The strongest predictor of a group’s success is the help each member gives to the other — this a known fact by now and numerous studies have confirmed this time and again. And yet, we barely see such behaviour in our organisations.
Harvard psychologists researched the US Intelligence system — 64 different groups to be precise — and ranked the units from best to the worst. And what they found was slightly surprising.
The critical factor of a team’s success was not stable team membership or the right number of people; it was not even having a clear, challenging, meaningful vision. Neither was it having well-defined roles and responsibilities or appropriate reward systems, recognition and resources. In fact, it wasn’t even strong leadership!
The single strongest predictor of group effectiveness was the amount of help analysts gave each other. In the highest performing units, analysts invested extensive time and energy in coaching, teaching and consulting with their colleagues. It helped them question their own assumptions, fill gaps in their knowledge, and gain newer perspectives. In addition, they could also connect the dots when information was difficult and disconnected.
Helping behaviour
Studies by Prof Philip Podsakoff from Indiana University showed that the frequency with which employees help one another predicts sales revenues in retail stores; profits, costs and customer service in banks; creativity in consulting and engineering firms; productivity in paper mills; and operating efficiency, customer satisfaction and performance quality in restaurants.
Employees’ helping behaviour facilitates organisational effectiveness in the following ways.
~ It helps employees solve work-related problems.
~ It facilitates team cohesion and coordination.
~ It ensures that expertise is transferred and shared by experienced employees to newer ones.
~ It establishes an environment where customers and suppliers feel that their needs are the organisation’s top priority.
The barriers
When it is so obvious that helping behaviour rewards an organisation, why do we barely see it?
A major barrier is the company culture itself. Leaders have a role to play in recognising and taking concrete action in this area. There are different kinds of cultures.
In ‘giver cultures’, employees help one another, share knowledge, offer mentoring, and make connections without expecting anything in return. In ‘taker cultures’, the norm is to get as much as possible from others while contributing very little in return. Here, employees help only when they expect personal benefits from the exchange.
Most company cultures, however, fall somewhere in the middle. These are ‘matcher cultures’, according to Prof Adam Grant of Wharton Business School, whose bestselling book Give and Take explains this all very well.
Why do most organisations have problem creating and sustaining a ‘giver culture’ rather than a ‘taker culture’ or even a ‘matcher culture’? According to Cornell economist Robert Frank, “When leaders implement forced-ranking systems to reward individual performance, they stack the deck against giver cultures.”
Adam Grant recounts the case study of a company called Appletree Answers, a provider of call-centre services, which was struggling with an attrition rate of 97 per cent! Which means the retention was barely 3 per cent.
Dreaming on
After 13 acquisitions in six years, this company still had only 350 employees. Their Director of Operations had a brainstorming session and proposed a novel approach that was on the lines of Make-A-Wish Foundation. This programme was called ‘Dream On’, and invited employees to write down the one thing they wanted most in their personal lives, but felt they could not achieve on their own.
Soon, a secret committee was making some of these requests happen. After granting more than 100 requests, this programme helped promote a company culture where, in the words of one insider, “Employees looked to do things for each other and literally pay it forward”. After this, the retention soared to 67 per cent.
Obviously leaders have a task cut out in making such a culture a reality. They have to keep the wrong people off the bus — takers often do more harm than givers do good. The former tends to follow a pattern of “kissing up, and kicking down”. When dealing with powerful people, they come across as charming and charismatic. But when they interact with peers and subordinates, they feel powerful and reveal their true colours.
The lesson for leaders is simple and clear: if you want it, go give it!