Former Community – We Moved

🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsThe power dynamics of expending e …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

The power dynamics of expending effort

#1 · September 24, 2023, 2:21 pm

Quote from B on September 24, 2023, 2:21 pm
Hi Guys,
some ideas that recently came to my mind on this, and happy to reflect on this with you.
When I studied PU for the first time, I immediately got the principle that "checking disrespect" was to be done while expending the "lowest effort possible".
This is tied to the concept of "low investment" in response to power moves, meaning "usually lower investment" than the power mover.
The idea is that a expending "more effort than needed" subcommunicates "lower power".
Now, I believe that "expending effort" is tied to a more general principle of power:
Expending effort always makes a person lose some power.
In turn, as we know, the correct balance of power is the most important factor that makes people keep interacting and exchanging value.
If we apply this concept in general, suddenly everything makes sense:
having another person do things for us, especially if unasked for and in the absence of getting some value back, increases our power vs. that person, and therefore (in general) makes that person like us, respect us, and be attracted to us more; but, there may be specific situations where increasing our power over that person makes that person like us "less";
doing things for another person, especially if unasked for and in the absence of getting some value back, increases that person's power vs. us, and therefore (in general) makes that person like us, respect us, and be attracted to us less; but, there may be specific situations where lowering our power over that person makes that person like us "more".
This is because the subcommunication being exchanged between the "doer" and the "getter" is that the "getter" has power over the "doer".
This means that the general common idea, that doing things for others is likely to make them like us more, is wrong. The reverse is more often true.
But even the reverse, if applied uncritically and always, is wrong. Because there are situations in which losing power vis-a-vis a person is the appropriate thing to do to keep the relationship going.
What's true is that the result of doing things for others depends on the power dynamics of the interaction, and on the "appropriateness" of the balance of power that it is likely to produce.
Some examples that came to my mind to try to make sense of this:
if a man is in a relationship with a woman, as per the general rule the man having slightly more "power" over her is likely to produce more reciprocal attraction; this means that if the man expends unbalanced effort in doing things for the woman, this is likely to derail the relationship much more than if the same happened with the parties reversed;
if we consider two friends, best not to "do unasked for things" or expend much "effort" in any direction, as we want the relationship to be as much equal and balanced as possible to "keep the friendship";
between an employee and a boss, it is understood that the "expending effort" is one sided. For this reason, any request to the boss to "expend effort for the employee" must be carefully considered and avoided if possible;
if I am an external advisor / consultant, I want to maintain "power" in the relationship to avoid subcommunicating I "need" the client; thus I need to always minimize any show of expending "free" effort for the client, because if the client gets the impression I expended an enormous effort without any return for me, he is going to inevitably, always, lose respect for me.

Hi Guys,

some ideas that recently came to my mind on this, and happy to reflect on this with you.

When I studied PU for the first time, I immediately got the principle that "checking disrespect" was to be done while expending the "lowest effort possible".

This is tied to the concept of "low investment" in response to power moves, meaning "usually lower investment" than the power mover.

The idea is that a expending "more effort than needed" subcommunicates "lower power".

Now, I believe that "expending effort" is tied to a more general principle of power:

Expending effort always makes a person lose some power.

In turn, as we know, the correct balance of power is the most important factor that makes people keep interacting and exchanging value.

If we apply this concept in general, suddenly everything makes sense:

having another person do things for us, especially if unasked for and in the absence of getting some value back, increases our power vs. that person, and therefore (in general) makes that person like us, respect us, and be attracted to us more; but, there may be specific situations where increasing our power over that person makes that person like us "less";
doing things for another person, especially if unasked for and in the absence of getting some value back, increases that person's power vs. us, and therefore (in general) makes that person like us, respect us, and be attracted to us less; but, there may be specific situations where lowering our power over that person makes that person like us "more".

This is because the subcommunication being exchanged between the "doer" and the "getter" is that the "getter" has power over the "doer".

This means that the general common idea, that doing things for others is likely to make them like us more, is wrong. The reverse is more often true.

But even the reverse, if applied uncritically and always, is wrong. Because there are situations in which losing power vis-a-vis a person is the appropriate thing to do to keep the relationship going.

What's true is that the result of doing things for others depends on the power dynamics of the interaction, and on the "appropriateness" of the balance of power that it is likely to produce.

Some examples that came to my mind to try to make sense of this:

if a man is in a relationship with a woman, as per the general rule the man having slightly more "power" over her is likely to produce more reciprocal attraction; this means that if the man expends unbalanced effort in doing things for the woman, this is likely to derail the relationship much more than if the same happened with the parties reversed;
if we consider two friends, best not to "do unasked for things" or expend much "effort" in any direction, as we want the relationship to be as much equal and balanced as possible to "keep the friendship";
between an employee and a boss, it is understood that the "expending effort" is one sided. For this reason, any request to the boss to "expend effort for the employee" must be carefully considered and avoided if possible;
if I am an external advisor / consultant, I want to maintain "power" in the relationship to avoid subcommunicating I "need" the client; thus I need to always minimize any show of expending "free" effort for the client, because if the client gets the impression I expended an enormous effort without any return for me, he is going to inevitably, always, lose respect for me.

John Freeman and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#2 · September 24, 2023, 9:55 pm

Dense and appealing topic/thread. No more brainpower now but I'm looking forward to read it when I'm fresh. Thanks!

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#3 · September 24, 2023, 10:43 pm

Effort is a foundational element of power dynamics.

And there's much truth in what you write, and it's especially relevant in dating.

But I haven't yet found something that clicks here.
I find what you say in the second part of the post, more context-based, to be a better description of reality than the initial "rule".

My usual stance is that I stay away from "always" and "never".

My very own rule of thumb says:

In social sciences, any "rule" that says "always" is (almost) always incorrect, and any "rule" that says "never" is almost never correct

When it comes to effort and "general principles":

I think there's a matrix in PU and even in some articles that better generalizes the principle by crossing effort with results.

To generally check if a general principle is solid, my approach is to look at examples that disprove it.

If you can find a lot of them, and very easily, then it may not be a good general principle.

One silly example to disprove "expending effort means you always lose power":

Will Smith was a total jerk when he got up, walked all the way to slap Chris Rock and then kept yelling like a madman.
That was very high effort, and very visible.
In many ways, we know it wasn't all-around power because he was white-knighting and under his manipulative wive's spell.
But of all the negative things he was, he was still higher power than Chris Rock in that incident.

Same for some proven techniques in PU:

Some do require more effort than the power mover, but can still be effective and high-power (surfacing and going meta for example can be higher effort than a snarky passive aggressive comment).

Also, effort is a two-way street.
So the same can be said of efforts compared to the level what effort others are putting in.

John Freeman, B and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#4 · September 25, 2023, 5:11 pm

Yes, I agree with everything and especially with the last part of your post.

I think the idea is that "imbalances in effort/investment" may increase or lower the relative power of the parties.

For me the real "aha" was realizing that "making a free caring effort for someone who did not ask for it" can, and often does, actually backfire.

While keeping distance and "indifference", but still being able to be "available" when someone "gets near", has a more positive effect.

I know I'm intersecting different concepts here, but some idea is beginning to form of what I was doing wrong, even if it's still fuzzy.

Lucio Buffalmano and Power Duck have reacted to this post.

#5 · September 25, 2023, 9:19 pm

Quote from John Freeman on September 25, 2023, 9:19 pm
Hello Bel,
I think this is an important topic and that your analysis is quite thorough and accurate. Thank you for sharing.
Quote from Bel on September 24, 2023, 2:21 pm
This means that the general common idea, that doing things for others is likely to make them like us more, is wrong. The reverse is more often true.
But even the reverse, if applied uncritically and always, is wrong. Because there are situations in which losing power vis-a-vis a person is the appropriate thing to do to keep the relationship going.
What's true is that the result of doing things for others depends on the power dynamics of the interaction, and on the "appropriateness" of the balance of power that it is likely to produce.
Yes, yes and yes.
Some examples that came to my mind to try to make sense of this:
if a man is in a relationship with a woman, as per the general rule the man having slightly more "power" over her is likely to produce more reciprocal attraction; this means that if the man expends unbalanced effort in doing things for the woman, this is likely to derail the relationship much more than if the same happened with the parties reversed;
if we consider two friends, best not to "do unasked for things" or expend much "effort" in any direction, as we want the relationship to be as much equal and balanced as possible to "keep the friendship";
between an employee and a boss, it is understood that the "expending effort" is one sided. For this reason, any request to the boss to "expend effort for the employee" must be carefully considered and avoided if possible;
if I am an external advisor / consultant, I want to maintain "power" in the relationship to avoid subcommunicating I "need" the client; thus I need to always minimize any show of expending "free" effort for the client, because if the client gets the impression I expended an enormous effort without any return for me, he is going to inevitably, always, lose respect for me.
I think these examples are great and that it's PU worthy. I think your explanation is on point and totally accurate.
I do think that i is based on the type of relationship: with my friend when I expanded too much effort I actually lost power. I paradoxically gained more power as I lowered my efforts. With my subordinates when I expand too much effort (explanations for instance) I lose power.
And yes about your second post it's about realizing that in the social exchange there is an imbalance to which we are often times contributing.
Thank you Lucio, I think your post is helpful in defining the concept more accurately. At least it was for me. The example of Will Smith as a counter-examples to me shows how context is so important.
So what you both said that it's more about the imbalance/relative difference of effort that counts the most in a given context: "Am I putting too much effort in this context or too little? Is the other person putting too much effort or too little.

Hello Bel,

I think this is an important topic and that your analysis is quite thorough and accurate. Thank you for sharing.

Quote from Bel on September 24, 2023, 2:21 pm
This means that the general common idea, that doing things for others is likely to make them like us more, is wrong. The reverse is more often true.
But even the reverse, if applied uncritically and always, is wrong. Because there are situations in which losing power vis-a-vis a person is the appropriate thing to do to keep the relationship going.
What's true is that the result of doing things for others depends on the power dynamics of the interaction, and on the "appropriateness" of the balance of power that it is likely to produce.

Yes, yes and yes.

Some examples that came to my mind to try to make sense of this:
if a man is in a relationship with a woman, as per the general rule the man having slightly more "power" over her is likely to produce more reciprocal attraction; this means that if the man expends unbalanced effort in doing things for the woman, this is likely to derail the relationship much more than if the same happened with the parties reversed;
if we consider two friends, best not to "do unasked for things" or expend much "effort" in any direction, as we want the relationship to be as much equal and balanced as possible to "keep the friendship";
between an employee and a boss, it is understood that the "expending effort" is one sided. For this reason, any request to the boss to "expend effort for the employee" must be carefully considered and avoided if possible;
if I am an external advisor / consultant, I want to maintain "power" in the relationship to avoid subcommunicating I "need" the client; thus I need to always minimize any show of expending "free" effort for the client, because if the client gets the impression I expended an enormous effort without any return for me, he is going to inevitably, always, lose respect for me.

I think these examples are great and that it's PU worthy. I think your explanation is on point and totally accurate.

I do think that i is based on the type of relationship: with my friend when I expanded too much effort I actually lost power. I paradoxically gained more power as I lowered my efforts. With my subordinates when I expand too much effort (explanations for instance) I lose power.

And yes about your second post it's about realizing that in the social exchange there is an imbalance to which we are often times contributing.

Thank you Lucio, I think your post is helpful in defining the concept more accurately. At least it was for me. The example of Will Smith as a counter-examples to me shows how context is so important.

So what you both said that it's more about the imbalance/relative difference of effort that counts the most in a given context: "Am I putting too much effort in this context or too little? Is the other person putting too much effort or too little.

Lucio Buffalmano and B have reacted to this post.