Monday, June 26, 2017
Givers and Takers - who succeed & where & howmuch ?
Givers and Takers - who succeed & where & howmuch ?
By: Adam Grant
The takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return, thinking that’s the shortest and most direct path to achieving their own goals.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have this strange breed of people I call “givers”. It’s not about donating money or volunteering necessarily, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, mentoring or sharing knowledge, no strings attached.…
These givers actually prefer to be on the contributing end of an interaction. Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between — the third group of people, who are matchers.
A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take.… Indeed, the givers are over-represented at the bottom. Putting others first, they often put themselves at risk for burning out or being exploited by takers. Alot of people say, “Well, it’s hard for a taker to rise consistently to the top, because oftentimes, takers burn bridges.
So, it must be the matchers who are more generous than takers, but also protect their own interests.” When I looked at the data, I was really surprised to see that those answers were wrong. It’s actually the givers again. Givers are over-represented at the top as well as the bottom ofmost success metrics.
Book Excerpt From “Givers vs Takers: The Surprising Truth About Who Gets Ahead”
By: Adam Grant
The takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return, thinking that’s the shortest and most direct path to achieving their own goals.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have this strange breed of people I call “givers”. It’s not about donating money or volunteering necessarily, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, mentoring or sharing knowledge, no strings attached.…
These givers actually prefer to be on the contributing end of an interaction. Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between — the third group of people, who are matchers.
A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take.… Indeed, the givers are over-represented at the bottom. Putting others first, they often put themselves at risk for burning out or being exploited by takers. Alot of people say, “Well, it’s hard for a taker to rise consistently to the top, because oftentimes, takers burn bridges.
So, it must be the matchers who are more generous than takers, but also protect their own interests.” When I looked at the data, I was really surprised to see that those answers were wrong. It’s actually the givers again. Givers are over-represented at the top as well as the bottom ofmost success metrics.
Book Excerpt From “Givers vs Takers: The Surprising Truth About Who Gets Ahead”
Saturday, June 24, 2017
Decison Making and accountability in the Times of Big Data and Analytics
( Book Excerpt ) Decision Making mixup in Big Data & Techie Times
" Managing decisions "
By: AARON DE SMET ET AL
It’s the best and worst of times for decision-makers. Swelling stockpiles of data, advanced analytics and intelligent algorithmsare providing organisations with powerful new inputs and methods for making all manner of decisions.
Corporate leaders also are much more aware today than they were 20 years ago of the cognitive biases — anchoring, loss aversion, confirmation bias and many more — that undermine decision-making without our knowing it.
Some have already created formal processes — checklists, devil’s advocates, competing analytic teams and the like — to shake up the debate and create healthier decision-making dynamics.
Now for the bad news. In many large global companies, growing organisational complexity, anchored in strong product, functional and regional axes, has clouded accountabilities.
That means leaders are less able to delegate decisions cleanly, and the number of decisionmakers has risen.
The reduced cost of communications brought on by the digital age has compounded matters by bringing more people into the flow via email, and internal knowledge-sharing platforms.
The result is too many meetings and email threads with too little high-quality dialogue.
The untangling solution: to become flatter and more agile, with decision authority and accountability going hand in hand.
Excerpted From “Untangling Your Organisation’s Decision-Making”
" Managing decisions "
By: AARON DE SMET ET AL
It’s the best and worst of times for decision-makers. Swelling stockpiles of data, advanced analytics and intelligent algorithmsare providing organisations with powerful new inputs and methods for making all manner of decisions.
Corporate leaders also are much more aware today than they were 20 years ago of the cognitive biases — anchoring, loss aversion, confirmation bias and many more — that undermine decision-making without our knowing it.
Some have already created formal processes — checklists, devil’s advocates, competing analytic teams and the like — to shake up the debate and create healthier decision-making dynamics.
Now for the bad news. In many large global companies, growing organisational complexity, anchored in strong product, functional and regional axes, has clouded accountabilities.
That means leaders are less able to delegate decisions cleanly, and the number of decisionmakers has risen.
The reduced cost of communications brought on by the digital age has compounded matters by bringing more people into the flow via email, and internal knowledge-sharing platforms.
The result is too many meetings and email threads with too little high-quality dialogue.
The untangling solution: to become flatter and more agile, with decision authority and accountability going hand in hand.
Excerpted From “Untangling Your Organisation’s Decision-Making”
Labels: Citings
