Aqui há uns tempos li um artigo no linkedin que expunha a teoria de Adam Grant no livro Give and Take.

Chamou-me a atenção porque dividia as pessoas em 3 tipos:

– Givers
– Takers
– Matchers

Eu gosto muito de psicologia e sociologia e automaticamente consegui relacionar a teoria com as pessoas que me rodeia, seja pessoalmente, seja no local de trabalho.
Define-me claramente como uma Giver, mesmo sem fazer o teste no site. Depois de fazer o assessment tive a certeza, mas há ali uma percentagem dos três tipos:

A explicação é dada pelo próprio Adam Grant da seguinte forma:

Adam Grant: You could anchor this at two extremes: the takers and the givers. The takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return, thinking that’s the shortest and most direct path to achieving their own goals.
At the other end of the spectrum, we have this strange breed of people that I call “givers.” It’s not about donating money or volunteering necessarily, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, providing mentoring or sharing knowledge, without any strings attached. These givers actually prefer to be on the contributing end of an interaction. Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between. That brings us to the third group of people, who are matchers. A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take. If I help you, I expect you to help me in return. [They] keep score of exchanges, so that everything is fair and really just.

É fabuloso ver como se adapta a tudo na nossa vida, não só nas organizações a que pertencemos ou para as quais trabalhamos, mas nas relações humanas e sentimentais. Li este artigo na sequência dos anteriores e foi como se algo me iluminasse o cérebro de repente, e em segundos eu consegui perceber porque é que há pessoas de quem eu gosto tanto e outras que passo a não suportar:

In order to understand where you fit in and how to best navigate your relationships with others, here’s a summary of the 3 styles of romantic partners.
3 Styles of Romantic Partners
Givers are people whose primary motivation is to take care of others, to make sure others are well, and to contribute to others and society. In a relationship, these are people who are always thinking about gifts for their partner, who take their partners’ interests into consideration, and who are always thinking “What else can I do for you?” They’re pretty awesome. As Grant mentions in his book—everyone likes having givers around because they are always happy to contribute and thinking of others. They understand the relationship as an opportunity to give and take care.
Givers often end up thinking there is something wrong with them when they are unhappy in a relationship. They are the ones who think they are not lovable or good enough because they take personal responsibility for making the relationship work (rather than blaming their partners). They can end up burned out and exhausted, from continuously giving at their own cost if they do not receive the support they need from the relationship.
Matchers tend to keep a balance sheet in a relationship. When matchers give they do so with an expectation of getting something in return.  When they receive something, they feel like they have to give something back. Matchers are the ones who are keeping tabs, and view relationships as somewhat like a commercial transaction.They are the ones who are most likely to say something like:  “I did this for you, but you didn’t do that for me” or “You paid for this, so I’ll pay for that.”  
Takers are just that…takers. They usually treat people well only if and when those people can help them reach their goals. Interestingly, Grant points out that they often appear as the most charming and charismatic people on the surface. They know how to work the crowd and seduce, but under the surface they are actually motivated by self-interest. You can recognize a taker by how poorly they treat people that they believe are of no use to them. You know you’re in a relationship with a taker when you feel sucked dry for all you have (whether it’s money, affection, time etc.). Once the taker has everything they want from you, you may be relegated to the “unimportant” sphere of their life. Their primary focus is themselves.

Deixo-vos este “food for thoughts”, sigam os links, investiguem a teoria, façam o assessment, tirem daí as vossas ilações.
Eu pessoalmente descobri que não suporto takers, que tenho uma enorme dificuldade em lidar com eles. E se bem que consigo gerir mais ou menos as minhas relações com os matchers dada a presença da teoria “gato escaldado, de água fria tem medo”, descobri que ou os matchers que conheço evoluem para givers, ou ao fim de um determinado tempo canso-me, e embora não os elimine da minha vida como elimino claramente os takers, os matchers não se mantém muito tempo nas minhas relações mais próximas.

Para mim um taker é um egoísta e egocêntrico, e são pessoas cujo sentido de amizade não se coaduna com o meu porque sinto que me sugam e que fazem de mim otária. E se bem que eu não costumo dar para receber algo em troca daquela pessoa, alguém que está continuamente a sugar o meu tempo e a minha energia sem dar algo em troca a outros (não necessariamente a mim), é alguém que não me interessa minimamente como pessoa. Talvez daí advenham e se expliquem aqueles 27 e 20% de taker e matcher, porque eu não sou perfeita, nem muito menos tão boa pessoa que chegue a ser otária. E reajo sempre que acho que alguém estar a abusar da minha boa vontade.

Remato com mais um excerto de um dos artigos que li, e que explica em grande qualidade o motivo pelo qual costumo conseguir o impossível a que me proponho e sou uma pessoa irritantemente feliz:

Even if givers don’t exceed the accomplishments of takers and matchers, their success takes on a different quality. Instead of cutting other people down on the way to the top, they pursue their personal goals in ways that lift other people up, earning friends, not enemies. So when givers do ascend, it isn’t lonely at the top.

Food for thoughts my dear readers, a lot of food for thoughts!