What Adam Grant argues in his speech was that there should be more “givers” in the workplace and society. Rather than “takers” who are the opposite people whom only think just about themselves. I can confidently agree with Grant. Because Givers tend to always care about others, but they often get burn out really easily. They are people who are always giving feedback, and they tend to give a good impact for workplace and society. Grant argues that givers in the workplace and society they succeed, but sometime they end up loosing. There is a financial advisor name Peter Audet, and he is a perfect example of someone who likes to help others, but they often put themselves at risk for burning out by takers. Which it relates to what Grant said in his argument, “It can sink your career, or it can accelerate it.” To the fact that Peter helped one of his colleagues to establish a workplace to work for his client, but a couple of months later Audet started loosing his clients. By the reason of that, his colleague was back in business and took his clients with him. …show more content…
For the reason being that I like giving feedback to others. Grant stated that this kind of people are the disagreeable people, “ Who give the critical feedback that no ones to hear.” I can relate to this because I’m the kind person that friends turn to for advice or my opinion. For instance in my Architecture class every time that we finished a new project we had to give each other advice of what we taught from each project. I was always the one who said the “harsh” opinion. “Sharing Knowledge or giving a little bit of feedback”- Grant. Which is true my opinion sometime helped them even though sometimes they didn’t realize