I didn't know that you are limited by 1000 words. with that in mind, it's probably a good enough article :)
I appreciate the perspective you suggest in this article — it could be useful to frame discussion with the colleagues, but except for establishing the terms, it could be condensed in two sentences — here is a ChatGPT version of the article:
While givers often start as the lowest performers, they can ultimately become the highest achievers by building strong relationships, gaining visibility, and developing problem-solving skills through helping others. However, over-giving can lead to burnout and dependency issues, so it's important for givers to set boundaries and know when to say no.
It's not a limit by Substack, it's a self-imposed one :)
I feel that it helps me cut to the main point, and reduce 'fluff'. In this case, maybe I cut too much (the original version was ~1800 words), or maybe the issue is just plain simple.
I think the ChatGPT test is not really fair - any article can be condensed. My goal is to share a bit more about real-life stories and implications of that.
You know how they say about too-long books - 'this should have been an article'. Mabye the 'this should have been a paragraph' is a good test for article :)
Anyway thanks for the feedback, it's not often that people actually give those on Substack comments.
I would agree that ChatGPT could in fact condense anything, so it should not be used as a ruler. and I also would agree that there is probably just not much to say on the topic.
I'll quote the typical quote in all these books: "Help yourself first so you can help others"
I liked how in the book, Adam didn't go to one of the extremes but advocated more to balance self-interest and others-interest.
Personally, I try to give by default. But then I stop myself from giving indefinitely when it's an asymmetric relationship and I'm sacrificing something else. It's a bit like a matcher, but I try to be the one proactively giving.
Also from books like Influence by Robert Cialdini, we know that reciprocity is something natural in humans. So it's unlikely I'll be giving from an honest position and someone else will take too much advantage.
Did Adam Grant mention how these groups are represented as a percentage of the population?
I wonder if it depends on culture, country, or social norms.
That’s a good question! I don’t remember seeing a reference for that unfortunately 😅
I may have heard that in Adam Grant's TED talk. If I find it at some point, I'll paste it here.
very shallow article, although I appreciate the perspective
Shallow because it doesn't represent the bigger picture, of how giving affects your own time? Or for another reason?
There are many caveats I didn't add, such as how that manager is managing a very small team so he has enough time.
There is only so much that can be said in ~1000 words :)
I didn't know that you are limited by 1000 words. with that in mind, it's probably a good enough article :)
I appreciate the perspective you suggest in this article — it could be useful to frame discussion with the colleagues, but except for establishing the terms, it could be condensed in two sentences — here is a ChatGPT version of the article:
While givers often start as the lowest performers, they can ultimately become the highest achievers by building strong relationships, gaining visibility, and developing problem-solving skills through helping others. However, over-giving can lead to burnout and dependency issues, so it's important for givers to set boundaries and know when to say no.
It's not a limit by Substack, it's a self-imposed one :)
I feel that it helps me cut to the main point, and reduce 'fluff'. In this case, maybe I cut too much (the original version was ~1800 words), or maybe the issue is just plain simple.
I think the ChatGPT test is not really fair - any article can be condensed. My goal is to share a bit more about real-life stories and implications of that.
You know how they say about too-long books - 'this should have been an article'. Mabye the 'this should have been a paragraph' is a good test for article :)
Anyway thanks for the feedback, it's not often that people actually give those on Substack comments.
I would agree that ChatGPT could in fact condense anything, so it should not be used as a ruler. and I also would agree that there is probably just not much to say on the topic.
anyway, thanks for the article!
I'll quote the typical quote in all these books: "Help yourself first so you can help others"
I liked how in the book, Adam didn't go to one of the extremes but advocated more to balance self-interest and others-interest.
Personally, I try to give by default. But then I stop myself from giving indefinitely when it's an asymmetric relationship and I'm sacrificing something else. It's a bit like a matcher, but I try to be the one proactively giving.
Also from books like Influence by Robert Cialdini, we know that reciprocity is something natural in humans. So it's unlikely I'll be giving from an honest position and someone else will take too much advantage.
Very interesting article, Anton!
You know, I think that in this case it does go a bit closer to the 'help others' extereme, as least in my interpretation.
Sometimes it's worth not meeting your own deadline, but helping other people meet their's (with limits of course).
That's very true
Awesome piece, I loved Adam Grant's book and work on this in general.
Great points giving us insight into engineering management though the "giving" lens Anton!
Thanks Greg, I appreciate it!
I love the book! Nicely said Anton.
Thank you Milan!