Sign in with Facebook
Chloe's Reviews > Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success
Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success
by
by
After I read the NY Times profile on Adam Grant last year, this book has been on my list. The idea that giving and being generous with your time will help you get ahead in life seemed sort of interesting. Now that I'm in social work school, I think that most of his argument is bullshit, and is written for business/finance/wealthy people in general. Grant writes from a place of incredible privilege (white, male, educated, wealthy, heterosexual, you name it), and the premise of the book is that by caring about other people, you will make more money. He says that it doesn't have to be a zero-sum game, that by helping others to be successful, you help yourself also. The big issue for me is that the book is full of examples of well-off people helping other well-off people. Sure, Grant threw in a story about a young, white, female Teach for America teacher in Philadelphia mentoring poor Black teenagers... but as far as I remember, that was the only anecdote about a person helping other people who could truly be described as "disadvantaged".
The other thing that Grant doesn't talk about are gender differences in socialization that necessarily contribute to this giver/taker/matcher question. He dismisses the entire concept in one sentence, denying that there are any differences between men and women, yet throughout the book he cites statistics that show that women consistently seem to accomplish and earn less than their male counterparts. I know this book was written for men in business, but I think its irresponsible that Grant never fully accounts for the fact that women face unique challenges by being socialized to be selfless givers as opposed to what he calls "otherish" givers, who look out for themselves as well as others. Theres no question that men and women face different challenges, and its sexist to ignore it.
I admit that I liked the parts about volunteering and reciprocity. I like that he promotes service and talks a lot about Freecycle. The Reciprocity Ring idea is also really cool.
The other thing that Grant doesn't talk about are gender differences in socialization that necessarily contribute to this giver/taker/matcher question. He dismisses the entire concept in one sentence, denying that there are any differences between men and women, yet throughout the book he cites statistics that show that women consistently seem to accomplish and earn less than their male counterparts. I know this book was written for men in business, but I think its irresponsible that Grant never fully accounts for the fact that women face unique challenges by being socialized to be selfless givers as opposed to what he calls "otherish" givers, who look out for themselves as well as others. Theres no question that men and women face different challenges, and its sexist to ignore it.
I admit that I liked the parts about volunteering and reciprocity. I like that he promotes service and talks a lot about Freecycle. The Reciprocity Ring idea is also really cool.
Sign into Goodreads to see if any of your friends have read
Give and Take.
Sign In »
Reading Progress
Finished Reading
February 15, 2014
– Shelved
Comments Showing 1-24 of 24 (24 new)
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Janna
(new)
-
rated it 4 stars
Apr 16, 2014 10:00AM
Great review! I liked this book but agree with your perspective. Grant's discussion would be better supported with examples that illustrate diversity and socioeconomic differences.
reply
|
flag
amazing book. we just finished in another book club
Chloe- your review hits on the serious weak spot in this book-- there ARE marked and significant gender-based differences in both what percentage of people are GIvers vs. Takers, as well as in how Giving and Taking are experienced, and how Giving and Taking is perceived by others. Although much of the original work (e.g., Equity Theory) did not analyze these dynamics by gender, later work has. And Grant mentions virtually none of it in this book. Just one study. In a footnote. Because that's where diversity belongs? A big miss for an otherwise terrific book.
I also Agree with this review. The book is far fetched at best, seems totally unrealistic.
If you are poor, but a giver(not necessarily materialistic) you are much much more likely to make profound contacts, get promoted, get discovered, get a scholarship, get a mentor. The education and communication network is out here in the internet mostly for free. It is possible, there are enough examples of dishwashers to millionairs and if there is one thing that helps you on that yourney the most- it is probably beeing a GIVER.
Chloe are you saying that if you come from “incredible privilege (white, male, educated,wealthy, heterosexual, you name it) that you are incapable of honest research, therefore, it’s “bullshit”.
Totally agree, Chloe. An enjoyable read, but a frustrating one for a professional female reader who has adopted these practices for decades and finally realised the rules are different for us. Adam Grant draws the research together nicely and makes arguments that would probably hold true for privileged white men. However, he’s been in academia from an early age and I think lacks the real world experience to bring necessary perspective to the theory.
Agree that "givers win" rule only applies to men. He shouldve noted under the title "for men only" or something. Oftentimes, women are the ones who give relentlessly and selflessly and have done so for a long time, but it doesn't quite turn out well.
When I started reading this book, I had an optimism that it was applicable universally but 60% into the book I really started to feel some of the points were repetitive to support the views of the writer and an elite few. I can’t see how it’s relevant universally because to a poor person in 3rd world countries there are too many huddles to skip over to get what you need. The book gives the illusion that success is guaranteed for anybody with grit. Part of me wants to put the book aside and not finish it but it is never my nature to leave a book two thirds through it. It’s a good book but cannot qualify it as a great book 👎
Almost every book I read is written by someone with "incredible privilege". In fact, that's what I prefer. Privilege does not in any way make someone incorrect, like at all.
*What* is *wrong* with being *great*?
I like the book but examples are too big, too long and sometimes not really related to the topic. I tried some recommendations and didn't succeed. But they were presented as always win tactics.
I really like your review. Great one! I loved the book, but I can see your point and it is valid. The book is talking about certain community and norns. However, I still think that Adam's argument is still valid. I believe that Giving isn't bound to charity or helping under-privileged people, and in most examples of I remember correctly; the gain that the givers got wasn't coming from whom they helped. I agree that the challenges differ depend on gender.
I liked that the book encourage giving while taking care of not harming yourself, and adapting perspectives of others.
Great review! I love the book, but you're completely right, it could have been so much greater than what it is
Great review! I love the book, but you're completely right, it could have been so much greater than what it is
So basically you gave this book the lowest score because it doesn't address gender inequality. Seems fair
I agree so much with your review, I'm a bit late to the Adam Grant party and I read this because I watched his Ted talk. Really disappointed though. As you say he barely touches on the gender differences (and frankly, disadvantages) of being a giver.
But does it necessarily mean that his argument is bullshit? Sure, he sees the world by a privileged point of view, but does it mean that it doesn't work in his sphere or that it can't be applied in other contexts and for other people? I'm just not sure that by not including stories of other genres and social classes, it makes the whole argument bullshit. Isn't it better to say that he doesn't know/show how it could work for others, so that it's incomplete?
I agree with Luca. I think perhaps this reviewer had expectations they were hoping to be fulfilled by this book that weren't. It may be bullshit for them due to unfulfilled expectionations, but that doesn't mean it's bullshit for other people reading with different expectations.
Thanks for the thoughtful review
When I see words like: white, male, heterosexual, privileged, gender, women, etc. I'm like "here we go again."
Guys you advise me to read this book??
I completely agree with your review. I couldn’t get through the book for this reason. It was full of so many stories of wealthy white men making other wealthy white men wealthier. I did not understand the hype around this one.
