Givers and takers both show up. Whoever sets the norm wins.

Adam Grant once had more than 160 engineers rate each other on how much they gave and how much they got back.

The least productive people in the building were the givers, the ones who helped everyone and protected nothing.

Then he looked at salespeople, and the most productive people there were givers too, earning about 50% more than the takers.

Same trait, both ends of the table. That is the thing most people get wrong about generosity.

What separated the givers at the bottom from the givers at the top was not talent, and it was not how much they gave. It was whether they looked after themselves while they did it.

Grant has a word for the ones who win, otherish. They give generously and keep one eye on their own goals the whole way through. The ones who burn out are the selfless givers, the people who say yes to everything until there is nothing left.

That is the engine underneath give-first, which I wrote about separately. Here I want to scale it up, from one person to a whole community.

A community is a norm at scale

Every group has givers and takers in it. What decides whether the group is worth belonging to is which of those two becomes the default, the thing a new member copies in their first week without being told to.

Whoever sets that norm wins, and takers are very good at setting it. Once a few people start treating the group as a place to extract, giving starts to look like a tax the takers do not pay, and the most generous people are the first to feel it.

Run that forward ten cycles and you get two completely different places.

The taker tax

Most things that call themselves communities are taker harvests with a Slack channel.

Someone spins up a group, a few hundred people join, and within months the feed is people pitching their own thing and asking for favors they will never return. The signal drops. The people who gave real answers get tired of being a free help desk, and they go.

Here is the asymmetry that kills it. The best givers are also the most mobile, they have somewhere better to be, so they leave first. What stays behind is the people who were only ever there to take, talking to each other.

This is not a new failure, the internet named it a long time ago.

In 1993, AOL connected its users to Usenet, the open discussion network that had run for years on its own etiquette. Newcomers arrived faster than the regulars could show them how it worked, and by the end of the year it was spam and get-rich schemes. Within a couple of years the people who had built the place had retreated to smaller private lists to escape the noise. The old-timers still call it the Eternal September, the month that never ended.

Open and ungated sounds generous, but left alone it is the fastest route to that harvest.

Why give-first networks compound

Now run the other panel.

When the norm is give-first, the same network does the opposite thing, it gets denser and more valuable every cycle.

Some of that is plain game theory. Trust shows up when people know they will deal with each other again, and researchers call it the shadow of the future. A taker plays every exchange like it is the last one, grab what you can and move on. A community is a long repeated game, where the person you help today is someone you run into in three years from a better seat.

Some of it is reputation. In a group that lasts, generosity gets remembered, and a name for being helpful becomes the most valuable thing you own there. Stack Overflow turned that into machinery, you earn privileges by contributing, and every privilege is one more reason to keep showing up.

And it has a measurable slope. BNI, the business referral network, runs on a principle it calls Givers Gain, and its own numbers show a member past 200 hours of showing up sends around five times the referrals they did in their first year. Give-first is not faith, it has a dose-response curve.

Courtland Allen built Indie Hackers the same way. Before it was a community it was him interviewing other bootstrapped founders and giving their stories away, his own name nowhere in it. He talked to a near-empty room for the better part of a year, and then it hit critical mass and started running itself.

None of these began as a network, each one began as a single person giving first long enough to set the norm, and the network grew on top of that.

Gating is generosity

Which raises the obvious question. If givers get used and leave first, how does any of this last?

The answer sounds backwards. You protect the givers, and you do it with a wall.

Curation, gates, an application nobody enjoys filling in, from the outside they look like exclusion. From the inside they are how you keep takers from setting the norm, and how you stop your most generous people from being drained by the selfless-giver trap Grant described.

The wall is not there to keep people out for its own sake. It is there so the people inside can stay generous without it costing them everything. Gating is generosity, aimed at the members you already have.

What this looks like from one seat

I have watched this from one seat for a few years now.

GrowthMentor is a community of mentors, and it only works because we are strict about the norm. We accept under five percent of the people who apply to mentor. We tell every applicant up front that it is a no-pitch zone, you are here to help, not to sell, and the ones who only wanted a sales pipeline read that and take themselves out.

It is a repeated game by design. Members come back, mentors come back, the same names turn up year after year. The reputation you build by being generous compounds, because the people you helped are still around to remember it.

Across more than 750 mentors and around 60,000 sessions, the vast majority have been free. That is the dose-response curve showing up in our own data, what happens when you set a give-first norm and then guard it.

Pull out the no-pitch rule and the acceptance bar and we would be a taker harvest with a Slack channel inside a year. I go into the exact mechanics of how we build that in elsewhere.

This is roughly what a few years of it looks like.

The asymmetry worth sitting with

If you are building anything that runs on people showing up for each other, this is the asymmetry to sit with.

Anyone can start a Slack and have a thousand members by Friday.

Keeping the givers in the room is the whole game, and it is slow, unglamorous work. Reading every application. Holding a rule that costs you signups. Catching the first week that giving starts to feel like a sucker's move, and fixing it before the best people leave.

I still read every application myself. On a long day it feels like a strange use of a founder's time, one more profile, one more read on whether someone is here to give or here to take. Then I think about the alternative, a thousand members by Friday and an empty room by spring, and I open the next one.

Mentors who give first

You can read about give-first networks,
or you can join one.

Browse vetted startup and marketing mentors and book a 1:1 on-demand. Under 5% get in, and it's a no-pitch zone. Membership is unlimited calls, every mentor included.

Find a mentor