Since I started my business, I have had countless people reach out asking “to pick my brain.” I have benefitted from a lot of brain-picking over the years and have always been happy to pay it forward when I can. In the spirit of collaboration rather than competition, I have supported others in growing their respective businesses, generously and consistently without any expectation of anything in return.
But I started to question this once I did need something in return.
I was building The Supervisors Circle and looking for seasoned leaders to share some words of wisdom with the members of the group who were just starting out managing other people. The response was not what I expected.
After helping so many of these same people, very few reciprocated when I was the one needing the help. Many never responded to my request despite several follow-ups. Others said they would contribute but then never did. Others simply said no.
I was unprepared for this response and felt a lot of emotions all at once- confusion, anger, disappointment, and embarrassment for so freely (literally) giving of my time and experience only to be denied the same when I sought it.
My initial reaction was to write these people off, vowing never to help them again. I felt used and taken advantage of and didn’t see how I could continue to invest in relationships that were so one-sided. My mind was filled with mantras about knowing my value and something about oxygen masks.
After this initial torrent of emotions, I began to think more clearly about what was happening. My kneejerk reaction to cut people out of my life who, in many cases, were long-term friends and colleagues, started to seem a bit hasty. Hypocritical even. I had felt good knowing I helped them without any ulterior motive, but if I chose to end the relationship because I didn’t get anything in return, was my help really so genuine? Was it simply a tactic to ensure I would one day receive the same help in return? Was my generosity nothing more than a slow-burning strategy?
Then I thought more deeply about relationships and what makes them healthy and fulfilling. It is good- necessary- to give to others, and being selfless is an admirable trait. But what if it is all give and no take? What should happen when it starts to feel too one-sided? Isn’t it okay- recommended even- to expect some level of equality? If so, is there a way to determine this without keeping score?
These questions about relationships are certainly not uniquely applicable to me as a small business owner or even as a human being. People in relationships of any kind are constantly working through the nuances and complications of ensuring that both sides are fulfilled and happy. It is a constant balancing act, and it is not clear to me how we ensure that healthy balance without some version of keeping score.
It doesn’t feel good to quantify relationships like this- one point for me and no points for thee. It feels transactional and petty. Like the person at a group dinner that wants it all calculated down to the penny. But at the same time, what if one person always ends up paying extra? That’s not fair either, right? Where is the line between ensuring there is a healthy balance and focusing too much on what you think you are owed?
Platitudes do little to clarify how to manage these complexities. It’s not about keeping score, one says. Relationships should be 50/50, another tells us. Know your worth, we are repeatedly told. How in the world do we do this?
This already complex question is made further difficult by the fact that each relationship we have is unique in its dynamics, its intimacy, its ease, and its hierarchy. We are not meant to approach them all in the same way, are we? Are we?
As much as I long for binary clarity, I know life doesn’t operate that way. I know it is all gray, every last bit of it. I know that keeping score in a technical sense is robotic and cold, but in a broader sense, isn’t it necessary? How do you evaluate what is healthy without an audit?
Perhaps relationships can never be 50/50 (or 100/100 as another platitude suggests), but what happens when they are 60-40, or 75-25? Are we meant to continue working on them in the name of acceptance and unconditionality, in the nobility of not keeping score? Does it depend?
I think it depends. It has to, right?
There are relationships that inherently require one side to give more than the other. Caregiving relationships come to mind. Professionally, there are examples as well- mentor to mentee, coach to coachee- where one side’s role is designed to support and help the other person without expectation of reciprocity.
But what about those relationships that are not designed to be one-sided, but rather equal, like colleagues? Or those that have a power dynamic but where both sides are still meant to contribute, like supervisors and supervisee? What does reciprocity look like here?
As leaders, we are faced with these questions every day. What should we expect of our employees and what should they expect of us? What is acceptable and what is not? Does that change based on our roles? How much patience and understanding are we meant to extend and how much is reasonable to expect in return? What is the role of accountability and how much accountability is expected of each of us? Does it depend on the title?
When it comes to the balance of accommodation, how much are we meant to respond to other people’s preferences and how much should we advocate for our own? We all have a default communication style, confrontation style, working style… How much should we ask for others to accommodate ours and how much should we accommodate theirs? If, as a supervisor, you prefer phone calls, but your staff prefers texts, how should you contact them? Should you confront difficult conversations in the way that is most comfortable to you or to the person you are confronting? Do you lead my meetings in the way that works for your or for your staff? Do compromises ever leave anyone satisfied?
The Prayer of Saint Francis keeps coming to mind:
…grant that I may not so much seek
to be consoled as to console,
to be understood as to understand,
to be loved as to love,
for it is in giving that one receives…
Is this meant to apply to professional relationships or just personal ones? Does true leadership require a perpetual accommodation to those we lead? Are we not allowed to have our own way every now and again? Aren’t we justified in requiring some give and take?
When it comes to how we work with our colleagues, our bosses, our employees, isn’t it necessary to keep score in some sense? Aren’t we required to ensure that performance is meeting expectations and that goals are being met? Don’t we have to keep score to do this? I’m having trouble imagining it any other way.
If a colleague is constantly asking you for help and you provide it, but he never does the same in return, are you meant to continue this dynamic? Isn’t it important to assert healthy boundaries based on the balance sheet?
If your boss repeatedly asks you to make sacrifices but never makes any of her own, are you obligated to oblige? Does the power dynamic supersede the score?
If you do your best to support your employees and they repeatedly do not meet expectations, are you supposed to keep at it and hope for the best? Isn’t there some point in time when “the score” is too lopsided? Is there some professional version of the mercy rule?
How are we meant to accomplish anything if we don’t keep score in some sense?
At the same time…
Demanding 100% equality in each and every relationship, in each and every interaction, is as calculating as it is impossible. The value and importance of human relationships whether personal or professional is not and should not be based on a balanced spreadsheet. The desire for balance has to be… balanced. I’m just not really sure how.
I don’t know what all of this looks like in practice or what it should look like in practice, but I continue to have a gnawing feeling that keeping score at some level, when done in a compassionate way, is necessary to be a true leader. Am I way off the mark here? What do you think?
