Leanda Lee
Servant leadership is one of those idealistic concepts that you either know exists because you’ve been privileged to experience it, hold it as an ideal but remain agnostic, or are cynical about, as we often are of suggestions that altruistic qualities exist in the business world.
A rather old concept in organisational behaviour and management studies, servant leadership goes back to the 1970s. It says leaders serve first, and lead second. Being a servant leader is about looking after the interests of the people inside the company to help them grow, develop and perform to capacity, and to serve the interests of other stakeholders. The idea does not equate leadership with formal power of position or coercion. A servant leader’s power and energy derives from within, not bestowed from without.
A more recent but similar idea which has cropped up over the last few years, seeping from academic journals into books (e.g. Adam Grant’s “Give and Take”), mainstream business media, and about to have a resurgence in Harvard Business Review’s “Big Ideas” webinar, is that service to others and generosity is a big part of individual and organisational success. There are Givers (who selflessly give without expectation of immediate gain), there are Takers (“…skilled at kissing up and kicking down”) and there are Matchers (who seek to balance their contributions with what they receive). We each have a preferred approach but are rarely completely one type and can switch between preferred modes, such as being Givers at home and Takers in the boardroom.
Facebook reminded me recently of rather significant family-related sacrifice I had made for work a few years ago – forgoing skiing in Aspen certainly constitutes a significant sacrifice. Looking with hindsight at what eventually transpired, I realise that although that choice – among others – to give/be a martyr seemed justifiable at the time, I was naive about the link between the intrinsic reward I felt and my deeply ingrained expectations that those actions would ultimately be recognised. Eventually, I paid the price, but although the cost is known as generosity burnout, it can feel like generosity betrayal. “Pathological altruism” is a marvellous term for those really bad cases.
Giving, however, is a great attribute of a successful person, together with money and power! Some say it’s a precursor to the latter. Service and giving offers us meaning. As a motivator it builds relationships and sets up collaboration. It’s actually a stronger work motivator than interesting tasks or individual advancement.
Adam Grant did a study on the three types of workers – Givers, Takers and Matchers – and found that the most successful performers were Givers. The least successful were also Givers. It turns out there are two types of Giver: those who have Productive Generosity and those who end up with Generosity Burnout. All Givers focus on others, but the most successful also focus on their own interests. Selfless giving is not sustainable – it leads to exhaustion, burnout, bitterness and failure. Nice guys finish last and good guys finish first. The first are exhausted, the latter are energized by giving.
There is a general misconception that generosity is about being nice but it is more often about tough love and being prepared to tell people what they need to hear. Productively generous people know that success is not about pleasantries but interacting effectively with people, when to help others and when to focus efforts elsewhere. They set their own boundaries. They know that experiencing reward for their effort keeps them going, so they do it selectively.
Most employees are Givers. Successful Givers know how to scope their generosity, decide when they are uniquely qualified to offer assistance, give to other collaborators and learn to avoid the Takers. Others wait to be shown that their efforts have meaningful outcomes, and that their helping hand is valued; don’t let those Givers be taken advantage of.
No Comments