Some businesses or firms represent “givers” And if so, under what circumstances is that style of operating likely to result in superior short-term or long-term performance?
A “giver” is concerned with what others need and is both willing and able to spend time and efforts helping others, achieve their dreams, their aims, their priorities or aspirations. A “taker” is self-focused with an unrelenting goal of advancing his or her own career agenda. A “matcher” takes a more balanced approach, helping others when the net result will be reciprocated in a balanced way and result in fairness.
A host of studies have shown that being a “giver” can result in inferior personal performance, especially if the “giver” has little self-interest and if the measurement is not extended over time. However, the “giver” style tends to win, sometimes big, over time when the effects of creating trust, forming relationships, creating networks and moving into areas in which collaboration is important becomes more relevant factors. Though the “giver” style tends to be successful in the long run, it does require a measure of self-interest as well. There needs to be some ambition there.
An important caveat is that successful “givers” need to be authentic. Those that appear as “givers” but are really self-oriented and interested in promoting their own image (either by exaggerating their accomplishments and/or manipulating their audience) will often eventually lose, and lose big.
How would these ideas apply to business?
A “giver” firm is customer oriented in order to not only maximize sales but also because there is an intrinsic interest in customers and their concerns. The firm would likely also be guided by a higher purpose. They would tend to be passionate about something – think organic food and Whole Foods, on protecting the environment and Patagonia, or helping people live healthier and Kaiser Permanente. This higher purpose may be directed to people that are not just customers but also include those that share common problems like climate change, hunger or water shortage. Their “other” orientation would be sincere and supported by real programs such as Pamper Village’s microsite for baby care tips and forums, or IBM’s effort to improve education.
A “taker” firm has a single-minded mission to achieve growth in sales and profits. It would tend to focus on the products and services of the firm exclusively and look to the customer mainly to make those products and services more attractive in the marketplace. A “taker” firm would subscribe to the Milton Friedman prescription that “the social responsibility of business is to make profits.”
Can being a “giver” still result in superior performance? Will success improve over time, as the impact of more motivated employees and more committed customers provide traction? The answer to this question is analytic in substance.
This article was re-framed from my father in marketing, Professor Emeritus, David Aaker. A recognized authority on brands, David Aaker is Vice Chairman of Prophet and consults exclusively for Prophet clients
Comments
Post a Comment