A common culture is an essential part of a healthy organization, see also figure. A common culture is defined by common principles and a common code of values. For many organizations today, building such a culture that is efficient and positive is desirable in order to be able to operate successfully in narrow markets. In this article we discuss the significance and influence of "Givers" and "Takers" and the stumbling blocks you have to reckon with if you want to build a powerful, collaborative culture with people of both backgrounds.
Figure: Honeycomb model of the Healthy Organization
What are "Givers" and "Takers"?
"Givers" are characterized, as the term already says, by the fact that they "give" something to others. They help others by sharing their knowledge and skills. In return, they don't even demand anything from the other person. In contrast to the "Givers", the "Takers" are those who are anxious to let others act for their purposes and save time and resources themselves.
Organizations have a strong interest in promoting behavior that is more in line with the "Giver", as this forms the core of effective collaboration, innovation, quality improvement and excellent service. A study by Nathan Podsakoff (University of Arizona) proves this correlation, in which the correlation between "Giver" behaviour and the fulfilment of desired corporate goals proved to be very robust. These included increased productivity and customer satisfaction. The results result from the fact that employees who act like "Giver" work together constructively and efficiently to solve problems.
Are "Givers" the "better" employees in a healthy organization?
However, a study showed that "Giver" can be both the least productive and the most productive employees. This does not present managers with an insignificant challenge: on the one hand, to strengthen the general willingness to help and work together, but on the other hand, not to lose sight of productivity and fairness. Because: Whoever is a "Giver" may perhaps give too much of his attention to others and forget his tasks beyond that. Others, on the other hand, will benefit greatly from these people, but often do nothing in return, which can endanger fairness within the community.
„There are two great forces of human nature - self-interest, and caring for others.“ (Bill Gates, World Economic Forum, 2008).
The quote from Bill Gates makes it clear that the need to fulfill one's own interests goes hand in hand with the need to help others. Leaders can create a community culture with a well thought-out approach that is characterized by reciprocity and enables successful cooperation.
What pitfalls are there and how can these be avoided when building an effective, collaborative culture?
"Giver" must distinguish generosity and willingness to help, especially from three other dimensions: Fearfulness or shyness, availability and empathy.
Only when this differentiation is made can the "Giver" behaviour prove to be fully positive.
Fearfulness or shyness - At first glance, fearfulness may not really have anything to do with generosity, but it can often burden a "giver". Sometimes it is rather difficult for this type of person to represent the interests of others and at the same time not to ignore their own. Managers can ensure that employees distinguish between the two interests and thus manage to combine them in a meaningful way.
In order to avoid that "Giver" put their interests in second place, the technique of "relational account" has proven to be helpful: If you ask "Giver" to put himself in a situation in which, as a kind of agent, he represents a person with his interests, then it does not contradict his self-image as "Giver". It helps, for example, when discussing the salary, not to think about yourself, but about your children, your partner or parents and what you might be able to offer them with the larger amount of money. This justification or explanation - "relational account" - makes it possible to ask for something without appearing as "taker".
The opportunity this presents is clear: the weakness of always giving something to others first and neglecting oneself in the process can be transformed into a strength. By encouraging employees to use relational accounts, managers can help them put aside their own anxiety and shyness.
Availability - No matter how many requests for help, the typical "Giver" will tend to meet them all. Due to a lack of time, it can lead to neglecting one's own tasks, since one cannot do justice to everything. In the worst case this can lead to a "burn-out".
Of course, the solution to this problem cannot be to reject all requests, but to set certain limits. These can refer to different dimensions. One way is the time limit, so a guideline WHEN I am available to help others. Furthermore, you can limit HOW you help. For example, you can set up a network and distribute the help to different people, so that the burden is not on you alone. For this, however, the aspect of anxiety must be overcome, since one has to ask others for help. One specializes in a specific area that corresponds to one's own abilities or knowledge. In addition, it can be helpful to restrict WHO one helps. "Giver" will rarely refuse help, but in the case of "Takern", for example, they will only provide it under clear conditions. In this context, "Giver" become so-called "matchers". They demand something in return from the "Takers".
Empathy - If you think that having empathy is a good quality, it astonishingly turns out that it can have negative consequences for "Giver". Because those who are very emphatic are easily influenced by others and can be manipulated, especially by less friendly "takers". As numerous studies have already shown, people who feel empathy for someone actually put that person's needs before their own. How can this be prevented? Adam Galinsky's experiment provided the answer: participants in the experiment were randomly classified as "empathizers" or "perspective takers", i.e. independent of their actual orientation. You should have an interview with applicants in a role play as personnel manager. The "empathizers" should think especially about what the people feel, the "perspective taker", what they think or what interests they have. It turned out that the "empathizers" did not achieve good solutions, as they did not represent their own interests and distributed both high salaries and bonuses. On the other hand, the "perspective taker" proved its worth. By focusing on their own interests, they found that applicants were particularly interested in bonuses and relocation expenses, rather than salary. This enabled them to reach an optimal agreement. This means that managers should train "Giver" specifically in order to take the position of "perspective takern".
The following aspects can be derived for you when building an efficient, common culture:
The distinction between "Givers" and "Takers" is absolutely black and white, in view of the numerous human characteristics. Nevertheless, it can be helpful to deal with this construct. For an organisation that places value on cooperation, knowledge sharing, innovation and quality, the employment of "Givers" tends to be more desirable.
- "Giver" is not equal to "Giver". They differ in their ability to separate generosity and helpfulness from anxiety or shyness, availability and empathy.
- Overcoming anxiety, availability and empathy enables optimal "giver" behavior, which is characterized by the fact that people can also represent their own interests and skillfully argue that they are able to limit when, how and for whom they are available and are not influenced solely by the feelings of others.
- Self-interest and interest in caring for others are not easily reconciled. They demand attentive leadership, so that interest in caring for others becomes the best solution for the individual and the organization. This means that cooperation is essential and necessary to achieve ambitious goals.
- Giving AND taking - based on reciprocity - is the central process of continuous improvement.
You find this topic as exciting as we do and want to learn more about how you can build a common culture and link it to the other dimensions of healthy organization? Feel free to contact us and learn more about it. The book on Healthy Organization, which is easily accessible here, also provides well-founded approaches.
Literature
In the Company of Givers and Takers (Adam Grant, April 2013)