the bargaining table, the same pattern surfaced. People who agreed with statements like “I always
place the needs of others above my own” were anxious about putting strain on the relationship, so
they accommodated their counterparts by giving away value.
As with the dating couples in love, empathy had turned Peter into a doormat—until he discovered
an alternative to empathy that’s equally aligned with his natural strengths as a giver. Instead of
contemplating Rich’s feelings, Peter considered what Rich was thinking. This led to a powerful
insight: Rich seemed interested in working on a new challenge, so Peter could appeal to Rich’s self-
interest. “You’re clearly not enjoying running the business day-to-day,” Peter told Rich, “so why don’t
you let me handle it? I think I’m old enough now that I’m ready for the heavy lifting.” Rich agreed,
expressing a desire to work on special projects in the entrepreneurial space to generate new revenue
for the business. Peter supported the decision and started running board meetings.
Peter accomplished this maneuver by getting inside Rich’s head, rather than his heart. Studies led
by Columbia psychologist Adam Galinsky show that when we empathize at the bargaining table,
focusing on our counterparts’ emotions and feelings puts us at risk of giving away too much. But when
we engage in perspective taking, considering our counterparts’ thoughts and interests, we’re more
likely to find ways to make deals that satisfy our counterparts without sacrificing our own interests.
Peter never would have discovered his solution if he had continued to empathize with Rich. By
shifting his focus from Rich’s feelings to his thoughts, Peter was able to see the world through a
taker’s eyes and adjust his strategy accordingly.
Despite his success in drawing Rich into a role where he could do less harm, Peter couldn’t quite
let go of the desire to support Rich and help him succeed. At the same time, he knew there was still
plenty of room for Rich to keep taking. Peter decided to trust but verify: he granted Rich the autonomy
to work on special projects, but held him accountable for his results, asking him to report on his
progress every ninety days. “I gave him the opportunity to measure his own contribution and for us to
do the same.” After six months, Rich had done very little. Peter conducted a formal analysis and
wrote a board report. “When Rich’s contribution ended up being zero, it was undeniably of his own
doing. He was presented with a crude form of evidence of his own taking and lack of giving. The truth
ultimately moved him on and set him free for me.” Rich elected to leave and take his equity out of the
business.
Peter was no longer a doormat; he had taken down a taker. Later, he learned that Rich had been
even more of a taker than anyone realized: he had a large line of credit with the firm, and also owed
the bank money. Peter had to write a check to settle because Rich was short. A year after Peter took
over as managing director, Rich exited the firm. Fifteen months after Rich’s departure, Peter’s firm
had turned around to achieve seven-figure profits, staff morale had skyrocketed, turnover had
plummeted, and they were in the running for firm of the year in the dealer group.
Once successful givers see the value of sincerity screening and begin to spot agreeable takers as
potential fakers, they protect themselves by adjusting their behavior accordingly. Peter’s experience
offers a clue into how givers avoid getting burned: they become matchers in their exchanges with
takers. It’s wise to start out as a giver, since research shows that trust is hard to build but easy to
destroy. But once a counterpart is clearly acting like a taker, it makes sense for givers to flex their
reciprocity styles and shift to a matching strategy—as Peter did by requiring Rich to reciprocate by
adding value to the business. “It’s built into my nature now to not give takers much time, and certainly
not waste my time with them,” Peter says.
michael s
(Michael S)
#1