I'm a big proponent of being a giver. I'm not sure if this is genetic, environmental, or a combination of both, but I'm inclined to think it was not the environment of my home city. My home city did not reward giving: rather it rewarded calculated matching and taking. These incentives arose from a deathly combination of the industry powering the city, cultural values, and stagnation of growth in said industry.
If we define my environment as my household though, my household was very influential, as my parents managed to be successful while being disagreeable givers. This imprinted on me in my formative years, and my subconscious thesis was as follows: you could succeed as a giver, contrary to the beliefs of this city and my high school. In fact, I was convinced giving would lead to superior outcomes overall, whether it was through personal fulfillment (we're biologically wired for prosocial behavior), or through more quantitative measures, such as the things you accomplish, the money you make, et cetera.
Game theory verifies this thesis. Choices can be crudely abstracted as a series of prisoner's dilemma decisions, and this is Silicon Valley's iterated game. Playing the long game is rewarded. Optimizing for short term payoffs harms your growth.
But when is this thesis not true? This philosophy doesn't always hold, as illustrated by my hometown, and then later New York City. But my earliest experiences in in the bay area were a hit, so my first conclusion was that this holds true in the tech industry.
Unfortunately, I learned this isn't always the case. Depending on the thousands of variables contributing to the local macro of your immediate environment, there are pockets of this industry that are zero sum, or worse, pockets where the pie is shrinking. This incentivizes self interested behavior, such as managers trying to manage you out, or subtle sabotage from peers. And because the global maximum of this industry is Silicon Valley's iterated game, this behavior can be even more heinous if you find yourself in zero-sum pockets. Bad actors may choose to screw you with plausible deniability, in order to appear as givers. Indirectness and slow squeezes may be favored over straight up layoffs.
Thus, it is more precise to say that givers are rewarded in immediate environments of growth, independent of the macro and the industry. In fact, these conditions are critical for a giver to survive.
How does one identify growth? Generally, innovation and value creation is a good sign. Disruptive technologies is another good one. I would pick places that are directly benefitting from disruption; notice how this is different from places that are not disrupted (yet). Anti-fragility for givers means avoiding this ambiguity. Conversely, it is equally important to identify situations where growth has stagnated. After all, it is easier to disprove than prove, so perhaps a valid mental model is to assume growth unless proven otherwise, as the global maximum of this industry is currently growth oriented. Signs could be increased concern with optics, information withholding, non answers to questions: all of which, I suppose, fall under the broad vein of politics.
Some people have the skillset to thrive in zero sum spaces. They're great at relationship management, optics, and forming alliances. You can argue this is an art of its own. I don't really have the temperament or skills for this though, so frankly, if faced with this predicament, I would do my best to leave. If that is not possible, my only option would be to become a hermit and start an avocado farm. I think it is far more interesting to create value, though, versus compete for proportions of the pie, so until then, I'll be chasing growth.