that people are more fluid, capable of growth and change, and may be different things at different points in their lives. I also believe that when you limit someone by defining them, it becomes a lot easier for them to live up to the imposed definition—for better or worse.
However, I also do not think that these characteristics should go unnoticed. If your industry is such that you are required to work in teams, and this is true in the construction industries, you may want to be mindful about pairing a giver with a taker. While the giver will be excited to give and give freely at first, after a while, the giver will become disenchanted and feel taken advantage of. The end result will be a taker, and a former giver. Also, in all likelihood, your organization has some takers. Therefore, because the taker may not naturally be inclined towards giving, you may want to consider incentives in your organization that would encourage “giving” behavior. It may not change the employee’s underlying trait, but it may lessen any negative morale that the taker may otherwise have on the organization.
The goal of human resources can be a difficult one: to serve both the company and the employee. Therefore, it is important to recognize what drives your employees, and what innate characteristics could be holding them—or other team members—from succeeding. The giver/taker/matcher philosophy should be just another tool in your human resources arsenal for you to use to help make your employees, and the organization, a success.
Cristina E. Groschel and Bruce E. Loren of Loren & Kean Law are based in Palm Beach Gardens and Ft. Lauderdale. Loren & Kean Law is a boutique law firm concentrating in construction law and employment law. Ms. Groschel focuses her practice on labor and employment law, representing the interests of employers and business owners. She has represented businesses in a wide range of disputes, including DOL investigations, discrimination claims, and state and federal wage litigation. Ms. Groschel is also certified as a Professional in Human Resources (PHR). Ms. Groschel and Mr. Loren can be reached at [email protected] or [email protected] or 561-615-5701.
