Leaders assemble...anyone there?

Much discussion, and effort, has taken place to identify and recruit high-potential prospects and nurture these individuals to become future leaders in the workplace. There was an article recently published that made inquiries into why brilliant students do not typically go on to become leaders in the political or corporate spheres. In said article, Adam Grant's theories on "reciprocity styles" of "giving, taking and matching (GTM)" were adopted by the author to produce explanations.  

Adam Grant, an organisational psychologist, proffers that people can be classified broadly into three categories of givers (those who are others-focused and thus generous in doling out favours), takers (those who acquire from others without reciprocating) and matchers (practitioners of the old "quid pro quo"). Grant, in his research, finds that it is the givers who make up for the poorest performers on performance metrics (such as revenue generation) presumably because efficiency levels are diminished because they do so much for their colleagues; but it is also the givers who constitute the top performers because they genuinely care for their customers and thus their standards for service excellence are unparalleled.  

The right framework of values and norms must be in place so that a culture of giving is not only cultivated but also recognised on an individual scale

However, in my opinion, it is difficult for a number of reasons to make use of this GTM theory to explain why good students may not eventually become corporate leaders. For one, most good students would rather cash in on their academic merit and look for greener stomping grounds abroad. The best and brightest who do stay back are more inclined to putting their all on the line for government jobs via the BCS route. Then there are those who are dazzled by the glitter of "future leader programs (FLPs)", the holy grail to an accelerated career track. Beyond the GTM theory, there are important traits to be considered. An introvert, the student who is the stereotypical bookworm, will find it difficult to be vocal of their opinions. A student who is an innovator may find the often-repetitive nature of an average job to be overbearing.  

FLPs are effective instruments of assembling the "creme de la crème" of the graduate pool. The freshest blood seemingly has access to some of the most well-versed minds in the industry and get to take in essential leadership skills and values. However, it is also essential that this is forged into a two-way street of information, including feedback. Often, fresh sets of eyes can zero in on fallacies in policy, on probable sources of disorder in the organisation. An elevated entry point into the workplace means "future leaders" have leapfrogged others lower on the ladder and this privilege should be valued dearly. Areas of concern of these employees, who do not have the same line of communication to senior leadership that those in the FLP have, should be communicated accordingly. This channel should be one of feedback used for both the individual and the organisational benefit and not for caressing egos.

While the search for future leaders must obviously go on, existing leaders find themselves in the midst of challenging times. The Great Resignation is indeed a very real and lasting phenomenon. The onset of the Covid-19 pandemic brought with itself a barrage of difficulties that leaders in government and business had to navigate through. The aftermath is still being felt with employee turnover aggravated by a newly desperate desire for greener pastures. Anyone can steer the ship when the sea is calm. The pandemic revealed which captains would be willing to throw their sailors, their "frontline", overboard when the storm is at its peak. 

Frameworks of leadership are blurred by accountabilities primarily to its ownership and also to its subordinates. Leaders are often required to be subservient to the ownership in decision-making, for the perceived betterment of the organisation, whether it be at the expense of their subordinates. In an effort to "give" to their own "leaders", such managers "take" from the employees. But with Grant's hypothesis, should not all leaders be "givers"? There is no single, all-encompassing truth to reciprocity styles. Ideally, a culture comprised predominantly of giving should be fostered. This could prevent burn-out of individual givers. It is also essential to weed out the takers and not hire them in the first place; one bad apple does indeed spoil the bunch.  This onus falls on Human Resources.

Grant cites an interesting finding whereby researchers wanted to identify if a leader is a giver or a taker. I now have you at the edge of your seat, don't I? First, it was found that leaders who are takers by nature tend to use, in their correspondence, "I", "me" in almost copious amounts and also attribute organisational successes to the owners/shareholders despite almost the entirety of the brunt being borne by the employees. This practice of "kissing up and kicking down" breeds an environment of resentment. Secondly, in terms of pay, CEOs with a proclivity to take have a remuneration package that is more than five-folds of their closest ranking colleague. Lastly and most interestingly, research showed that taking CEOs, in their message in company annual reports, have their photograph published such that it covers most of the page in stark contrast to the text it accompanies. Do come back and finish reading this article when you're done with checking your company's annual report.

Employee retention, be it of your regular Joe or your chosen one, comes down to the aggregate culture. This culture stems from leaders. As much importance is placed on organisational values and culture, it is ultimately a top-down transmission. Leaders are always in the spotlight and also under the microscope and rightly so. An entry-level employee's act of moral superiority will not meet the same reception as that of one in a senior leadership position.

Good students must not necessarily be nurtured to become leaders. The right employees should be facilitated on this trajectory. The right framework of values and norms must be in place so that a culture of giving is not only cultivated but also recognised on an individual scale. This would organically pave the way for collaboration and synergy, without the need for manufactured cohesion. More often than not, seminars on leadership are saturated with insipid pabulum, unnecessary finger-flailing, and over-use of buzzwords such as "family" at the workplace, thereby diminishing the authenticity of the message. Actions speak louder than words and what there is a deficit of cannot be spoken into existence. None of that "manifestation malarkey", please.

The author is an alumnus of Sydney University Business School