Are you a giver or a taker?

So I want you to look around
the room for a minute

and try to find the most
paranoid person here --

(Laughter)

And then I want you to point
at that person for me.

OK, don't actually do it.

(Laughter)

As an organizational psychologist,

I spend a lot of time in workplaces,

and I find paranoia everywhere.

Paranoia is caused by people
that I call "takers."

Takers are self-serving
in their interactions.

It's all about what can you do for me.

The opposite is a giver.

It's somebody who approaches
most interactions by asking,

"what can I do for you?"

I wanted to give you a chance
to think about your own style.

We all have moments of giving and taking.

Your style is just how you treat
most of the people most of the time --

your default.

I have a short test that you can take

to figure out if you're more
of a giver or a taker,

and you can take it right now.

[The Narcissist Test]

[Step 1: Take a moment
to think about yourself.]

(Laughter)

[Step 2: If you made it to Step 2,
you are not a narcissist.]

(Laughter)

This is the only thing I will say today
that has no data behind it,

but I am convinced the longer it takes
for you to laugh at this cartoon,

the more worried we should be
that you're a taker.

(Laughter)

Of course not all takers are narcissists,

some are just givers who got
burned one too many times.

And then there's another kind of taker
that we won't be addressing today,

and that's called a psychopath.

(Laughter)

I was curious though about how
common these extremes are,

and so I surveyed over 30,000
people across industries

around the world's cultures.

And I found that most people
are right in the middle

between giving and taking.

They choose this third
style called matching.

If you're a matcher,

you try to keep an even
balance of give and take --

quid pro quo --

I'll do something for you
if you do something for me,

and that seems like a safe
way to live your life.

But is it the most effective
and productive way to live your life?

The answer to that question
is a very definitive ...

maybe.

(Laughter)

I studied dozens of organizations --

thousands of people.

I had engineers,

measuring their productivity.

(Laughter)

I looked at medical students' grades --

even sales peoples' revenue.

(Laughter)

And unexpectedly,

the worst performers in each
of these jobs were the givers.

The engineers who got the least work done

were the ones who did more
favors than they got back.

They were so busy doing
other people's jobs,

they literally ran out of time and energy
to get their own work completed.

In medical school,

the lowest grades belong to the students

who agree most strongly
with statements like,

"I love helping others."

Which suggests the doctor
you ought to trust

is the one who came to med school
with no desire to help anybody.

(Laughter)

And then in sales, too,

the lowest revenue acrcued
in the most generous sales people.

And I actually reached out
to one of those sales people,

who had a very high giver score.

And I asked him,

"Why do you suck at your --"

I didn't ask him that way.

(Laughter)

"What's the cost of generosity in sales?"

And he said,

"Well, I just care so deeply
about my customers

that I would never sell them
one of our crappy products."

So just out of curiosity,

how many of you self-identify more
as givers than takers or matchers?

Raise your hands.

OK, it would have been more
before we talked about this data.

But actually it turns out
there's a twist here,

because givers are often
sacrificing themselves,

but they make their organizations better.

We have a huge body of evidence;

many, many studies looking
at the frequency of giving behavior

that exists in a team or an organization.

And the more often people
are helping and sharing their knowledge

and providing mentoring,

the better organizations do
on every metric we can measure.

Higher profits, customer satisfaction,
employee retention --

even lower operating expenses.

So givers spend a lot of time
trying to help other people

and improve the team,

and then unfortunately
they suffer along the way.

I want to talk about what
it takes to build cultures

where givers actually get to succeed.

So I wondered then if givers
are the worst performers,

who are the best performers?

And let me start with the good news:

it's not the takers.

Takers tend to rise quickly
but also fall quickly in most jobs.

And they fall at the hands of matchers.

If you're a matcher,

you believe in "an eye for an eye,"

a just world.

And so when you meet a taker,

you feel like it's your mission in life

to just punish the hell
out of that person.

(Laughter)

And that way justice gets served.

Well, most people are matchers.

And that means if you're a taker,

it tends to catch up with you eventually.

What goes around will come around.

And so the logical conclusion
is it must be the matchers

who are the best performers.

But they're not.

In every job,

in every organization I've ever studied,

the best results belong
to the givers again.

So take a look at some data

that I gathered from hundreds
of sales people,

tracking their revenue.

What you can see is that the givers
go to both extremes.

They make up the majority of the people
who bring in the lowest revenue,

but also the highest revenue.

And the same patterns were true
for engineers' productivity,

and medical students' grades.

Givers are overrepresented
at the bottom and at the top

of every success metric that I can track.

Which raises the question,

how do we create a world where
more of these givers get to excel.

I want to talk about how to do that
not just in businesses,

but also in non-profits, schools --

even governments.

Are you ready?

(Cheers)

All right, I was going to do it anyway
but I appreciate the enthusiasm.

(Laughter)

The 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,

and I learned a great lesson about this
from Fortune's best networker.

It's the guy not the cat.

His name is Adam Rifkin.

He's a very successful serial entrepreneur

who spends a huge amount
of his time helping other people.

And his secret weapon
is the five-minute favor.

Adam said, "Look, you don't have
to be Mother Teresa or Gandhi

to be a giver,

you just have to find small ways

to add large value to other
people's lives."

And that could be as simple
as making an introduction

between two people who could
benefit from knowing each other.

It could be sharing your knowledge
or giving a little bit of feedback.

Or It might be even something
as basic as saying,

"You know,

I'm going to try and figure out
if I can recognize somebody

whose work has gone unnoticed."

And those five-minute favors
are really critical

to helping givers set boundaries
and protect themselves.

The second thing that matters

if you want to build a culture
where givers succeed

is you actually need a culture
where help seeking is the norm;

where people ask a lot.

This may hit a little too close
to home for of you.

(Laughter)

What you see with successful givers

is they recognize that it's OK
to be a receiver, too.

And if you run an organization,

we can actually make this easier.

We can make it easier
for people to ask for help.

A couple colleagues and I
studied hospitals,

and we found that on certain floors,

nurses did a lot of help-seeking,

and on other floors they did
very little of it.

And the factor that stood out

on the floors where
help-seeking was common --

where it was the norm --

was there was just one nurse

whose sole job it was to help
other nurses on the unit.

And when that role was available,

nurses said, "Oh, it's not embarrassing,

it's not vulnerable,

to ask for help.

It's actually encouraged."

Help-seeking isn't important
just for protecting the success

and the well-being of givers,

it's also critical to getting more
people to act like givers.

Because the data says

that somewhere between 75 and 90 percent
of all giving in organizations

starts with a request.

But a lot of people don't ask.

They don't want to look incompetent,

they don't know where to turn,

they don't want to burden others.

And yet if nobody ever asks for help,

you have a lot of frustrated
givers in your organization

who would love to step up and contribute

if they only knew who
could benefit and how.

I think the most important thing,

if you want to build a culture
of successful givers,

is to be thoughtful about who
you let onto your team.

I figured,

you want a culture
of productive generosity,

you should hire a bunch of givers.

But I was surprised to discover actually
that that was not right --

that the negative impact
of a taker on a culture

is usually double to triple
the positive impact of a giver.

Think about it this way:

one bad apple can spoil a barrel,

but one good egg just
does not make a dozen.

I don't know what that means --

(Laughter)

But I hope you do --

No.

Let even one taker into a team

and you will see that
the givers will stop helping.

They'll say, "I'm surrounded
by a bunch of snakes and sharks.

Why should I contribute?"

Whereas if you let one giver into a team,

you don't get an explosion of generosity.

More often people are like,

"Great, that person can do all our work."

So effective hiring and screening
and team building

is not about bringing in the givers;

it's about weeding out the takers.

If you can do that well,

you will be left with givers and matchers.

The givers will be generous

because they don't have to worry
about the consequences.

And the beauty of the matchers
is that they follow the norm.

So how do you catch a taker
before it's too late?

We're actually pretty bad
at figuring out who's a taker,

especially on first impressions.

There's a personality trait
that throws us off.

It's called agreeableness;

one the major dimensions
of personality across cultures.

Agreeable people are warm and friendly,

they're nice,

they're polite.

You find a lot of them in Canada.

(Laughter)

Where there was actually
a national contest

to come up with a new Canadian slogan
with fill-in-the-blank,

"As Canadian as ... "

And I thought the winning entry
was going to be

"As Canadian as maple syrup,

or ice hockey."

But no,

Canadians voted for their new
national slogan to be --

I kid you not --

"As Canadian as possible
under the circumstances."

(Laughter)

Now for those of you
who are highly agreeable,

or maybe slightly Canadian,

you get this right away.

How could I ever say I'm ever one thing

when I'm constantly adapting
to try and please other people?

Disagreeable people do less of it.

They're more critical,
skeptical, challenging,

and far more likely than their peers
to go to law schools.

That's not a joke,

that's actually an empirical fact.

(Laughter)

So I always assumed
that agreeable people were givers,

and disagreeable people were takers.

But then I gathered the data,

and I was stunned to find no
correlation between those traits.

Because it turns out that agreeableness,
disagreeableness is your outer veneer.

How pleasant is it to interact with you?

Whereas giving and taking
are more of your inner motives.

What are your values?

What are your intentions toward others?

If you really want to judge
people accurately,

you have to get to the moment

that every consultant
in the room is waiting for,

and draw a two-by-two.

(Laughter)

The agreeable givers are easy to spot:

they say yes to everything.

The disagreeable takers
are also recognized quickly,

although you might call them
by a slightly different name.

(Laughter)

We forget about the other
two combinations.

There are disagreeable givers
in our organizations.

There are people who are gruff
and tough on the surface,

but underneath have others'
best interests at heart.

Or as an engineer put it,

"Oh, disagreeable givers --

like somebody with a bad user interface
but a great operating system."

(Laughter)

If that helps you.

(Laughter)

Disagreeable givers are the most
undervalued people in our organizations

because they're the ones who give
the critical feedback

that no one wants to hear
but everyone needs to hear.

We need to do a much better job
valuing these people

as opposed to writing them off early,

and saying, "Eh, kind of prickly,

must be a selfish taker."

The other combination we
forget about is the deadly one:

the agreeable taker,

also known as the faker.

This is the person
who's nice to your face,

and then will stab you right in the back.

(Laughter)

And my favorite way to catch these people
in the interview process

is to ask the question,

"Can you give me the names of four people

whose careers you have
fundamentally improved?"

The takers will give you four names,

and they will all be more
influential than them

because takers are great at kissing up
and then kicking down.

Givers are more likely to name people
who are below them in a hierarchy,

who don't have as much power,

who can do them no good.

And let's face it,

you all know you can learn
a lot about character

by watching how someone
treats their restaurant server,

or their Uber driver.

So if we do all this well,

if we can weed takers
out of our organizations,

if we can make it safe to ask for help,

if we can protect givers from burnout,

and make it OK for them to be ambitious
in pursuing their own goals

as well as trying to help other people,

we can actually change the way
that people define success.

Instead of saying it's all about
winning a competition,

people will realize success
is really more about contribution.

I believe that the most
meaningful way to succeed

is to help other people succeed.

And if we can spread that belief,

we can actually turn paranoia upside down.

There's a name for that.

It's called "pronoia."

Pronoia is the delusional belief

that other people
are plotting your well-being.

(Laughter)

That they're going around behind your back

and saying exceptionally
glowing things about you.

The great thing about a culture of givers
is that's not a delusion,

it's reality.

Look, I want to live in a world
where givers succeed,

and I hope you will help me
create that world.

Thank you.

(Applause)