Adam Grant, the author of Give and Take, describes and compares the takers and the givers throughout his book. Takers do not maintain the relationships that do not benefit them, while the givers are willing to maintain all relationships. As stated by Grant, takers and givers are similar in a way that they both have large networks, but takers only approach networks to benefit themselves. Grant has provided a great example of how a taker approach relationships to profit himself. According to Give and Take, “If you wanted to get [Ken] Lay to attend a meeting, you need to invite someone important” (32). Like all other takers, Lay is a taker who likes to mingle with powerful people who are going to be useful for him. However, takers may be able to approach relationships but it is hard for them to maintain relationships because people tend to stay away from takers. For instance, one of my classmates in elementary school was a good faker, and she approached me to fulfil her needs. She got close to me because she wanted to eat lunch at my house. By the end of the school year, my mother found out that she is a taker because she was not willing to help me when I needed her help. This experience have taught me that …show more content…
Referring to Give and Take, givers believe that helping others “is not just about building [the] reputation; it really is about being there for other people” (42). With this said, givers like Adam Rifkin approach networks to contribute to others instead for his own good. For example, Rifkin gave his fan site to the managers of the band that called Green Day without asking for any in return. He values networks with people in a way that he does not expect to be beneficial from the relationship. Due to the way of how givers approach relationships, givers tend to have a stronger bond with others than the takers