Give and Take

Give and Take

Three Types of People: Givers, Takers, and Matchers

In a normal distribution, most people fall somewhere in the middle, leaning toward being matchers. There are fewer people at the extremes—those who give unconditionally or those who only pursue their own interests. Most people tend to engage in reciprocal relationships, giving and taking in balance.

Author’s Claim: Givers can achieve the greatest success in the long run.

Reasons:

Network Effect (Networking)

Givers consistently create value for others, and in the process, build strong networks. Over time, this results in more and more opportunities coming back to them.

Collaboration and Trust

When working with others, givers earn trust, which increases their chances of achieving good results within a team. Such trust also creates more opportunities within organizations.

Learning and Development

The mindset of helping others naturally leads givers to acquire more knowledge, allowing them to grow and develop further.

Reputation and Influence

Givers gain higher reputation and improved public perception, which in turn expands their influence as givers within groups.

Givers often maintain a strategic approach regarding how much they give and how they manage relationships. Thus, a strategic mindset is necessary.

→ “Unconditional givers” who give indiscriminately are at higher risk of suffering losses.

Why Givers Actually Succeed (From the Giver, Taker, and Matcher Perspective):

Network effect

Trust through collaboration

Learning and growth

Reputation and influence

Strategic approach as a giver

On this topic, I’ve spoken with startup accelerators, professional investors, and people in traditional businesses. The general conclusion is that givers don’t always end up being more successful. Quite often, takers pretending to be givers actually end up gaining more benefits.

I also believe that depending on the specific industry, the traits that lead to success—whether being a giver, taker, or matcher—can differ.

From my personal view, in broker-driven industries based on commissions—such as real estate, used cars, and so on—people with a strong data-driven approach tend to earn more money.

Many real estate brokers who are good at managing both products and data, or those who perform brokering services tailored to data, tend to show strong taker tendencies.

Even if someone values loyalty, helps others, and is generous, in reality, those who possess and control the “data” hold the real power and achieve bigger results. The belief that loyalty alone shapes a person’s character is a misconception; loyalty doesn’t necessarily determine who a person ultimately is.

My Thoughts:

An intense curiosity for information and a desire to structure personal networks, policy knowledge, and professional experience into data systems is essentially just part of one’s core work. Compared to more strategically-minded takers, such people may appear somewhat too straightforward and might need to refine how they present themselves.

The idea that without data you can’t see the “big picture” is practically a truth. Whether someone is successful in business depends less on personality traits and more on whether they’re equipped with data that allows precise targeting. The critical dividing line lies in knowing when to trust people and help them versus when to draw boundaries and make clear-cut decisions.

I believe that givers can succeed in the long run because they operate in a sphere bigger than just their own core business. To sustain that sphere, they must effectively leverage both their professional expertise and personal networks. However, in the data industry, I believe the power of takers outweighs that of givers.

Those who survive as givers for a long time in the data broker industry tend to resemble matchers rather than pure givers. Ultimately, their loyalty and professionalism are driven by strategic necessity, not by unconditional generosity. They’re strategic givers who know exactly when giving is essential for survival. Therefore, the notion that strategic givers ultimately possess greater advantages remains valid—but even among givers, it’s important to blend in certain matcher traits rather than giving indiscriminately.