Why Kind Givers End Up Both Winning and Losing

When Wharton professor Adam Grant surveyed engineers and medical students, the people who volunteered the most help—"Givers"—often ended up at the bottom of performance charts. They missed deadlines, overloaded themselves, and felt like the office doormat. Yet, astonishingly, those same Givers were also disproportionately found at the very top of success metrics.

How can this be? Grant discovered it all came down to whom Givers were helping and how they managed that generosity. The most successful Givers developed limits: they knew exactly how much time to invest in others, and they prioritized requests that aligned with their own goals. They also built circles of Matchers—colleagues who valued reciprocity and would step in if a request ever felt exploitative.

This dynamic creates a protective network effect. Givers get support and resources from other Givers, and Matchers act as buffers against Takers—people who constantly ask for favors without returning them. Over time, genuine generosity and strategic boundaries turned into enormous social capital, boosting promotions, collaboration, and well-being.

Meanwhile, egregious Takers, who neither give nor help maintain the network’s balance, soon found themselves isolated. When you help intentionally and sustainably, generosity becomes a strategic advantage rather than a career-killing trap.

You’ll feel the power of giving when you draw a clear boundary around your generosity. Start by pinpointing which requests fuel both your colleagues’ success and your own. Next, define a weekly giving limit so you don’t sacrifice your key priorities. Then, loop in a trusted Matcher—perhaps a mentor or team lead—who can spotlight any one-sided asks. By combining heartfelt help with firm boundaries, you’ll build trust, accelerate collaboration, and avoid the burnout that traps unregulated Givers in the middle of the pack.