Name: 你是給予者、索取者還是平衡者？🤔 (Are You a Giver, a Taker or a Matcher?)
Uploaded: 2025-11-30T09:59:54.000Z
Duration: 5 min 53 s

程度副詞

I'm interested in our success as individuals.

我對我們個人能夠成功很有興趣。

I'm interested in why do some people become incredibly productive?

我對有些人為什麼能變得超級有生產力感到好奇。

Why do some people do extraordinarily high quality work?

為什麼有些人可以做出品質超高的工作？

Why do some people rise faster than others up the promotion ladder?

為什麼有些人能比別人更快地往晉升階梯上爬？

So one of the things I've been doing for a long time is polling people, including Wharton students, and

所以我長期以來一直在做的一件事就是訪問大家，包括華頓的學生，然後

asking them, what is it that drives success?

What do successful people do that distinguishes them from others?

成功人士做了什麼讓他們與眾不同？

And consistently, three answers come out.

而一致地，有三個答案會跑出來。

We know that successful people tend to have an extraordinarily strong work ethic.

我們知道成功人士通常擁有非凡強烈的工作倫理。

They tend to be really good at something.

They end up finding themselves in the right place at the right time or ending up in the right opportunities.

他們最終發現自己身處對的時間、對的地點，或遇到對的機會。

So if you want to be successful, I think the recipe is be hard working, be talented, and

所以如果你想成功，我認為祕訣就是努力工作、有天賦，並且

And for me, that's a really great idea, but

對我來說，這真是個很棒的想法，但是

it's missing a huge part of what drives success in organizations, which is the way that we interact with others.

它忽略了驅動組織成功的很大一部分，也就是我們與他人互動的方式。

And of course, that's what I've been studying for quite a while now and gotten really interested in, is how do the motives that we bring to our interactions with other people shape the results we achieve, the promotions that we get, even the salaries that we attain.

這也是我研究了很長一段時間，並且非常感興趣的，那就是我們帶入與他人互動的動機，如何塑造我們達成的結果、我們獲得的晉升，甚至我們達到的薪資。

And so that's what we're going to spend a good chunk of our time on today.

所以這就是我們今天要花很多時間探討的。

Now, I love this quote from Robert Benchley.

現在，我非常喜歡羅伯特·班奇利（Robert Benchley）的這句話。

He says there are two kinds of people in the world.

Those who divide the world into two kinds of people and those who don't.

一種是將世界抽成兩種人的人，另一種則不是。

And I always thought it was kind of sad that people like to look at other humans and oversimplify them into very, very rough categories.

我一直覺得，人們喜歡看著其他人，然後過度簡化他們，將他們歸入非常、非常粗略的類別，這有點令人難過。

So I decided instead of dividing the world into two kinds of people, I would divide it into three.

所以我決定，與其將世界抽成兩種人，不如將它抽成三種。

這或許能捕捉到人性的複雜性。

So the basic idea is, I think most of us walk into interactions with different kinds of goals in mind.

所以基本想法是，我認為我們大多數人在互動時，心中都有不同類型的目標。

And there are some people who walk into their interactions at work and think, okay, how can I get as much as possible from other people?

有些人走進職場互動時，心裡想的是：「好，我該如何從別人身上榨取最多？」

And those are the people that I call takers.

而這些人，我稱他們為「索取者」。

Most of the time when they're interacting with others, they're trying to claim value and not contribute much back in return.

大多時候，他們在與他人互動時，都在試圖獲取價值，卻不太回饋。

On the other end of the reciprocity spectrum, we have people that I would call givers.

在互惠光譜的另一端，有我稱之為「給予者」的人。

These are not people who donate money to charity necessarily, or who volunteer a lot, but

這不是說他們一定會捐錢做公益，或經常當志工，而是

people who are looking to benefit the others around Them by offering help, perhaps sharing knowledge, making introductions, giving advice without expecting anything in return.

他們會主動幫助周遭的人，也許分享知識、牽線介紹、給予建議，卻不期待任何回報。

Now, both of these extremes are pretty rare.

這兩種極端的人其實都很少見。

As many of you know, most of us fall right in the middle.

就像你們很多人知道的，我們大多數人都落在中間。

Matchers are the people who try to maintain an even balance of give and take.

衡平者是那些試圖維持付出與獲得之間平衡的人。

So if I help you, I expect you to help me.

所以如果我幫助你，我就期望你幫助我。

If I do a favor for someone, I want one back.

如果我幫別人一個忙，我希望得到回報。

And I'm going to maintain some kind of quid pro quo.

Seems like a really nice way to achieve balance and fairness.

這聽起來是達成平衡與公平的絕佳方式。

The question that I really got started with as I was discovering sort of this spectrum of takers to givers was, of the three groups, the takers, the givers, and

當我開始探索從索取者到給予者的光譜時，我真正開始思考的問題是，在這三種人之中，索取者、給予者，

the matchers, who is most likely to end up at the bottom of the success spectrum across different jobs, different industries, and

以及衡平者，誰最有可能在各種工作、各種產業和

各種成功指標中，落在成功光譜的底端？

And I looked at a couple different studies that I thought were really revealing on this one was Frank Flynn's study of engineers.

我檢視了幾項我覺得非常能說明問題的研究，其中一項是 Frank Flynn 對工程師的研究。

And what he found was when he asked the engineers to rate how many favors do you give to your colleagues versus how many do you get back?

他發現，當他問工程師，他們會給同事多少幫助，又會從同事那裡得到多少幫助時。

The least productive engineers in this company and the engineers with the worst quality work and the most errors were the ones who did a lot more favors than they got back.

這間公司生產力最低、工作品質最差、錯誤最多的工程師，就是那些付出的幫助遠多於獲得幫助的人。

They kind of ran out of time to get their own work done carefully.

他們好像沒時間好好完成自己的工作。

And then if you look at medical students, you see something that's very similar with their grades.

然後，如果你看看醫學系學生，你會發現他們的成績也有類似的現象。

You find that medical students who agree with statements like, I love to help others and I'm always trying to promote the interest of others actually did worse in their first year grades.

你會發現，同意「我喜歡幫助別人」、「我總是試圖促進別人的利益」這類說法的醫學系學生，第一年的成績反而比較差。

And a lot of that seems to be driven by the fact that they spend time helping other people study instead of filling the gaps in their own knowledge.

而這很大一部分似乎是因為他們花時間幫助別人讀書，而不是填補自己知識上的不足。

And then I had a lot of fun with this when studying salespeople, I collected a bunch of data on salespeople with a former student, Dane Barnes.

接著，我在研究銷售人員時也覺得很有趣，我和一位前學生 Dane Barnes 一起收集了很多銷售人員的資料。

And again, we got people to fill out a survey where we measured whether they were takers, givers, or matchers.

同樣地，我們讓大家填寫一份問卷，測量他們是索取者、給予者，還是衡平者。

And sure enough, the givers ended up at the very, very bottom of the spectrum.

結果不出所料，給予者落到了光譜的最、最底端。

They had the lowest revenue scores annually of anybody in the company.

他們的年營收分數是公司裡最低的。

And it's kind of simple when you think about it, right?

想想看，這其實很簡單，對吧？

If you're a salesperson who loves helping others, then instead of selling stuff to your customers, you actually help them.

如果你是一位喜歡幫助別人的銷售人員，那麼你不是在賣東西給顧客，而是在幫助他們。

And sometimes those two things are at odds.

And I thought that was really interesting.

And then I started asking people, okay, if givers are at the bottom and who's at the top.

然後我就開始問大家，好，如果給予者在最底端，那誰又在最頂端呢？

And the matchers seem like, ok, they're not going to be doormats, they're not going to burn out like a lot of givers do.

而衡平者看起來，嗯，他們不會被人當成墊腳石，也不會像很多給予者那樣燃燒殆盡。

And as a lot of you know, I was really surprised to find it's the givers again that actually the same people who are endorsing statements like I love to help others, like I'm willing to help others without expecting anything in return, are over represented not only at the bottom, but

很多人都知道，我非常驚訝地發現，竟然又是給予者，也就是那些說「我喜歡幫助別人」、「我願意幫助別人而不求回報」的人，他們不僅在最底端，

also at the top of all of these success metrics.

而且在所有成功的指標中，也佔據了最頂端。

In Frank Flynn's study, the most productive engineers, highest quality, highest quantity work, also are people who do a lot more favors than they get back.

在 Frank Flynn 的研究中，生產力最高的工程師，品質最高、產量最高的，也是那些付出的幫助遠多於獲得回報的人。

The medical students with the highest grades in Belgium over a seven year period are people who say I love to help others.

在比利時七年期間成績最好的醫學院學生，是那些說我喜歡幫助別人的人。

And even salespeople, the very best salespeople across four or five different industries turn out to be people who say they're givers.

甚至連銷售人員，橫跨四五種不同產業裡最頂尖的銷售人員，結果竟然是那些說自己是給予者的人。

And so that for me raises the really fundamental question of number one, what do successful givers do that takers and matchers can learn?

這讓我引發了一個非常根本的問題：第一，成功的給予者做了什麼是索取者和衡平者可以學習的？

So for those of us who don't operate on the giver end of the spectrum, if there's a limit to our success, if as takers and matchers we may reach a ceiling and there are givers in the world who exceed that level of success, what can we learn from them?

所以，對於我們這些不在光譜的給予者端運作的人，如果我們的成功有限制，如果我們作為索取者和衡平者可能會達到一個瓶頸，而世界上有些給予者能超越這個成功水準，我們能從他們身上學到什麼？

And then the second question really is, what differentiates givers at the bottom from those at the.

然後第二個問題是，底層的給予者和頂端的給予者有什麼不同？