The Agreeable/Giver Hiring Matrix
Prize the disagreeable giver; beware the agreeable taker on your team.
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~ongoing to results
- Steps
- 4
- Confidence
- 90%
A 2x2 for evaluating who to keep close in an organization. One axis is agreeable vs disagreeable, the other giver vs taker. The most dangerous person is the agreeable taker — likable and easy, but self-interested. The most precious is the disagreeable giver — motivated by what's best for the company, willing to push back and tell you what you don't want to hear.
Origin
Attributed by Gleit to Adam Grant, learned in an executive learning-and-development session; Gleit maps it onto Meta's 'small group' leadership team.
Core principles
- 01Likability (agreeableness) is independent of motive (giver vs taker)
- 02Agreeable takers are dangerous — their niceness masks self-interest
- 03Disagreeable givers are precious — they fight for the company's interest
- 04Leaders lose accurate feedback loops as they gain success, fame, or wealth
- 05Deliberately cultivate a culture of direct, honest feedback
How to run it
- 1
Score people on two axes
Assess each person on agreeable vs disagreeable, and separately on giver (motivated by what's best for the company) vs taker (self-interested).
Watch out Don't conflate 'nice' with 'good for the org' — agreeableness and giving are different axes.
- 2
Flag the agreeable takers
Identify agreeable takers — the most dangerous quadrant. They're easy to get along with, which hides that their motivation is self-interested.
Watch out Their likability makes them hard to spot and easy to over-trust.
- 3
Protect and elevate the disagreeable givers
Value the people who are motivated to do what's best for the company even when they push back, fight for things, or say what you don't want to hear.
Pro tip A leadership team of long-tenured, mission-motivated people tends to be rich in disagreeable givers.
- 4
Engineer an accurate feedback loop
Because success, fame, and wealth erode honest feedback, deliberately surround yourself with people and a culture that give direct, honest feedback.
Watch out As you get more successful people may stop being 100% honest with you — build the loop on purpose.
In the wild
Gleit describes Meta's 'small group' leadership team as characterized by many disagreeable givers — long-tenured people motivated by mission over ladder-climbing, who give Zuckerberg direct feedback so he retains an accurate feedback loop.
→ A leadership culture of honest feedback that counteracts the loss of truth-telling that comes with success.
Common mistakes
Rewarding agreeableness over contribution
Keeping agreeable takers because they're pleasant, while sidelining disagreeable givers because they push back, degrades the organization.
Is it for you?
Best for
Leaders building or curating a senior team who want honest feedback and mission-aligned contributors
Not ideal for
Snap judgments — misclassifying someone as a 'taker' on thin evidence is itself a risk
From the transcript
“the most dangerous kind of person to have in an organization is an agreeable Taker and what that means is an agreeable person super nice…”
“the most the most precious person in an organization is the disagreeable Giver those are the people who are really motivated to do what's best…”
“I I think I learned this from Adam Grant during like a um executive um Learning and Development session”
“a lot of times as you get more successful or as you have more fame or if you have more wealth you lose having an…”
From the episode
Meta’s Head of Product (and 29th employee) on working with Mark Zuckerberg, early growth tactics, why PMs are like conductors, and more
Naomi Gleit