As much as I respect the message of this book to hammer down the old axiom “What goes around comes around”, I really feel that this book could be way shorter. I feel strongly that most of these business books can be at least 100 pages shorter or condensed into a blog post, which is why for the most part I’ve avoided reading them. But the points that Grant raised in the book are valid, and if giving leads people to more successes then why not give more?
The book is filled with case studies of successes for people who were naturally givers who may have a slow start in life and ending up coming up on top. Some of these names are household names, such as Abraham Lincoln. There are other names that we should know but don’t — George Meyer who worked in the early days of the Simpsons and was pivotal with the initial success of the show; Adam Rifkin who is the best connected person in LinkedIn and have planted the seed for numerous startups. Some are well known and most were pseudonymised or people that Grant came across overtime. The examples used are a bit of a mixed bag, but still relevant to the book’s argument.
I do like the premise that though the givers do not necessarily enjoy the limelight, they influence success on others. It is interesting that those who fail the most often have the nature of the giver, yet those who are on the other end of the success spectrum are also givers. Thus, giving can be detrimental as it is of advantageous. The givers who give too much burn out and those who give smartly reap the benefits. Those who give smartly don’t owe their success only to their intelligence, but also to their ambitions. The most successful givers it seems, are also the most driven. The drive to success somehow carries everybody forward.
It does seem like a win win situation and subverts the typical wolf of Wall Street, every man for himself type of thinking, but it is a mantra that has been preached for years. The stoics have always told people to be kind and humble, that a king in the long run, has no more value than a slave, so that you should treat everybody kindly and be generous. I don’t think that the idea is novel, but in a world where we have been taught constantly to fend for oneself, ideas like this seem to be radical. And perhaps, it won’t be an idea that last in different periods of time. After reading Robert Graves’ I, Claudius, we see the givers dead and that the takers penning history.
I am on the fence about giving. At work, I will never compromise to give to my team, but within reason. We can forgive failures, but need to learn to cut losses. But we should be available for those in need when help is needed. But there are occasions now where I just refuse to give, to the detriment of myself and to the person asking, regardless of the effect I find it to be a futile act. Sometimes we know the nature of people and that they won’t change, and giving to these kinds of people are deadweight losses.
I think the main flaw of the book for me is the way that it is written. It is how business books are written nowadays — stories written badly, the challenges of the subject of the story explained, the reveal and successes at the end, then the actual premise and takeaways which can be stretched out to dozens of pages. Then follow up with another story of the same vein and the same point. It is easy to digest, but it makes for a dry and annoying read. Did I learn anything from it? No, not really. I’d still give to where it counts, but by nature I’m a bit of a stinge and that won’t change much. I do feel like anybody can make the book with the opposite premise — that takers triumph and givers fail, and it still will make valid reading.
