Why don’t givers ask to be paid?
Lorelle on WordPress asks the question - why don’t givers ask to be paid? Givers are those resource people friends and acquaintances turn to for help for answers, for an easy solution to a tedious task.
I think the biggest part is low self esteem.
A giver is about the opposite of the dynamic leader. The leader is usually personally ambitious, task focused, and self confident. The giver on the other hand recognizes first those that need support, rather than opportunities to advance in status and success. Why? Because the giver understands what it means to be lost, to need assistance - they identify with those needing assistance.
Rarely will a dynamic leader also express a general caring and support for those around them. The assistance they provide to others is offered from a position of strength - they assess their resources, and husband those resources as they determine what they are willing to give, and where that resource will be used. When a leader gives, the gift is expected to be used successfully.
A giver is satisfied if a gift helps another to survive - success is shared vicariously.
There are many successful roles for givers. They are valued team players, often central to the success of a group or project. But they will seldom be the leaders, or work in an ambitious fashion. Their aggression is to support the leaders, to help team mates.
Part of the heart of the question that Lorelle asks is close to home in the blogosphere. How does a giver, a resource person, ask for payment? The answers seem limited - by imagination. First, you might join a firm that pays you a salary to be a giver under the company’s banner, helping whoever the company allows access to you. Second, you can post fees for advice and assistance, and make financial arrangements a part of the request for service. You could limit free advice to short answers, and provide for contracts for those wishing assistance or more complete advice. You could keep track of all advice given, build a database of advice, and charge a modest fee for a time-window access (daily, weekly), or by the article.
In earlier times some sons or daughters of a family would forsake (or be denied) a career, instead living a life of service to parents or other family. This history of sacrifice, of taking care of family, has it’s direct descent in the giver. It would take an act of ‘tough love’ to turn the concept of performing expected service (free advice) to a business model that would balance marketing needs, support of those that ask for help, and creating an income. It would also take an evaluation and understanding of why low self-esteem wanted to give advice, instead of pursuing personal ambitions.
Giving isn’t wrong, or bad. It fills a distinct, historical niche in society. But a giver can’t afford to dream of a leader’s success, without some major self image changes. Either recognize the success of a giver - the vicarious emotional sharing of success of those the giver supports - or become more self assured, more aggressive, and more ambitious.
December 30th, 2007 at 1:08 am
Thanks. However, Liz Strauss asked the question. I didn’t have the courage.
I agree with your excellent points towards the end of your post. However, some of the riches and most successful leaders I know, and I know a lot, are exceptionally giving, and have been throughout their life, not when they got to a place where giving didn’t hurt. The myth that personalities with strong giving tendencies are the followers and not the leaders isn’t true.
The complexities of blogging, as you point out, is that blogging is about giving as part of the marketing plan, but sometimes it’s hard to pay the rent when everything thinks it’s all for free.
I think you are on to something in your conclusions. Thanks!
December 30th, 2007 at 10:52 am
Lorelle, thanks for the kind words!
I think there are people that feel responsible for most of the people they encounter, while others see the world as a set of resources and assets that enable one to survive.
Most people are a mix, in between these extremes. And most people learn the benefits of the other view point, learning lessons in life to broaden their perspective. This learning, this change, is most often measured in pain.
When I mention low self esteem, I am not speaking of an injury or something broken. Low self esteem, to me, indicates that one takes less care, is less aware of, their own resources or status, than they are aware of the needs of others. They strive to be ‘useful’ rather than in unchallenged control of their own (growing and commanding) pile of assets. I consider this a world view, not a sickness that needs curing.
And I imagine you are correct, that those on either end of the ‘useful vs. assets’ spectrum have low self esteem. It is the moderation of extreme focus that increases their happiness and acceptance by peers. What we call self esteem - how we feel about ourselves and our role in society - is usually established and reinforced by how others regard us.
If Liz or others are reluctant to ask for pay, it is likely because they see their service, providing advice, is their only utility to those around them. A more asset-minded person sets the value on the advice or service, not the people they help. So the answer is going to be to find a place to serve - a job - that lets others value and allot her work, to change her fundamental work view to assign value to the work she does instead of the people she helps, or some combination.