Bookcase: The Sponsor Effect

In 2013, economist Sylvia Ann Hewlett published a pathfinding book telling us to Forget a Mentor, Get a Sponsor.

Until then, mentors were considered de rigeur for advancing careers. And despite the title, she still found value in them. But mentors counsel you because they like you or you remind them of themselves, or perhaps they are paying back for help they received in their own career. They listen and perhaps offer advice or a nudge. Sponsors are more activist. They help you get ahead, steering you, but that comes because they figure it will be an important investment in their own career.

She has now offered another book that caries that notion further, looking at the issue from the sponsor’s side: The Sponsor Effect: How to be a Better Leader by Investing in Others. “Sponsorship, thus, isn’t charity or granting a favour; it’s a powerful leadership capability. Are you an entry- or mid-level manager, hoping to work better, grow your influence, and get promoted faster? The right protégé can fill gaps in your skill set, take responsibilities off your plate when your calendar gets crowded, offer moral support when you need it, and build your personal brand. Are you at the top of your organization or near it, seeking loyal lieutenants and the capacity to extend your reach throughout the enterprise? The right protégé will complement your leadership skills and style, provide honest feedback, make you feel that you have extra hours in the day, and enable your influence to persist even after you’ve moved on to your next role or responsibility,” she writes.

Sponsorship requires active involvement by both parties. The protégé delivers performance loyalty and adds to the value the sponsor provides the organization. The sponsor invests a belief in the protégé and willingness to risk political capital on that individual. The sponsor advocates for the protégé and helps to cover for them.

“Sponsorship’s reciprocity sets it apart not only from mentorship; it also sets it apart from standard corporate leadership development. Sponsors aren’t just grooming somebody to rise higher. They certainly are looking to fill organizational needs, but they’re also taking a bet that their own careers can benefit if they invest in a promising individual’s talent, skill sets and trustworthiness,” she stresses.

It comes with risks. When mentoring, if the protégé disappoints, nobody holds you responsible. You were just helping out, advising. But here the two of you are tied more closely together. Slips can reduce your productivity and impair your image.

She points to the selection of an American vice-presidential candidate, which fits the sponsorship model. Sometimes it works out, sometimes it doesn’t. Selecting Sarah Palin remains to this day a blemish on John McCain’s legacy, she notes. But she points out that George W. Bush’s sponsorship of Condoleezza Rice boosted both of them.

Indeed, politics provides a convenient model. United Kingdom TV producer Trevor Phillips says, “[I]n politics if you are part of this guy’s gang, then everybody knows it. It’s absolutely clear to everyone that part of your job is to support him and part of his job is to help you. It is a deal. Sponsorship is always a deal.”

Hewlett lists seven steps to effective sponsorship:

Hewlett warns that her data found many sponsors fall short in three ways. The inclusion gap is the need for protégés who are different from you, since the protégé can add the most value if they can provide something you lack. But she found only 23 per cent of sponsors look for a protégé who has attributes they do not have. Over three quarters of sponsors – 77 per cent – look for a mini-me.

The second common mistake is a failure to thoroughly inspect a protégé for trustworthiness before getting behind the individual. Sponsors focus primarily on performance. “But performance should really be table stakes. Surely your organization has many young top performers! What you should be concerned about when evaluating a potential protégé is loyalty to you and the organization,” she writes. The most common reason sponsors gave for ending the relationship – it arose in 73 per cent of cases – was a protégé’s dishonesty.

The third issue is an investment gap, keeping the relationship short-term rather than being long term. In 38 per cent of situations, she found the sponsorship ending after two years or less. But you should want this person at your side – and be at their side – for a long period.

Sponsorship is not mentorship. It’s a bigger investment, a bigger risk. But it has a bigger payoff – for you, as well as the person you take under your wing.

Related posts

EP 077: Global arms sales on the rise and Canada invests in quantum technology

Marcello Sukhdeo
January 12, 2018

Vanguard – Feb/Mar 2020 issue

Marcello Sukhdeo
February 19, 2020

U.S. calls on Canada to ‘contribute full share’ to NATO

Stewart Downing
June 30, 2016
Exit mobile version