"So if you want to get closer to your customers, stop hiring takers to run customer service, sales, marketing and product development."

With non-profits, I would say keep takers away from the donor development arena, too.

"Even better, shift givers into the leadership positions in these functional areas."

True that.

It's amazing we've only had the language of Give and Take for under a year!

what job is good for Takers?

Hedge fund manager, pimp?

isn't hedge fund manager just like donor development arena?

isn't pimp just customer service, sales, marketing and product development all together?

To whatever degree exploitation of others is used to achieve your goals, you move from "benefit" to "take".

that is a fair definition.  i am still wondering what are good jobs for takers.  

Politics rewards takers who have charisma.

Same with the legal profession and the banking profession.

Also, collection agencies, insurance adjusters, risk managers, and fraud detectors.

Basically any profession where it's important not to let people get away with things.

Corporate boards, supply chain relationships, product recycling and customer service operating designs create environments that promote or demote giver and taker dispositions within their company cultures.

If I had to design a customer service call center I'd outsource all line staffing to Canadians.  Damningly polite givers of good phone.

Hmmm, I reflexively feel there are plenty of employable spots for takers in corporate industries that would be net positive for company, customer and society at large, but I can't really think of one where enlightened givers wouldn't also work as well or better.  Hmmm...interesting. 

I'll think on this a bit more.

I think an enlightened giver knows when they need to take in order to remain sustainable and healthy (and arguably is indistinguishable from an enlightened taker :-).

An un-enlightened giver (with a bias for making other people happy) is better at front-line roles, but then they need some sort of "taker-biased manager" or moderator to keep from burning themselves (or the company) out. That is, someone who is slightly more focused on the long-term needs of the company rather than the short-needs of this one customer.

Ideally, of course, everyone should be perfectly balanced, but that isn't practical (or likely).

Yeah, we can't fight who we are.

We can just move ourselves toward enlightenment.

Adam, Rob, and Ernie, thank you for answering or attempting to answer my question.  I had trouble too with thinking of a position that could not be better served by a giver instead of a taker.  Adam, I am not sure about those who are in charge with not letting others get away with things...we all like getting off with a warning for speeding and not a ticket.

Perhaps it would be fairer to split between "Givers" and "Protectors."  It is pretty much always wrong to blindly "Take" from other people. But often it is wise to seek to "Protect" yourself and other people rather than merely give them what they want.

Hmmm, within the conceit of a company in mind as the bounds for this discussion, say a company that we will agree treats its employees, suppliers, customers, local community and society at large with a value-add and giving stance, then I must confess to not being able to come up with a staff or leadership position anywhere within such a company that would be best helmed by a "taker" personality.

I even thought of legal positions, which at best are skilled combatants and defenders of the company's health and wealth and should rightfully be capable of continually "taking" from opponents, but I'm not convinced that a taker dispositional alignment is necessary to achieve the structural legal skill set of consistent victory.  And ruthless lawyers can be givers too.

I guess it's enlightened givers all around... group hug everyone.