Today we complete the review of the book "Give and Take". We discussed the two categories within the givers. Today we discuss Chump Change and the Scrooge shift. Negotiations is an area where such roles demonstrated differences very well. Givers are uncomfortable being assertive and advocating their own interests. Takers on the other hand are focused on claiming value and they see then negotiations as zero-sum win-lose contests and didn't trust their opponents. They bargain aggressively overlooking the understanding of their counterpart's interests. The selfless givers made too many concessions. Dutch psychologist Carsten De Dreu showed that successful negotiators are not selfless givers or takers but those that operate in the 'otherish' manner described earlier.
They had high concern for their interests and high concern for their counterpart's interests. They are able to think in more complex ways and expanding the pie. They find win-win solutions that both takers and selfless givers miss.
Successful givers realize their everyday choice shape the results they achieve in competitive confrontational situations. Although they start from trusting others' intentions, they are careful to scan the environment for potential takers, always ready to shift from feeling a takers emotions to analyzing a takers' thoughts and flex from giving unconditionally to a more generous tit for tat. And when they feel inclined to back down, successful givers are prepared to draw reserves of assertiveness from their commitments to the people who matter to them.
A question may be asked that when the world operates as a flea market, could it function on giving instead of matching ? Deron Beal created a website called Freecycle to connect people with goods to people who need them. Although takers and matchers joined it to get something, Beal noticed that they used the same website to give back when they didn't the goods any longer. For example, parents who wanted products for their babies, passed it on after use. People who joined with the intention of taking ended up giving.
Finally the author concludes this discussion of roles and their definitions of success with an acknowledgement that there is a fine line between giving and clever matching that often gets blurred where the reciprocity styles are governed by actions themselves, the motives behind them or some combination of the two. On the one hand even if motives are mixed, helping behaviors often add value to others, increasing the total amount of giving in a social system. Because efforts that are not authentic have their own peril, would-be matchers are best served by giving in ways that they find enjoyable to recipients whose well being matters to them. This way matchers will operate in a givers mindset, leading their motives to appear and become more pure.

Today we continue reviewing the book Give and Take by Adam Grant. We talked about how givers, takers and matchers differ in their abilities to influence people. On the two paths of dominance and prestige, takers specialize in powerful communication to establish dominance. They send powerful verbal and non-verbal signals. As  a result, takers tend to be more effective than givers in gaining dominance.But is that the most sustainable path to influence ? The opposite of this style is called powerless communication. Powerless communicators tend to speak less assertively, expressing plenty of doubt and relying heavily on advice of others. They signal vulnerability, revealing their weaknesses and making use of disclaimers, hedges and hesitations. By using powerless communication they build up prestige and they do so in four domains of influence. presenting, selling, persuading and negotiating. Because they value the perspective and interests of others, they are more inclined towards listening rather than imposing their views.
The value of vulnerability is evident form Pratfall effect. In a taped recording of two students - one a expert and another an average in auditioning for a Quiz Bowl team, the audience liked the expert over the average but when both of them make a gaffe such as spilling coffee on their new suit, the audience liked the average candidate even less and the better candidate even more. This vulnerability made the expert more human and approachable.
Givers tend to demonstrate this better than takers who are more assertive. In an interview for an opportunity to lead multiple business units, a marketing manager answered the opening question to enumerate his successes in a less assertive manner often extolling his team. Although he was the front runner, he did not get the job. At the same time, he earned prestige and his team became more successful than earlier.
We now discuss why givers are at a higher risk of burn out than others. Givers climb up based on their unique style of building networks, collaboration, communication, influence and helping others achieve their potential.  They end up making sacrifices for their collaborators. Adam says that success is not only about capitalizing on the strengths of giving but also avoiding pitfalls Too much giving is too much expense of energy and consequently the givers are at a higher risk of exhaustion and productivity loss leading them to the bottom of the chain.  Based on this Adam separates the givers into two categories - the pathological givers which he calls the selfless givers due to their unhealthy focus on others and the otherish givers which he refers to as those who are mostly givers but still holding to some of their interests. In this latter group, there is more balance between concern for others and for self as opposed to that in the former group and they are better positioned to flourish.
#codingexercise
double Pow(int x, int y)
{
  double res = 1.0;
  if y == 0 return res;
  for (int i =0; i< Math.Abs(y); i++)
      res = res * x;
   if (y > 0){
       return res;
   } else{
       return (1/res);
   }
}

Today we continue reading the book "Give and Take".
 We discussed "Expedition behavior" and "responsibility bias". The former involves putting the group's interests before self and the latter involves overestimating your own contributions.
 The former fosters successful collaborations while the latter attributes to failed collaborations. As with networking and collaboration, reciprocity comes in useful to spotting and gathering talent around us. In many studies, when the manager showed  a belief that the employees are bloomers (ones who show potential for intellectual blooming or "spurting") employees bloomed. Having a genuine interest and belief as well as engaging in actions that support others, increases other's motivation and helps them achieve their potential.
Matchers are in fact better equipped to inspire and promote this talent growth. First since they believe in reciprocity, they go out of their way to support and encourage. Besides they do so only when they have seen an evidence of a promise. Givers don't wait for these signs of potential. Givers start by viewing other people as bloomers.
These roles can also be seen to affect the two fundamental paths to influence which are dominance and prestige.  Dominance is established when others see us as strong, powerful and authoritative. Prestige is established when others respect and admire us. Takers are attracted to and excel in dominance. They specialize in powerful communication.
#codingexercise
Double
GetNthRootProductEvenRaisedPDividedQAndOddRaisedPTimesQ (Double [] A,Double  p, Double q)

{

If ( A== null) return 0;

Return A.NthRootProductEvenRaisedPDividedQAndOddRaisedPTimesQ(p, q);

}

Today we start reading another book called Give and Take by Adam Grant. This book breaks out of the mold of self-improvement books in that it shifts the focus from individual drivers of success : passion, hard-work, talent and luck to one that highlights interaction with others. It finds the underlying theme in effective networking, collaboration, influence, negotiation, and leadership skills. Adam Grant says that professional interactions matter. Most people operate as takers, matchers or givers. Takers are the ones who want to get as much as possible from others, matchers aim to trade evenly and givers are those rare who contribute without expecting anything in return. These styles have a dramatic impact on success. Although some givers get exploited and burn out, the rest achieve extraordinary results across a wide range of industries.
This book teaches the following:
what defines a giver, matcher and a taker
how our reciprocity style affects our networking
how our reciprocity style influences our ability to collaborate and be creative
the power in powerless communication
Social scientists have discovered that people differ in their preferences for reciprocity - the desired mix of taking and giving. Takers have a distinctive signature - often taking more than giving and tilting reciprocity to their advantage. They take the world to be competitive and in order to be better than others, they self-promote and make sure they get plenty of credits for their benefits. The opposite of a taker is a giver. Unlike takers who are self-focused, givers are other-focused, paying more attention to what other people need from them.  These two groups differ in their attitudes and actions towards other people. A taker will help others strategically when the benefits outweigh the personal costs. A giver will help whenever the benefits to others outweigh the personal costs.
A few of us are also in the middle unlike these two ends of the spectrum. We become the matchers striving to preserve an equal balance of giving and getting. Matchers operate on the principle of fairness. They protect themselves by seeking reciprocity and the relationships are governed by even exchange of favors. Giving taking and matching are three fundamental styles of social interaction.
While all three categories have their advantages and disadvantages, the givers are the ones with higher risk and rewards.
When givers succeed, it spreads and cascades. When takers win, there's usually someone else who loses.
Takers are often met with guarded interaction and withheld trust and help. To avoid this, many takers disguise themselves as givers or matchers. Luckily takers leak clues or more precisely 'lek' clues.  'lekking' refers to a ritual in which males show off their desirability as mates. In CEO kingdom, takers do a dance that looks remarkably similar.
Networks have become more transparent which lets us observe reputation and lekking.
We take  a closer look at Reciprocity next. Reciprocity is a powerful norm but with two downsides - first, people on the receiving end may feel manipulated and second it may form closed groups. Matchers for instance are vulnerable to the latter where previously burned bridges may skew their networking. As these disadvantages of strict reciprocity accrue over time, they can limit both the quantity and quality of networks that takers and matchers develop.
Reciprocity can be improved with a dimension of creativity and takers have  a knack for generating creative ideas and carrying them in the face of opposition because they are confident about themselves. Givers are also creative and we can gain a rich appreciation by studying the habits in collaboration.
In western culture, we extoll independence as a symbol of strength and collaboration as a sign of weakness. Takers demonstrate this as they see themselves superior to and separate from others. Givers reject the notion that interdependence is  a sign of weakness. A defining feature of how givers collaborate is they take on tasks that are in the groups best interests. In fact across a variety of industries and sizes, studies have shown that the more giving the employees are the better the quality of the products and services. This is referred to as expedition behavior - a term coined by National Outdoor leadership School. Contrast this with the responsibility bias. When partners overestimate their own contributions, it is known as the responsibility bias and takers demonstrate this.

Today we complete the review of the book "Triggers". We were discussing Active questions and AIWATT principle. We also mentioned we do not get better without structure. Structure helps us gain control because it provides guard rails. For example, if we have only five minutes to speak, we make our case with a new found concision.  Similarly we need help when we are least likely to get it. This is in reference to situations which is not on our calendar. Those unguarded interpersonal moments etc. or the surprises we encounter. In the run up to a boring meeting, we might be sending signals that we are not interested leaving ourselves open to the environment. Instead if we were to realize that we will test ourselves with questions on whether we made a positive difference at the end of the meeting, we may behave differently.
Behavioral change has no absolutes.  The best we can hope for is a consistency in our effort -  a persistence of striving that makes other people more charitable about our shortcomings. Its when the striving stops, when we begin to throw ourselves on "good enough".  The risk of this attitude is that we can land ourselves in we disappoint people or create distress. There are a few environments that trigger a "good enough" attitude. These are 1) when our motivation is marginal - this is usually mitigated by either owning the task or not taking it up. 2) when we are working pro bono- where we think something is better than nothing. People forget promises and only the performance.
3) when we behave like amateurs where we are good at one thing but ignore to be good at another thing and 4) when we have a compliance issue such as when we flout rules because we become lazy.
The impetus behind these conscious decisions is to keep thinking about the environment pro-actively in the context of our desires. Then we overcome the triggers
The less we blame our environment the more tools we find. The engaging questions is one way to focus the mind and measure how we are doinvg. The other two objectives are to remain alert to our environment. The second objective is engagement.
When we embrace awareness and engagement, we can appreciate all the triggers. This completes our review of triggers.
I want to end this book review with a slightly different theme. When the going gets tough and you would rather take it out, by all means find an entry room and a pillow and go for it. The world will be unrelenting because they are not you. If you can take time for yourself, please do.

#codingexercise

int gcd(int a, int b)

{

// Euclid

 if (b == 0)

 {

     return a;

 }

 else

 {

     return gcd(b, a mod b);
}
}

#codingexercise
Double
GetNthRootProductOddRaisedPDividedQAndEvenRaisedPTimesQ (Double [] A,Double  p, Double q)

{

If ( A== null) return 0;

Return A.NthRootProductOddRaisedPDividedQAndEvenRaisedPTimesQ(p, q);

}

Today we continue reading the book triggers. We were discussing how environment tends to bring out the behaviour we don't intend to put on and how we can overcome it with active questions. The power of active questions has been studied on a set of participants where each one of them strive to answer six questions for positive thinking each day. There was an overwhelming response that it worked. A question that begins with 'Did I do my best to ...' triggers trying which changes everything. These questions for behavior change list can be anything we want. The objective for many people include health, family, relationships, money, enlightenment, and discipline. At the start, we may want to hit upon many improvements but the secret power of daily self questioning is that we either abandon our goals or we push ourselves into action.
The daily questions should be scored and reported to someone. That someone is a coach. A coach is a followup mechanism that instills accountability. Eventually we become our own coach

AIWATT is a principle recommended by the book based on the above discussion. It will reduce your daily volume of stress, conflict, debate and wasted time. It stands for Am I willing at this time to make the required investment to make a positive change on this topic ?

Like the physician's principle it requires you first to do no harm. It is a delaying mechanism and it should be deployed in the interval between the trigger and the behavior. It gives us time to consider a more positive response.

"Am  I willing" implies that we have a choice. "At this time" reminds us that it is about the present.
The only question is whether we are ready to engage in the efforts and spend some time.
The time we spend on topics where we can't make a positive difference is stolen from topics where we can.

More structure Is always helpful. Especially when we think I need help with this.

#codingexercise
List <int> GetFactors (int n)
{
Var ret = new List <int>();
// Pollard
Int I = 1;
Var r = new Random  ();
Int x = r.Next (n-1);
Int y = x;
Int k = 2;
For (;;)
{
I = I +1;
x = (x × x -1) % n;
D = gcd (y-x, n);
If d != 1 and d != n
     Ret.Add (d);
If ( I == k)
{
Y = x;
K = 2k;
}
If ( I > n )
     Break;
}
Return ret;
}

We continue with our discussion of the book titled "Triggers". Triggers are often attributed to Environments.  In other words, we enter an environment can bring out the good and the bad. For e.g., when we overspend in a mall, we let our environment take us over.  or perhaps a better example of getting sleep. where we understand how much we need and we think we are in control yet we indulge in bedtime procrastination.  Similarly the environment that is most concerning is situational. Its one with  simple dynamic - a changing environment changes us.
The book asks what if we could control our environment such that the feedback loop only brings out our best. or this we focus on the behavioral trigger that can be encouraging or discouraging, productive or counterproductive. These are the ones that express the timeless tension between what we want and what we need. Encouraging triggers lead us towards what we want and productive triggers lead us towards what we need.
The book goes further to describe how these triggers work. The effect of trigger on behavior is described with the ABC model - Antecedent, Behavior, Consequence.  This is usually well understood in children. In adults there are three eye-blink movements - first impulse, then awareness and then a choice. What choice we make is generally dependent on whether we are paying attention.
How do we try to break this cycle depends on a few things. Can we try to ask active questions ? The act of self-questioning because its easy to do and it changes everything.
#codingexercise
If we can represent the members of a Ninja school with hierarchical representation of master and students, find the Ninjas of the same generation.
We represent the hierarchical data as tree and print the solution as trees.
List<Node> GetSameGenNinjas(Node root, int level)
{
if (root == NULL || level == 0) return root;
var q = new Queue();
var ret = new List<Node>();
q.Enqueue(root);
q.Enqueue(NULL); // level marker
int count == 0;
while (Q.Count > 1)
{
   Node cur = Q.Dequeue();
   if (cur == NULL)
{
   q.Enqueue(NULL);
   count++;
   if (count > level) return ret;
   ret = new List<Node>();
}
else
{
    ret.Add(cur);
    for (Node n in cur.children())
        Q.Enqueue(n);
}
}
if (level == count) return ret;
return NULL;
}