Former Community – We Moved
🆕 Coached community here, for posts & feedback public community here.
Wrong advice: lower other people's social debt
Hello guys,
I thought I was going to give the following advice:
Lower other people's social debt
Then I read this article on Passive Style: How to Overcome The Doormat Syndrome and I changed my mind.
And now I would say: don't do it!
So this post is about learning from my mistake.Â
Experience
When I learned about the social exchange theory, I thought:
"Oh, if I lower people's debt towards me, they will feel grateful that I don't hold them accountable, so we build a stronger relationship. I exchange social favor for trust."
"You don't have to pay me back, I've got your back" was the message I was trying to send.
Analysis
However, through my social experiments in the social group I'm being part of, I'm learning that Power matters. If I'm being an agreeable giver, I risk to fall into the doormat syndrome. Where people know I love to contribute but I take the risk of being taken for granted and thought as harmless.
So I think that actually, now that I have increased my warmth, I must increase my dominance as well.
I know it might sound sad but I think that's the way it is. If I'm being funny, warm and loving then I must be equally strong, relentless and assertive.
Among a social group or at work, people will still obey and follow the most dominant individual.
In this post I was questioning our community regarding giving as a life strategy (I'm still open to comments and answers BTW).
Now, I would add:
- Be warm
- Be generous
- Be strong/dominant
We have to be, but the strength and dominance have to be on top of the warmth and generosity. So the group/indiviudals knows that your priority is their well-being. Then second, is power and dominance because you have to enforce it for your own sake and to ensure the well-being of the group.
So I would say that to be fair with ourselves, we must accept that people have a social debt towards us.
So here is my correction:
"Thank YOU"
- Do use it: when someone is thanking you but you actually are the beneficiary. Example: waiter thanks you. Actually, he served you, so you're the one being grateful.
- Don't use it: when you are the one who actually gave value. Example: you examine a patient. The patient says "thank you". You say "thank YOU". Inappropriate: you are the one who gave a service.
It's a matter of social calibration in the end.
"My pleasure"/"you're welcome"
- Do use it: when you gave a service to somebody and they thank you. Example: you examine a patient. The patient says "thank you". You say: "My pleasure". This is the right way to lower someone's social debt: with Power. "I did it because I enjoy it. I'm happy to help. However, I acknowledged that I rendered this service to you. It's not a big deal, though."
- Don't use it: when you are being thanked and you actually received a service. Example: waiter thanks you. Actually, he served you, so you're the one being grateful. If you say: "you're welcome", you even take more in this interaction when you were already the receiver of the value being given.
Any comments are welcome as usual.
Cheers!
Great, great stuff, John.
Could be in the "techniques" or "strategies" section as well.
I'd say that "lowering other people's social debt" can be done in some specific and limited circustamnces, for example with huge givers who rarely ask for anything, and/or within relationships/alliances where the "I got your back" approach is already strong and long-established.
Thanks for sharing John and to Lucio's elaboration.
It is very useful information.
Yesterday my friend asked me for an ear for some personal problems.
At the end, he wanted to return the favour which was a good sign of a value-giver.
Given his challenging time and this gesture at the end, I felt that it was appropriate to minimise any feeling of social debt.
I think that this is normal behaviour among friends during challenging times.
Him: I should return this favour in some way
Me: Not at all, we are friends. I don't consider this a favour at all.
As John says, this could potentially backfire if he takes this advice-giving for granted.
For example, he keeps asking for more and more time, which I would need to draw some boundaries.
But I feel like I don't have much to lose, which could be another consideration.
As Lucio says, if the relationship is good, there's no need to keep track of social bank accounts so much.
Otherwise, as John says, social bank accounts matter among acquaintances.
Something else
When is it important to lower or cancel other people social debt (according to me)
It's when people thank you for really small stuff.
Examples
- You hold the door: "it's nothing".
- You help an old woman by giving her the paper she dropped on the ground: "it's normal".
Rationale
- Human argument: actually to do those things as a capable young human is your duty I believe. So there is no credit to be taken.
- Machiavellian argument: it shows that you're powerful. That is why people extend these minimizations to things that do ask a lot of power and/or effort. And then you appear very powerful. You: "Thank you for introducing me to this person, I got the job" Him: "Oh, It's nothing!".
Corollary
The more powerful you become the more most things become small stuff. So my opinion is not to use it as a power move, but to stay honest and say "it's not a big deal" when it was not a big deal in reality. Not pretending it was not a big deal. Becoming more powerful trumps appearing more powerful.
Another great message, John.
And for many people's lives, most acts of daily kindness are part of the "it's nothing" group.
Also, one note I wanted to add, the "my pleasure" is good in closer circles as well.
It turns the act of kindness into positive social bank account and reinforces the collaborative frame.
Matthew: As John says, this could potentially backfire if he takes this advice-giving for granted.
For example, he keeps asking for more and more time, which I would need to draw some boundaries.
I think your approach is a great one.
You first give trusting the receiver will know how win-win collaboration looks like and, if he does, great. It's a win for you, too.
If not, then you will know soon enough and nothing forces you to keep on giving.
But if you had never given out of kindness, you might have never had the chance of establishing a win-win.
Thank you to John for sharing this further, valuable addition and to Lucio for the feedback on my interaction.
I had one weird incident with a boss over WhatsApp before.
I had to travel to the office at the last minute to get some changes done for a presentation.
This was the exchange that happened after notifying my boss of the update to the presentation.
Me: I have made the relevant changes to the presentation.
Boss: Thank you for your help.
Me: The pleasure is mine.
Boss: Liar!
Me: That is a dangerous accusation. :O
LOL I have never had that response before to "The pleasure is mine.".
I was a bit stunned over text and decided to assume it was a joke.
I think that most people would not particularly enjoy going back to the office at the last minute to work on a presentation.
But I wanted to play the boss-employee ritual.
My boss used that to crack a joke.
The relationship was more of a friendly nature.
So there were some jokes now and then.
LOL, yeah, funny exchange.
The "the pleasure is mine" probably felt a bit too much in that case, since it was obviously quite a big effort and help to go back for last-minute changes.
What Lucio said. Liar! ;)
Don’t worry as a recovering people pleaser I did the same many times. Over-giving which I think is manipulative and I do my best not to do anymore.
Over-giving which I think is manipulative and I do my best not to do anymore.
I feel that it will be manipulative when you have certain strings attached to the giving.
For example, if I have asked for a raise after saying "The pleasure is mine.".
