Featured
Question Of The Month
Is it fair for managers to simply classify their employees as “givers” and “takers”?
Lead From The Heart – Preparing For The Launch In China Of The Legitimate Leadership In Action Book
Ahead of the launch in China of the Mandarin version of the book Legitimate Leadership In Action, Simon Zhou, Legitimate Leadership’s representative in China, visited Wendy Lambourne in Cape Town, South Africa, and recorded a podcast with her (link below).
In the podcast, Wendy Lambourne, the book’s author, said that Legitimate Leadership is essentially a framework for understanding what accounts for trust in the leadership of an enterprise, no matter what its size.
Meta Fires Personnel For Abuse Of Its $25 Meal Voucher Scheme
This one action of a famous, super-rich person just gave me a little hope for the future of leadership and values. Leaders are very visible and our expectations of behaviour from them are exactly the same as for everybody else, irrespective of title. What does it say about your values if you can misappropriate $25?
For more information regarding the above, please e-mail events@legitimateleadership.com
Question Of The Month
By Wendy Lambourne, Director, Legitimate Leadership.
Question: Is it fair for managers to simply classify their employees as “givers” and “takers”?
Answer: As managers, it is tempting to divide employees into two groups: “givers” and “takers”. That is, those who take accountability and ownership and those who do not. We thank our lucky stars for the “givers” while we tear our hair out and feel despair for the “takers”.
We wonder whether the ratio of givers:takers in our business is a matter of providence and therefore something beyond our power or agency …? Or whether it is possible to determine, or at least influence, the relative size of the two groups.
At Legitimate Leadership, our response to these questions is:
- There are “givers” in any organisation – wonderful human beings who are just this way, always have been and always will be, irrespective or even despite those who lead them.
- Equally, every organisation has its share of “takers” – unattractive specimens of humanity who are similarly just this way, always have been and always will be, even under exceptional leadership.
- But undoubtedly the mix of “givers” and “takers” is not a matter of chance. “Givers” and “takers” are largely manufactured by those in charge of them. What people are is largely a reflection of those who exercise authority over them. Beyond a shadow of a doubt “givers” beget “givers” and “takers” beget “takers”.
Read the full response by clicking here.
To submit your question, email info@legitimateleadership.com
Podcast: Lead From The Heart – Preparing For The Launch In China Of The Legitimate Leadership In Action Book
Ahead of the launch in China of the Mandarin version of the book Legitimate Leadership In Action, Simon Zhou, Legitimate Leadership’s representative in China, visited Wendy Lambourne in Cape Town, South Africa, and recorded a podcast with her (link below).
In the podcast, Wendy Lambourne, the book’s author, said that Legitimate Leadership is essentially a framework for understanding what accounts for trust in the leadership of an enterprise, no matter what its size.
Wendy Lambourne: “Our research has found that people’s trust in management is not based on things like how much they are paid or what facilities they are given. It is based on something much more personal – essentially, the relationship that any individual in an organisation has with their immediate manager. Depending on what that relationship is like, it generalises. So if your relationship with your manager is positive, you will have an overall more positive view of leadership in the organisation. If it is negative, that becomes your view of the leadership in the organisation.”
“And what makes this relationship positive or negative boils down to intent: whether the leader’s intent is to give to you or to get from you.”
“Regarding legitimacy, if you are in a leadership position in an organisation, you have the authority which comes with the position. But in our view you only have real power when you deliver on two things: you genuinely care about the people you have authority over AND you enable them to become the best they can be.”
“This is not philanthropy because we know that sustainable results can be achieved with exceptional people. So the leadership job is not to get results out of people but to cultivate excellence in people and then the results will naturally follow.”
Simon Zhou: “We first met when you visited China in 2014; you visited us again in 2017.”
READ THE FULL PODCAST SUMMARY BY CLICKING HERE
TO LISTEN TO THE PODCAST CLICK HERE
News Item: Meta Fires Personnel For Abuse Of Its $25 Meal Voucher Scheme
COMMENT ON THIS NEWS ITEM BY LEONIE VAN TONDER, SENIOR ASSOCIATE, LEGITIMATE LEADERSHIP: This one action of a famous, super-rich person just gave me a little hope for the future of leadership and values. Leaders are very visible and our expectations of behaviour from them are exactly the same as for everybody else, irrespective of title. What does it say about your values if you can misappropriate $25? What is your price for fraud/theft/espionage? It is not the quantum, it’s the action. In South Africa this principle was ratified by the Labour Court in a case of a $2 pie. But there is a marked difference in accountabilities as you go up the line. The example you set is followed – NOT your words. For all to be treated equally, including engineers earning six-figure salaries, is refreshing and sends the right message to all of us – not just Meta staff. St Francis of Assisi said: ‘Preach the gospel at all times. When necessary, use words.’
THE NEWS ITEM: Meta, controlled by Mark Zuckerberg, has dismissed a number of staff members after they abused the company’s $25 meal scheme to order household goods like toothpaste and washing powder.
About 30 people in Meta’s Los Angeles office were dismissed after they were found to be routinely using takeaway credits to order groceries and cosmetics, according to reports. The sackings included engineers earning six-figure salaries, according to posts on the anonymous chat app Blind.
READ THE FULL NEWS ITEM BY CLICKING HERE