Sylvania No Comments

Grow-to-Lead-Logo-news1

A PERIODIC BULLETIN FROM LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP

June 2016

LEAD0007_NewsletterCalendar4June

 

For more information on any of these events, please email:

[email protected]

 

CASE STUDIES: SELECTING LEADERS WHERE ABILITY IS AS IMPORTANT AS FUNCTIONAL COMPETENCE
By Peter Jordan, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

Legitimate_Leadership_BreakFast_30-06-16-52-1024x680One of the services offered by Legitimate Leadership is an assessment of the degree to which individuals are ready for, and suitable for, leadership roles. This is aimed at ensuring that leadership appointments to the organisation are both effective and empowering.

Current recruitment techniques tend to focus on functional/technical competencies and behavioral competencies. This is done by, for example, in basket (simulated workplace) exercises and structured, competency-targeted interviews. But in the traditional approach, a danger is that the appetite of an applicant to undertake a leadership role and the intent underlying this desire may be under-emphasized. 

READ THE FULL CASE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

ARTICLE: WHAT ARE YOU TOLERATING IN THE INTERESTS OF RESULTS?
By Josh Hayman, associate, Legitimate Leadership.

A short while ago I was in a coaching session with a sales manager who was having some difficulty with
workplace-behaviour two people in his sales team. These two sales people were the top performers, consistently out-selling the other members as well as consistently being above their monthly targets. The problem lay not in the results they were achieving, but in their behaviour at work. They did not work well with other sales people, blamed others when their sales efforts fell through, often came to work late or left early, and their admin was often not up to date. As the sales manager described it, they were a “law unto themselves” and “did exactly as they pleased”.

READ THE FULL ARTICLE STUDY BY CLICKING HERE

 

giveandtakebook

PODCAST: GIVERS VERSUS TAKERS: WHO GETS AHEAD

Podcast of an interview by [email protected] Research with Wharton management professor Adam Grant, author of the recent book new book, Give and Take: A Revolutionary Approach to Success.

COMMENT ON THIS VIDEO BY WENDY LAMBOURNE, DIRECTOR, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: Adam Grant’s categories of takers, matchers and givers accords with being here to get, giving to get, and being here to give, in the Legitimate Leadership framework. What Adam Grant provides is data both from social psychology experiments as well as real life individual and organisational examples in relation to each of these categories.

This podcast is a good summary of his book Give and Take. What I found most useful was his endorsement from research and example of the Legitimate Leadership thesis that ironically the best way to serve one’s own interests is to suspend one’s own interests to serve the best interests of others, through appropriate giving. Also that it is possible to give or contribute in different ways. Therefore what is important is to find the unique contribution that you (individually or collectively) really want to make (one’s real purpose) and commit to making that contribution trusting that the outcome will take care of itself.

SUMMARY OF THE VIDEO:

[email protected]: You divide people into givers, takers and matchers. What are the differences?

Grant: Takers are people who, when they walk into an interaction with another person, are trying to get as much as possible from that person and contribute as little as they can in return, thinking that’s the shortest and most direct path to achieving their own goals.

Being a giver is not about donating money or volunteering necessarily, but looking to help others by making an introduction, giving advice, providing mentoring or sharing knowledge, without any strings attached. These givers actually prefer to be on the contributing end of an interaction. Very few of us are purely takers or purely givers. Most of us hover somewhere in between. That brings us to the third group of people, who are matchers. A matcher is somebody who tries to maintain an even balance of give and take. If I help you, I expect you to help me in return. They keep score of exchanges, so that everything is fair and really just.

[email protected]: Presumably in fields like engineering and medicine, givers end up at the bottom of the heap. But who ends up at the top of the heap, and why?

Grant: Look across a wide range of industries and even countries, and you find these three styles exist everywhere. Indeed, the givers are overrepresented at the bottom. Putting other people first, they often put themselves at risk for burning out or being exploited by takers. A lot of people look at that and say, “Well, it’s hard for a taker to rise consistently to the top, because oftentimes, takers burn bridges. So, it must be the matchers who are more generous than takers, but also protect their own interests.” When I looked at the data, I was really surprised to see that those answers were wrong. It’s actually the givers again. Givers are overrepresented at the top as well as the bottom of most success metrics.

I found that in sales, the most productive sales people are actually those who put their customers’ interests first. One of the ways that I would play this out is to say that the success of givers and the fall of takers is also driven by matchers. A matcher is somebody who really believes in a just world. Of course, a taker violates a belief in a just world. Matchers cannot stand to see takers get ahead by taking advantage of other people. Matchers will often go around trying to punish them, often by gossiping and spreading negative reputational information.

Just as matchers hate seeing takers get away with exploitation, they also hate to see people act really generously and not get rewarded for it. Matchers will often go out of their way to promote and help and support givers, to make sure they actually do get rewarded for their generosity. That’s one of the most powerful dynamics behind the rise of givers.

[email protected]: Among the various stories you tell, there is one about a person called Peter Audet. Did being a giver help him or hurt him? What are some of the lessons to be learned?

Grant: Peter Audet is a financial advisor, and he’s the kind of guy who goes out of his way to help everyone he meets. For years, he would interview job candidates, and he would only be able to hire one and have to turn everybody else down. He would often give up his entire afternoon just trying to find jobs for the other people who he couldn’t hire himself, really opening up his personal network to do that.

He really got burned by a taker in one situation. But Peter will tell you that he has been enormously successful in his career. He runs a financial advisory firm that’s well over seven figures, in terms of annual revenue. And he will tell you that being a giver is how he has gotten ahead. It’s why people go to him. Oftentimes givers put themselves at risk in the short run. But in the long run, they end up building the kind of social capital that’s really important for success in a very connected world. You can see this play out in many, many different situations in his career. One of my favorites was when he actually drove out to visit a client in the scrap metal business, who was the tiniest of clients, worth very, very little money. Peter’s colleagues said, “Don’t bother. It’s a waste of your time.” Peter said, “You can’t just ignore somebody because they’re not worth your time. I really want to help in any way I can.” The client turns out not to be a scrap metal worker, but the owner of a lucrative scrap metal business. He multiplies his fees by a factor of 100 once he sees what a generous guy Peter is.

That’s one of the things that we learn from Peter: givers do, in the short run, sometimes lose. Peter has gotten better at protecting himself and screening. Before he determines how much he’ll help them, [he asks] “Is this person a taker, a giver or a matcher?” But at the end of the day, he also ends up helping people who he would never expect to be able to help him back. Yet, sometimes they do.

[email protected]: How do successful givers approach networking? How does their approach differ from, say, takers or matchers?

Grant: Takers tend to actually have incredibly broad networks. In part, because when they burn one bridge, they have to go and find new people to exploit, in order to keep the network going. Matchers tend to have much narrower networks. They will typically only exchange with people who have helped them in the past or who they expect to be able to help them in the future. They end up restricting their universe of opportunities. Givers tend to build much broader networks than matchers, but in a very different way than takers. What givers will typically do when they meet somebody new is try to figure out, “How can I add value to this person’s life, and what could I possibly contribute that might benefit this person?” What that typically means is they end up creating a lot of good will in the relationships that they build that often lies dormant until they may actually need it.

[email protected]: How do you spot a faker, or a taker in giver’s clothing?

Grant: There are a couple of powerful ways to spot a taker. Let’s start with the corner office. Chatterjee and Hambrick looked at over 100 computer companies. They tried to figure out [if] you could identify the taker CEOs without ever meeting them. They got Wall Street analysts to rate how much each CEO is a taker. These analysts who knew the CEOs and interacted with them rated the extent to which they were entitled and narcissistic and self-serving.

The first factor that really correlated highly with those ratings was the gap in compensation between the CEO and the next highest-paid executive. Typically, a computer industry CEO makes about two to two and a half times as much annual compensation as the next highest-paid executive in that company. The typical taker CEO had about seven times more annual compensation than the next highest-paid executive in that company. They literally [took] more in terms of compensation.

The second cue was looking at their speech. The takers tended to use first-person singular pronouns, like “I” and “me,” as opposed to “us” and “we” when talking about the company.

The third, and my favorite, was the takers literally felt it’s all about me: I am the most important and central figure in this company. When you looked at their photos in the company’s annual reports, they actually had larger photos. They were more likely to be pictured alone.

There’s new research by Keith Campbell and his colleagues suggesting that you can even spot these cues on Facebook. One of the easiest ways that you can look for a taker is to look for a pattern that translates from Dutch as basically “kissing up, kicking down.” Takers tend to be very careful at impression management and ingratiation when they’re dealing with someone superior or more influential. But it’s hard to keep up the façade in every interaction. It’s often peers and subordinates who have a more direct window into what this person’s true motives are like.

There’s a famous quote attributed to Samuel Johnson, that the true measure of a person is how he treats someone who can do him or her no good.

[email protected]: Exactly. Now, you also point out that givers and takers differ quite a bit in the way they approach collaboration and sharing credit. How does this work?

Grant: An example that really stands out from history is Jonas Salk who’s remembered for discovering and commercializing a polio vaccine that saved thousands, and possibly millions, of lives. But if you look at Salk’s behavior really closely, one of the things is he never gave credit to any of the people in his lab who helped him discover the vaccine and actually caused the team to fracture and splinter. Salk never made a discovery that was nearly as influential again. This is one of the costs of appearing like a taker in a collaboration: slighting other people who might deserve credit.

What givers tend to do in collaboration is assume that credit is not zero sum. If I give you credit for your contributions, that doesn’t necessarily take away from my contribution. That makes it a lot easier to keep people on board in a team over time.

[email protected]: A challenge for any manager, or even a teacher, is identifying the so-called “diamonds in the rough”: people who have the potential to do great things as they go forward. You describe a legendary teacher in your book who does this.

Grant: There’s an accounting professor at the University of North Carolina and Duke by the name of CJ Skender. The man has taught over 35,000 students in his career. He’s won every teaching award on the planet. He has a remarkable gift for bringing out the best in his students. He’s had many, many students win gold medals, both in his state and nationally, for their accounting achievements. He’s had more than three dozen students follow him to become professors of accounting. When you look at his approach, the question is, “How does he do it?” A lot of people assume that he’s got a great eye for talent and that he’s immediately able to spot the quantitative savants and then basically work with them.

CJ says, no, it’s the exact opposite. He sees every student who walks into his classroom as a diamond in the rough, waiting to be polished. Then he tries to make his classes as interesting as possible to bring out the best in those students. Now, of course, it doesn’t work with every student. But what he finds over time is by making his material interesting, he does shift some people toward becoming more motivated and more hard-working. This is true of coaches and leaders and managers everywhere. If you look at research by Benjamin Bloom and his colleagues about what made somebody a world-class tennis player or a world-class musician, or even a mathematician or a scientist of great acclaim, very rarely were those world-class candidates superior early on in their careers. They looked pretty average when you started with them. But what they had in common was a coach, a teacher and a manager who believed in them and set their aspirations very high. That often created a self-fulfilling prophecy, by inspiring them to engage in more deliberate practice and to put in the 10,000 hours that we all know are critical to achieving expertise.

[email protected]: What can givers do to avoid burnout and becoming doormats?

Grant: Yes, in a way, being a matcher is a safer strategy. Knowing that givers end up at the bottom and the top means there are some risks associated with it. But I think that those risks actually can be mitigated with careful strategies. A lot of it comes down to setting boundaries. Many givers confuse being helpful or being generous with being available for every person and every request all the time. There are other givers who confuse being generous with empathizing and dropping everything that you’re doing to help others. There are also plenty of givers out there — this is something I found over and over in my research — who feel like it’s uncomfortable or inappropriate to advocate for their own interests. I think that we need to work with people who fall in the giving end of the spectrum to help them set clear boundaries and determine, “Okay, how am I going to help most of the people most of the time?”

One of my favorite concepts that I came across when doing the background research for the book is what’s called the five-minute favor. Instead of just helping everyone all the time, [ask], “Can I offer something of unique value to this other person that will take me five minutes or less?” It’s basically about finding high benefit to others, but low cost to the self…

[email protected]: Normally people believe that the alternative to being selfish — a trait that takers usually have — is being selfless. But you’ve come up with another term, called “otherish.” Could you explain the difference?

Grant: When I first started studying give and take, I thought that basically self-interest versus selflessness were on one spectrum. You had takers over here, who were very selfish. You had givers, who were very selfless. It actually turns out, if you look at the data on this, that you can more effectively draw it two by two and say concern for your own interests and concern for other people’s interests are actually independent motivations. You could score low and high on one, or on both. The takers tend to be purely selfish. There’s one group of givers, who are purely selfless, who constantly put other people’s interests ahead of their own.

But, there’s this other group of givers that I call “otherish.” They are concerned about benefitting others, but they also keep their own interests in the rearview mirror. They will look for ways to help others that are either low cost to themselves or even high benefit to themselves, ie “win-win” as opposed to win-lose. Here’s the irony. The selfless givers might be more altruistic, in principle, because they are constantly elevating other people’s interests ahead of their own. But my data, and research by lots of others, show that they’re actually less generous because they run out of energy, they run out of time and they lose their resources, because they basically don’t take enough care of themselves. The “otherish” givers are able to sustain their giving by looking for ways that giving can hurt them less or benefit them more.

Selfless givers are at much greater risk of burnout and exploitation than are the “otherish” givers.

[email protected]: One final question, Adam. What practical advice, apart from reading your book, could you offer people who want to start applying these principles to their own lives?

Grant: There’s lots of advice peppered throughout the book in different chapters. But when I take a step back, I think the first question is, what is your own style? If you go to the Give and Take website,Giveandtake.com, there’s a self-assessment that you can take there. There’s also a 360 assessment, both available for free, where you can get other people to rate you. That’s really the first step: to hold up a mirror and figure out, “Okay, what is my default? I may act more like a taker when I’m negotiating a big contract. I may act more like a giver when I’m in a mentoring role. I’m probably a matcher when a colleague from another organization approaches me for some specialized knowledge. But, how do I treat most of the people most of the time?” This is the first step.

The second step is, there are some surprising opportunities, both for success and for meaning, in operating like a giver. I would ask, “What are the types of giving that you find most energizing or most consistent with your skills?” For some people, it’s making introductions. For others, it’s sharing credit. For others, it’s stepping up as a mentor. Finding your own giver style is really powerful. The real meaning and purpose associated with that is that even if givers don’t always do better than takers or matchers, they manage to succeed in ways that make others better and lift others up, instead of cutting them down. Looking for ways to do that is probably the most sustainable path to success in the long term, both for individuals and organizations.

TO HEAR THE FULL PODCAST CLICK HERE

Leave a Reply