How to pronounce “matcher” in English

So my father-in-law, he has no idea what I do in California.And matchers are people that you help me, quid pro quo.

Most people, it turns out, if you look at the data, are what I call matchers.And a matcher is somebody who has tried to keep an even balance of give and take.Quid pro quo. Tit for tat.

But my question is, is it the best way to live your professional life?Is being a matcher, which most people choose to do, actually the best path to success?I'm going to try to shed some light on that today.

When you add it all together, it kind of creates this noise floor.We have worked with matchers, yeah.

Ultimately, there's givers, takers, and matchers.Most of us are matchers, right?You help me, I help you-- survival.

All of those things are really hard to do, but finding rules that tilt the playing field are a lot easier.Takers or matchers we want to deemphasize in our lives.

than they get back.The takers and the matchers are more likely to be in the middle when it comes to their productivity and their error rates.Medical students with the best grades, not just in year one but over a seven year period are also the ones who say, I

In sales, Dane and I found that giver salespeople who really loved helping colleagues and customers actually brought in about 50% more annual revenue than thetakers and the matchers.So for me, that posed two questions.

A second path to becoming a taker, which I want to talk a little bit about today, is having been taken advantage ofone too many times as a matcher or a giver, and believing if I don't put myself first in this dog-eat-dog competitive world, nobody will.There's a third path to becoming a taker which I'm not going to talk about today, it's called being a psychopath.

So collaboration. How do givers succeed in collaboration?And if you're a matcher, you believe in a just world.

So my father-in-law, he has no idea what I do in California.And most of us are matchers.

All right, we have some optimists in the room.How many people think it was the matchers?OK, a lot of you.

How many people think the takers were most likely at the top?How many people think the matchers are most likely at the top, ignoring my warning that the most common can't be overrepresented in one part of the spectrum?How many people didn't raise their hand for either the takers or the matchers just now?

But here the MBA is not what you think it is.givers, matchers, and takers.

your smile. But if it's a fake smile, you won't see those.The problem is both takers and givers and matchers, too, are capable of fake smiles.In fact, there are a lot of takers, also, who engage in very genuine smiles.

Do they rise? Do they fall?How does their success compare to givers and matchers?And when I started trying to ask this question, I began at the bottom of success, asking which group is worst off.

So collaboration. How do givers succeed in collaboration?Part of the reason for that is most people are matchers.

finally for this page leave the technical stuff to us okay one of the things that we've recently been talkingabout with some of the Google H high-ups is perfect matchers using gmach with C++who here writes in C++ okay how about Drupal see and that's where you guys

I also found it, for those of you who are givers, to be a little bit sad.How many of you would self-identify more as a giver than a matcher or a taker?OK, how many of you self-identify as a giver but didn't want to raise your hand because you feel like that violates humility?

How many people think the matchers are most likely at the top, ignoring my warning that the most common can't be overrepresented in one part of the spectrum?How many people didn't raise their hand for either the takers or the matchers just now?OK, good, now we have everyone involved.

There's a great book I recommend called "Give and Take" by Adam Grant, and he was kind enough to leave a blurb on the back of my book.He talks about givers, and takers, and matchers.And anyone familiar with this book?

So my father-in-law, he has no idea what I do in California.So givers, takers, and matchers.

Who gets the worst results?Is it the takers, the givers, or the matchers?And it looked at research in three domains.

So for me, that posed two questions.One was, what do successful givers do that the rest of us takers and matchers might want to learn?And I think this is an exciting question because these reciprocity styles are not hard wired.

But because it's a choice, it's something we can all change.And maybe there are ways that successful givers operate that would be interesting and productive for takers and matchers.Second question that I was curious about is, what happens to those givers at the bottom?

So collaboration. How do givers succeed in collaboration?Just as you can't stand to see a taker be selfish and get away with it, you also, if you're a matcher, don't like

[email protected] if you'd like to join the book club, and it will be global.Ultimately, there's givers, takers, and matchers.Most of us are matchers, right?

All of those things are really hard to do, but finding rules that tilt the playing field are a lot easier.And there's, there's basically-- I mean, I guess the "Give and Take" book does it very well, by Adam Grant, but there are the takers, the matchers, and the givers.

All of those things are really hard to do, but finding rules that tilt the playing field are a lot easier.And you do-- I do something for someone, you figure out very quickly whether there are takers or matchers.

Now, very few of us fall purely in the taker or giver category.Most people, it turns out, if you look at the data, are what I call matchers.And a matcher is somebody who has tried to keep an even balance of give and take.

The engineers, the medical students, and the salespeople.There was one group, either the takers, the givers, or the matchers, who was consistently worse off when it came to productivity, errors, grades, and revenue.Get a show of hands to see where your intuitions and assumptions lie.

OK, a lot of you.Now, this is an odd thing to vote for, because statistically if most people are matchers, it would actually be quite hard for most people to be at thebottom of any metric.