194. GIVERS and TAKERS

In a New York Times article, Adam Grant, an organizational psychologist at Wharton School, finds that “In Negotiations, Givers Are Smarter Than Takers.” “Generosity is a sign of intelligence,” he affirms, “and givers are the rising tide that lifts all boats.” This post includes gleanings from that article.

“Tit-for-tat works fine in one-shot interactions. But when ongoing relationships and reputations are formed, tit-for-tat often loses to generous tit-for-tat. If the other party takes a selfish stance three times, instead of competing all three times, we seem to be better off cooperating anyway once. When we give unconditionally from time to time, we give them a reason to change.

“Believing in a fixed pie is a self-fulfilling prophecy. When we expect the worst in others, we bring out the worst in others. When we recognize that everyone feels the impulse to help (unless they’re a sociopath), we have a chance to bring out what Lincoln called the better angels of their nature.”

“Being a giver may actually be a sign of intelligence.”

“In one of my favorite studies, researchers tested people’s intelligence with a series of quantitative, verbal and analytical reasoning problems. Then they sent them off to negotiate. Intelligence paid off — but not in the way you might expect. The smarter people were, the better their counterparts did in the negotiation. They used their brainpower to expand the pie, finding ways to help the other side that cost them nothing.

“This isn’t an isolated result. In a comprehensive analysis of 28 studies, the most successful negotiators cared as much about the other party’s success as their own. They refused to see negotiations as win-lose or the world as zero-sum. They understood that before you could claim value, you needed to create value. They didn’t declare victory until they could help everyone win.

“This isn’t limited to negotiation. Economists find that the higher that Americans score on intelligence tests, the more they give to charity — even after adjusting for their wealth, income, education, age, and health. Psychologists demonstrate that the smarter people are, the less likely they are to take resources for themselves — and the more likely they are to give to a group. I’ve discovered in my own research that when success is a sprint, givers may well finish last. But if it’s a marathon, the takers tend to fall behind and the givers often finish first.

“But what if you’re stuck dealing with a taker? … There’s a time and a place to be tough on takers. If you’ve studied game theory, you know the classic result: Tit-for-tat was the dominant strategy. But the latest science of the deal supports a different approach.”

Q: To what extent do you agree with Adam Grant’s findings?

Check out: https://dialogue4us.com.