Good - Give and Take

(1)

Good returns

The rewards and dangers of giving more than you get

"The rule of trade is, give one and take ten, diplomacy."

Macboy

Writer and comedian.

On a sunny Saturday afternoon in Civic Valley, two proud fathers cheered on their daughters at the women's soccer stadium. One was a businessman, Danny Schick, who had a string of risky ventures, and had spent his time with Nasdaq, Motorola, Amazon, and Intel. He was 30 years old, and he talked about business forever, calling himself the "Grandpa of the Internet."

Another father is David Hoenitz, a businessman who invests in companies for a living. He has a master's degree in criminology and a law degree. He has accepted a job offer from a large investment firm and is deciding which funds to invest in over the next 10 years.

"Shake it up" has been a big hit twice. In 1999, his 'Accept.com' acquired 'Amazon' for $175 million. For the second time in 2007, his next company, ' Good Technology', acquired ' Motorola' for $500 million.

Having heard the story of “Sheikda”, “Honik” wanted to take another chance to invest. “Honik”, a daring investor, submitted the investment plan documents within the next week and offered to invest in his company.

The best way to invest in venture capital is to give the investor a deadline to make a decision. However, Honik did not give the investor a deadline. He instead invited other investors to join. He believes that a venture capitalist needs to take time to evaluate his options. He does not give a deadline, saying, "Take your time so you can make the right decision."

Sheikda took advantage of the opportunity. Over the next few weeks, he began meeting with other investors to brainstorm ideas. “Honik” gave Sheikda about forty investors to refer to. This list was the result of ten years of hard work and dedication in this field.

A few weeks later, “Honik” Seikda started calling.

“I’m sorry. I signed a contract with another investor.”

The list of 40 people that Ho Nix gave him was beneficial to him. It was clear that Ho Nix was a great person for Sheik Da. But Sheik Da was worried that if he refused to help him, he would challenge him. When Ho Nix met her in person, Sheik Da explained and apologized.

"My heart wants to go to camp with you. But my brain chooses other people. Forgive me for not following my heart, but my brain."

"David Ho-young" learned the hard way that "good people always finish last."

Conventional wisdom suggests that high achievers have three things in common. They are driving force, talent, and opportunity. If you want to succeed, you need a combination of hard work, talent, and luck. The case of “Sheik Da” and “Ho Ni” highlights the need for a fourth factor. This fourth factor is important, but often overlooked.

We make a choice every time we interact with others at work. We try to ask for as much value as possible. We try to combine values ​​without worrying about what we get in return.

Over the past 30 years, through a series of studies, social scientists have found that people's preferences for mutual assistance and helpfulness have shifted from a preference for "giving" to a preference for "taking." In this case, there are two types of people at either end of the spectrum of mutual assistance in the workplace: "giver" and "taker."

“Takers” prefer to get more than they give. They put their own interests and needs before the needs of others. “Takers” believe that the world is a competitive place where everyone is competing for their own. They only want to succeed. They only want to be better than everyone else. They want to get promoted and get a good name for themselves. David Hoenitz gives Schick a deadline. If you don’t list 40 other investors, you’re a “Taker.” But because you’ve done the opposite, you’re a “Giver.” A “Taker” is self-centered, while a “Giver” is focused on others. They care more about what others need from you. Givers and takers change their attitudes toward other people. If you’re a Taker, you’ll be more likely to be strategic about what’s good for you and what’s good for you. If you are a giver, you will use a different approach to cost-benefit analysis. If you are a giver at work, you will generously share your time, energy, knowledge, skills, and ideas with those who can benefit from you. Mother Teresa, Mahatma Gandhi, etc. Givers do not need to do extraordinary things to make sacrifices. They just focus on caring and acting with interest in others.

In the workplace, giving and receiving is becoming more complex.

By profession, few of us act simply as givers and takers, but we see a third type emerging. We are also becoming “balancers.” We maintain an equal balance between giving and taking. “Balancers” operate on the principle of equity (appropriateness).

If you were asked to guess who the people at the bottom of the ladder of success are, who are givers, takers, and balancers, how would you answer?

All three styles of interpersonal support have their own pros and cons, depending on the profession. But there is evidence that one style can be more valuable than the others. Based on the story of David Hoenitz, you might conclude that the giver is likely to achieve the worst results. You would be right. Research shows that givers are at the bottom of the ladder of success.

If givers are at the bottom of the ladder of success, who is at the top of the ladder? Who is on par with them? No. It's surprising that it's the givers.

The worst performers, and the best performers, are the givers. Both the takers and the matchmakers are likely to settle somewhere in the middle. -

The top performers are the givers. They are the ones who match the takers. They can earn 50 percent more annually than the takers. Givers are more likely to become champions, not fools.

“Sheikda” wants to find a way to connect with “Ho Ng.” In order for “Ho Ng” to invest, “Sheikda” and his lead investor will have to sell more of the company and dilute (reduce) their ownership stakes.

“Shikda” decided that it was worth the personal cost to get “Ho” and “Ho” to invest in their company. “Ho” accepted the offer, and “Ho” also received some of the company’s assets. “Shikda” was impressed with “Ho”’s ability to push him in new directions. “I’ve seen another good side of him,” he said. “Shikda” took on a new business venture at “Ho”’s suggestion. He took over “PayNearMe,” an online shopping service that didn’t have a bank account or credit card. In the first year and a half, “ PayNearMe” grew by more than 30% per month. As an investor, “Ho” also got a small share of this growth.

When other investors asked about Honik, “Shekdar” explained. “He is not only super hardworking, but also very courageous. He is challenging and supportive at the same time. Being incredibly responsible is one of the best traits that investors can have.

By joining forces with “Shaik Da”, “Honik” not only becomes a winner, but “Shaik Da” also becomes a winner. By acting as a giver, “Honik” can not only create the most value and opportunities for himself, but also bring benefits to others.