Human Text 9
Importante mencionar:












Lay
Giver
Taker
Faker
Matcher
Machiavellian
Networks
Norm of reciprocity
Quid pro quo
Ties: strong and weak
Pronoia
Productivity differences
PPT deve ter:

definições destes conceitos
Pag 15-18
Adam
Reciprocity, downsides
Dormant Ties
Because he has such a large network, Rifkin has a growing number of dormant ties.
Definition: people he used to see often or know well, but with whom he has since fallen out of
contact.
According to management professors Daniel Levin, Jorge Walter, and Keith Murnighan, “adults
accumulate thousands of relationships over their lifetimes, but, prior to the Internet, they actively
maintained no more than 100 or 200 at any given time.”
Assignment to top executives: reactivate their dormant ties. Some said “they’re dormant for a
reason”
Study: reactivate ties that have been dormant for a minimum of three years. They sought advice for
ongoing projects and rated them on usefulness and then compared it to advice from their current
contacts. Dormant better than current. Why?
While dormant, new perspectives and ideas.
Current, share the same base knowledge and viewpoint as the executive.
Dormant ties (preexisting feelings of trust) = (weak ties - discomfort)
All provide the same value; the older you get, the more value the tie.
Takers: hard task; if ties are takers, they’ll be sus and self protecting; if the ties are matchers, they
may be motivated to punish takers; if the ties are givers, they won’t be so willing to help.
Matchers: easier task, but uncomfortable because of their fidelity to the norm of reciprocity; more
like transactional exchanges than meaningful relationships – less trust.
Givers: easy peasy lemon squeezy; people are glad to get back in touch with them and help them.
Rifkin – spends more time rekindling dormant ties than networking with new people.
when Wayne Baker collaborated with a professor of the University of Virginia, he realized that it was
also possible to track the flows of energy through networks. Networks: tracking knowledge exchange
vs energy flows
Takers: black holes (sucked energy around them)
Givers: suns (injected light into the organization)
Example of Rifkin: helped a Hollywood writer/director market himself and his project. “Adam had
absolutely no stake in my show’s success. Sink or swim, he wouldn’t benefit or suffer either way. But
true to his genuine joy of giving, he went out of his way to introduce us to countless media
opportunities.”
Rifkin’s real aim is to change our fundamental ideas about how we build our networks and who
should benefit from them. He believes that we should see networks as a vehicle for creating value for
everyone, not just claiming it for ourselves. And he is convinced that this giver approach to
networking can uproot the traditional norm of reciprocity in a manner that’s highly productive for all
involved.
Questions:
Why is it easier to ask a dormant tie for a favour than a weak link?
If matchers’ productivity is higher than that of a general giver, as it is difficult to be a “true giver”,
isn’t it more beneficial for a company to have more matchers than givers?
if weak ties are just casual contacts, how can they really be more useful than close friends when it
comes to getting help?