Former Community – We Moved

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

ForumPublic Forum: Power DynamicsYou don't need to give value to b …

Please or Register to create posts and topics.

You don't need to give value to be in Power

#1 · May 29, 2022, 12:21 am

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
Hello guys,
I think this deserves a thread.
Context: today we were doing a game called Pétanque (throwing metal balls, wiki link does not work) while having a BBQ. I organised it or rather I changed from the idea of a restaurant to a BBQ + Petanque through my power and influence (in short).
My friend was cooking the BBQ and he gave all his meat while I kept mine. I bought the kind of sausages he proposed (collaboration), I brought the balls and brought some people and suggested the event. It just happened that he cooked his first and we were full.
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.
That's the moment I understood what Lucio was saying: that giving value is not enough to be in Power. The title is a bit provocative. I still believe and give value. I invite people at my place, organise events and cook for them.
However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.
What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.
In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange". And yes it can come, but it's not an obligation from other people to give you power in exchange of the value. They can just take the value and move on. So if one expects to get Power after giving value, it can be somewhat manipulative. This might sound counter-intuitive, but I find it to be true.
So I would say: "If you give value in a king's manner there should not be any string attached to this value". Yes, it can be a strategy, but it cannot be a strategy in and of itself. Without assertiveness, high-quality behaviour, frame control, dominance, etc. It's wasted as it's not fair to expect Power in exchange of value if it was given. Otherwise it's not a gift. And therefore, it's not so eagle-like.
I'll come back to the definition of Power (Oxford dictionary) that is of interest to us:
1. the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.
2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.
I'm curious about your thoughts on this topic.

Hello guys,

I think this deserves a thread.

Context: today we were doing a game called Pétanque (throwing metal balls, wiki link does not work) while having a BBQ. I organised it or rather I changed from the idea of a restaurant to a BBQ + Petanque through my power and influence (in short).

My friend was cooking the BBQ and he gave all his meat while I kept mine. I bought the kind of sausages he proposed (collaboration), I brought the balls and brought some people and suggested the event. It just happened that he cooked his first and we were full.

I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.

That's the moment I understood what Lucio was saying: that giving value is not enough to be in Power. The title is a bit provocative. I still believe and give value. I invite people at my place, organise events and cook for them.

However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.

What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.

In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange". And yes it can come, but it's not an obligation from other people to give you power in exchange of the value. They can just take the value and move on. So if one expects to get Power after giving value, it can be somewhat manipulative. This might sound counter-intuitive, but I find it to be true.

So I would say: "If you give value in a king's manner there should not be any string attached to this value". Yes, it can be a strategy, but it cannot be a strategy in and of itself. Without assertiveness, high-quality behaviour, frame control, dominance, etc. It's wasted as it's not fair to expect Power in exchange of value if it was given. Otherwise it's not a gift. And therefore, it's not so eagle-like.

I'll come back to the definition of Power (Oxford dictionary) that is of interest to us:

1. the ability or capacity to do something or act in a particular way.
2. the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behaviour of others or the course of events.

I'm curious about your thoughts on this topic.

Lucio Buffalmano, Mats G and leaderoffun have reacted to this post.

#2 · May 29, 2022, 8:17 am

Update: I’m curious about your thoughts on this topic.

What do you guys think?

(to avoid a possible covert question)

#3 · May 29, 2022, 7:52 pm

You have a fairly limited definition of "value". Value is what other people make of something, not you.

If I gave a bottle of water to someone who was thirsty and he had no other means to get water, even though I don't value the bottle of water because I am not thirsty he would value it much more than I do.

If you feel you're giving value and getting nothing back, it's not that you're doing too much, it's that what you're giving is simply not valuable to the other person. You should focus on giving things that are valuable to others, but at very little cost to you.

#4 · May 29, 2022, 7:55 pm

Quote from JP on May 29, 2022, 7:52 pm
You have a fairly limited definition of "value".

I'm afraid there was a misunderstanding. We do agree on what value is. What makes you say that based on what I wrote above?

Quote from JP on May 29, 2022, 7:52 pm
If you feel you're giving value and getting nothing back, it's not that you're doing too much, it's that what you're giving is simply not valuable to the other person. You should focus on giving things that are valuable to others, but at very little cost to you.

How come is that your understanding? This was not the point I was making.

I'm happy to clarify.

#5 · May 29, 2022, 8:14 pm

Quote from JP on May 29, 2022, 8:14 pm
Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power.
Just because he is expending energy and doing the work doesn't mean that it is valuable to other people.

However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.
They work for you, but it's always in exchange for something. Nothing is really "free". Using your example, there are a myriad of reasons why someone would work for you, this is not an exhaustive list:
Money (usually the main reason)
Opportunity for promotion in hierarchy. If you are the "alpha" of the group, they want all the privileges that come with being closer to the power
They may want a favor in return later.
They enjoy your company and and want to spend more time around you
They believe that by helping you, you could help them (politicians)
Sometimes you don't need to even work in order to provide value. This is the case with a lot of celebrities that get stuff for free all the time. Their mere presence is enough to provide value all on its own.
What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.
In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange".
As I said, it's not that you're giving too much. It's that you're not giving anything of value to them, at a high cost to yourself. It's a bad deal.
You are correct that people can just take what you give them and move on. That's because they don't see any other value to you, there's no reason to treat it as anything but a one-time transaction.
So I would say: "If you give value in a king's manner there should not be any string attached to this value". Yes, it can be a strategy, but it cannot be a strategy in and of itself. Without assertiveness, high-quality behaviour, frame control, dominance, etc. It's wasted as it's not fair to expect Power in exchange of value if it was given. Otherwise it's not a gift. And therefore, it's not so eagle-like.
Assertiveness, high quality behaviour, etc... is something that a lot of high value people do. You're simply mimicking their behaviour. If you're able to make others think you are high-value, they will believe that they can get more value out of you.
Value is in the eye of the beholder, but all value is perceived, whether it is backed up by something tangible or not.

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power.

Just because he is expending energy and doing the work doesn't mean that it is valuable to other people.

However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.

They work for you, but it's always in exchange for something. Nothing is really "free". Using your example, there are a myriad of reasons why someone would work for you, this is not an exhaustive list:

Money (usually the main reason)
Opportunity for promotion in hierarchy. If you are the "alpha" of the group, they want all the privileges that come with being closer to the power
They may want a favor in return later.
They enjoy your company and and want to spend more time around you
They believe that by helping you, you could help them (politicians)

Sometimes you don't need to even work in order to provide value. This is the case with a lot of celebrities that get stuff for free all the time. Their mere presence is enough to provide value all on its own.

What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.
In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange".

As I said, it's not that you're giving too much. It's that you're not giving anything of value to them, at a high cost to yourself. It's a bad deal.

You are correct that people can just take what you give them and move on. That's because they don't see any other value to you, there's no reason to treat it as anything but a one-time transaction.

So I would say: "If you give value in a king's manner there should not be any string attached to this value". Yes, it can be a strategy, but it cannot be a strategy in and of itself. Without assertiveness, high-quality behaviour, frame control, dominance, etc. It's wasted as it's not fair to expect Power in exchange of value if it was given. Otherwise it's not a gift. And therefore, it's not so eagle-like.

Assertiveness, high quality behaviour, etc... is something that a lot of high value people do. You're simply mimicking their behaviour. If you're able to make others think you are high-value, they will believe that they can get more value out of you.

Value is in the eye of the beholder, but all value is perceived, whether it is backed up by something tangible or not.

leaderoffun and Drazil have reacted to this post.

#6 · May 29, 2022, 8:34 pm

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 8:34 pm
Quote from JP on May 29, 2022, 8:14 pm
Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power.
Just because he is expending energy and doing the work doesn't mean that it is valuable to other people.
Actually it was. He was cooking for us, he brought the grill device, he brought beer and we were having a great time, thanks to him. So he was giving us value. What he was doing was valuable to us. My point is that we can be grateful to him, have a great time and still have a choice to give him influence over us or not. It's not granted.
However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.
They work for you, but it's always in exchange for something. Nothing is really "free". Using your example, there are a myriad of reasons why someone would work for you, this is not an exhaustive list:
Money (usually the main reason)
Opportunity for promotion in hierarchy. If you are the "alpha" of the group, they want all the privileges that come with being closer to the power
They may want a favor in return later.
They enjoy your company and and want to spend more time around you
They believe that by helping you, you could help them (politicians)
Sometimes you don't need to even work in order to provide value. This is the case with a lot of celebrities that get stuff for free all the time. Their mere presence is enough to provide value all on its own.
We agree. That is what I wrote above: "You provide value through leadership, your presence and character." I should have prefaced that I'm talking about Power in a social friendly setting. Where people are equals and hierarchies are established informally.
What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.
In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange".
As I said, it's not that you're giving too much. It's that you're not giving anything of value to them, at a high cost to yourself. It's a bad deal.
I'm afraid you are making an assumption here. Lucio told me that giving is not enough to have Power and I'm learning it now. My increase in Power in the group came both from giving value and learning and practicing Power. Otherwise I would have just given and they could have taken. They are fair people so they do give back and show gratitude. However, they don't have to give back or respect me more. If I let people walk all over me and give them something of value it is not the same as if I'm strong and give them something of value. That is my point here.
You are correct that people can just take what you give them and move on. That's because they don't see any other value to you, there's no reason to treat it as anything but a one-time transaction.
I'm saying that their reaction to the giving is outside of our control. Lucio said that there is this reciprocity norm that if you give value to someone, you could expect from them more Power (here: influence). I agree. However, I think that they don't have to. So the strategy of giving to increase Power is limited and not sufficient in and of itself. I agree with him now.

Quote from JP on May 29, 2022, 8:14 pm
Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power.
Just because he is expending energy and doing the work doesn't mean that it is valuable to other people.

Actually it was. He was cooking for us, he brought the grill device, he brought beer and we were having a great time, thanks to him. So he was giving us value. What he was doing was valuable to us. My point is that we can be grateful to him, have a great time and still have a choice to give him influence over us or not. It's not granted.

However, I understood by seeing him as I was before: working for others. If you are in Power, people work for you. They expand energy while you expand little. You provide value through leadership, your presence and character. I'm not going narcisstic here. I'm stating that to give is a normal way for human exchange and the only way to reach win-win.
They work for you, but it's always in exchange for something. Nothing is really "free". Using your example, there are a myriad of reasons why someone would work for you, this is not an exhaustive list:
Money (usually the main reason)
Opportunity for promotion in hierarchy. If you are the "alpha" of the group, they want all the privileges that come with being closer to the power
They may want a favor in return later.
They enjoy your company and and want to spend more time around you
They believe that by helping you, you could help them (politicians)
Sometimes you don't need to even work in order to provide value. This is the case with a lot of celebrities that get stuff for free all the time. Their mere presence is enough to provide value all on its own.

We agree. That is what I wrote above: "You provide value through leadership, your presence and character." I should have prefaced that I'm talking about Power in a social friendly setting. Where people are equals and hierarchies are established informally.

What I'm saying is that if you give too much or give and expect Power, it won't work. Power is Power. Wether you give or not.
In the past, I thought: "After having given so much value, I should have some Power in exchange".
As I said, it's not that you're giving too much. It's that you're not giving anything of value to them, at a high cost to yourself. It's a bad deal.

I'm afraid you are making an assumption here. Lucio told me that giving is not enough to have Power and I'm learning it now. My increase in Power in the group came both from giving value and learning and practicing Power. Otherwise I would have just given and they could have taken. They are fair people so they do give back and show gratitude. However, they don't have to give back or respect me more. If I let people walk all over me and give them something of value it is not the same as if I'm strong and give them something of value. That is my point here.

You are correct that people can just take what you give them and move on. That's because they don't see any other value to you, there's no reason to treat it as anything but a one-time transaction.

I'm saying that their reaction to the giving is outside of our control. Lucio said that there is this reciprocity norm that if you give value to someone, you could expect from them more Power (here: influence). I agree. However, I think that they don't have to. So the strategy of giving to increase Power is limited and not sufficient in and of itself. I agree with him now.

#7 · May 29, 2022, 10:59 pm

Quote from Mats G on May 29, 2022, 10:59 pm
Hi John,
Thank you for posting this thread! I think the real life example makes this concept a lot easier to grasp :)
I agree with you that a person who tries to give value without being power-aware is unlikely to gain power just from the value he provides. Sure, he might get more power in that particular interaction (maybe your friend had the power to distribute the food and decide when it was time to eat), but I don't think it would carry over into unrelated scenarios in the future.
I think giving value increases your power as long as you are surrounded by high quality people, as they might reciprocate in the future or at least appreciate what you do. However, if you are giving value to value takers you will just lose power as they will not give anything back.

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.
Since I only have an outside perspective of the situation I could be completely off the mark, but I suspect your friend might have gained some momentary power through this. If he had not cooked or added any value at all, would he have been as welcome as he was? It's possible of course, but I think he might have been seen as someone who doesn't add anything and might not be invited out again. Personally, if I was organizing a BBQ in the future and I had to choose between inviting someone who helped out and someone who didn't, I would go for the former, and thus his power is somewhat increased :)
Maybe the reason he didn't have any power despite providing value was because he was already very low power to begin with. I think that giving value generally increases power, but if you start out negative on a power scale and you increase your power from -5 to 0, you'll still be the least powerful person in the room. So like you say, giving value isn't necessarily enough to make you high power, but I think it will almost always be a positive thing to do.

Hi John,

Thank you for posting this thread! I think the real life example makes this concept a lot easier to grasp :)

I agree with you that a person who tries to give value without being power-aware is unlikely to gain power just from the value he provides. Sure, he might get more power in that particular interaction (maybe your friend had the power to distribute the food and decide when it was time to eat), but I don't think it would carry over into unrelated scenarios in the future.

I think giving value increases your power as long as you are surrounded by high quality people, as they might reciprocate in the future or at least appreciate what you do. However, if you are giving value to value takers you will just lose power as they will not give anything back.

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.

Since I only have an outside perspective of the situation I could be completely off the mark, but I suspect your friend might have gained some momentary power through this. If he had not cooked or added any value at all, would he have been as welcome as he was? It's possible of course, but I think he might have been seen as someone who doesn't add anything and might not be invited out again. Personally, if I was organizing a BBQ in the future and I had to choose between inviting someone who helped out and someone who didn't, I would go for the former, and thus his power is somewhat increased :)

Maybe the reason he didn't have any power despite providing value was because he was already very low power to begin with. I think that giving value generally increases power, but if you start out negative on a power scale and you increase your power from -5 to 0, you'll still be the least powerful person in the room. So like you say, giving value isn't necessarily enough to make you high power, but I think it will almost always be a positive thing to do.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.

#8 · May 30, 2022, 6:10 am

Yes, absolutely, giving value is not enough.

And if you "give and give" without power and without making sure to enforce boundaries and set win-win, you end up with win-lose (you losing).
This is why this website was critical with the review on self-help literature based on giving only (I'm thinking I should bring back those reviews of crappy self-help actually, can serve as a good warning).

There are also several layers of "giving".

Giving with action and help is the most likely to be taken without reciprocation, and the most likely to leave you low in power.
Call it "working bee" approach.

Giving that is more strategic and more based on leadership, dominance, charisma, bonding & connecting, etc. has higher ROI, so to speak.

AS much as the value exchange is crucial to doing well socially and in life and avoiding being a burden (social skills 101), understanding that giving is not enough is the very next step and needed to avoid being taken advantage of (power 101).

Eagle leaders must rebalance that "low ROI giving" of working bees

However, just because the giving your friend was doing was low ROI for HIM, it doesn't mean it wasn't valuable.

It was very valuable work for the group.

So a good leader must step in to make sure he gets his (social and emotional) reward.

So what I'd do is to go around him, help a bit, chat him up, maybe help him carry the food when ready, and then acknowledge him publicly in front of everyone.

That's important because there are almost always people who bring nothing more than the "working bee" but ALSO don't do shit for the group.

So it's not fair that the working bee is at the same level of those who bring little and do little.
And it's fair and well deserved that the working bee gets his credit.

That will keep the working bees contribution coming, and will encourage more active giving from others.

John Freeman, Mats G and B have reacted to this post.

Community, new content and Confidence University now available here.

#9 · May 30, 2022, 6:21 am

Quote from John Freeman on May 30, 2022, 6:21 am
Quote from Mats G on May 29, 2022, 10:59 pm
Hi John,
Thank you for posting this thread! I think the real life example makes this concept a lot easier to grasp 🙂
You're welcome! I'll give more details below as it is a tricky subject.
I agree with you that a person who tries to give value without being power-aware is unlikely to gain power just from the value he provides. Sure, he might get more power in that particular interaction (maybe your friend had the power to distribute the food and decide when it was time to eat), but I don't think it would carry over into unrelated scenarios in the future.
We agree on that.
I think giving value increases your power as long as you are surrounded by high quality people, as they might reciprocate in the future or at least appreciate what you do. However, if you are giving value to value takers you will just lose power as they will not give anything back.
We agree. However, there is the "might" that indicate that it's up to them. Yes, giving to takers is a losing strategy

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.
Since I only have an outside perspective of the situation I could be completely off the mark, but I suspect your friend might have gained some momentary power through this. If he had not cooked or added any value at all, would he have been as welcome as he was? It's possible of course, but I think he might have been seen as someone who doesn't add anything and might not be invited out again.
He did gain some momentary power and is welcome. I like his generosity and personality. I posted the definition to say that it does not translate automatically in having more influence.
Personally, if I was organizing a BBQ in the future and I had to choose between inviting someone who helped out and someone who didn't, I would go for the former, and thus his power is somewhat increased 🙂
I'll give more details:A friend of mine who came made a comment like: "the problem with being the cook is that you don't have time to eat" and laughed. Therefore even making fun of the cook. He also got home back with his meat as it was not cooked. I already noticed he was not giving a lot and this flagged him further in my mind. But to tell that my friend who made fun of him got his belly full and got home and had a good night. Who's the most powerful? (AKA who can get what he wants?). He brought food AKA played the collaboration game but did not even bring beers and got his food back.
Maybe the reason he didn't have any power despite providing value was because he was already very low power to begin with.
Now you're onto something. My generous friend F. who was cooking is also the BF of a narcissist manipulative woman who has control over him. So he looks weaker than her as she can control him.
That is also what I learned when I influenced F. to do a BBQ instead of a restaurant.
When I proposed my friends a BBQ texted me: "but you don't know about the restaurant?" or "you were not aware that there was this restaurant"?
To which I answered: "I proposed F. a BBQ, he's going to ask his sister".
Therefore, through my influence on F. who proposed a restaurant, I had an influence on my other friends. I did not have to have them agree to MY proposition. I only had F. to agree to my proposition. Since they agreed to see him, they were coming to my event through him. If you have influence over someone that has influence over someone, you have influence over the last one (A->B->C: you have influence over C through your influence through B).
I think that giving value generally increases power, but if you start out negative on a power scale and you increase your power from -5 to 0, you'll still be the least powerful person in the room.
Yes, it is true. However, my realisation is that F. despite all his resources, his human qualities is not as powerful as B. who is better at frame control and power-awareness and power dynamics in general. B. does not have the pretty (crazy) GF, does not have the large apartment with a view over the lake. But B. is power-aware and manage to stay on top. So people respect him.
However, I also see that on the long term, F. is going to get ahead because he's working a lot to increase his resources (he bought a house). So his Power (ability to do things) will increase with the house. However, his power (influence) will also decrease because the house is far so he has to get us to go to his house.
Also, he does not realise that his house is a display of his power. So to invite his peers who don't have a house far away is a stretch because we will compare us to him and we will have to make an additional effort to go to his place.
So like you say, giving value isn't necessarily enough to make you high power, but I think it will almost always be a positive thing to do.
Of course. As I said, this title is provocative on purpose. Some people (politicians) fabricate value out of thin air (shared feelings of hatred, belonging, righteousness, etc.).
In my personal case, I have all these friends because I learned to obey the WIIFT law. I get them what they want: fun, interesting conversations, interesting friends, good food, etc.
When they come to an event I'm organising, they know they'll have a good time. As a friend, I listen to them without judging them. I give advice and support when needed. Of course I provide value to my friends. My point is that I realised that I did not have to give as much as I thought I needed to give.
For instance, I provide leadership and that is valuable in and of itself.
Also, there are plenty of takers who are high power. And this might be unsettling or triggering but it is true.
I'll give another example:
I created a group for my upcoming exam and plenty of people joined in. I provided value. There were translations to do and I did my part: I did one. However, many people did way more work than me for the translations. However, they will not get more power as this group will not exist anymore after the exam. So I actually provided the most value by creating the group.
Clarification
After writing this paragraph, I will reframe the title. Actually, it is my leadership which is the value that I provide the most. That is why I don't need to provide as much value as I thought I had to.
There are actually 3 concepts in this thread:
Power-awareness can beat Value-giving
Leadership is Value
Material Value vs Immaterial Value
Maybe I'm underestimating the passive value I give to people. Maybe now my personal value is as or more valuable that the material value I can give. I don't know. This is new to me, I have to think about it.

Quote from Mats G on May 29, 2022, 10:59 pm
Hi John,
Thank you for posting this thread! I think the real life example makes this concept a lot easier to grasp 🙂

You're welcome! I'll give more details below as it is a tricky subject.

I agree with you that a person who tries to give value without being power-aware is unlikely to gain power just from the value he provides. Sure, he might get more power in that particular interaction (maybe your friend had the power to distribute the food and decide when it was time to eat), but I don't think it would carry over into unrelated scenarios in the future.

We agree on that.

I think giving value increases your power as long as you are surrounded by high quality people, as they might reciprocate in the future or at least appreciate what you do. However, if you are giving value to value takers you will just lose power as they will not give anything back.

We agree. However, there is the "might" that indicate that it's up to them. Yes, giving to takers is a losing strategy

Quote from John Freeman on May 29, 2022, 12:21 am
I realised as he was cooking that he was the one spending energy for us. He was giving value but he was not in Power. I was the one in Power as I influenced him to do a BBQ instead of the restaurant.
Since I only have an outside perspective of the situation I could be completely off the mark, but I suspect your friend might have gained some momentary power through this. If he had not cooked or added any value at all, would he have been as welcome as he was? It's possible of course, but I think he might have been seen as someone who doesn't add anything and might not be invited out again.

He did gain some momentary power and is welcome. I like his generosity and personality. I posted the definition to say that it does not translate automatically in having more influence.

Personally, if I was organizing a BBQ in the future and I had to choose between inviting someone who helped out and someone who didn't, I would go for the former, and thus his power is somewhat increased 🙂

I'll give more details:A friend of mine who came made a comment like: "the problem with being the cook is that you don't have time to eat" and laughed. Therefore even making fun of the cook. He also got home back with his meat as it was not cooked. I already noticed he was not giving a lot and this flagged him further in my mind. But to tell that my friend who made fun of him got his belly full and got home and had a good night. Who's the most powerful? (AKA who can get what he wants?). He brought food AKA played the collaboration game but did not even bring beers and got his food back.

Maybe the reason he didn't have any power despite providing value was because he was already very low power to begin with.

Now you're onto something. My generous friend F. who was cooking is also the BF of a narcissist manipulative woman who has control over him. So he looks weaker than her as she can control him.

That is also what I learned when I influenced F. to do a BBQ instead of a restaurant.

When I proposed my friends a BBQ texted me: "but you don't know about the restaurant?" or "you were not aware that there was this restaurant"?

To which I answered: "I proposed F. a BBQ, he's going to ask his sister".

Therefore, through my influence on F. who proposed a restaurant, I had an influence on my other friends. I did not have to have them agree to MY proposition. I only had F. to agree to my proposition. Since they agreed to see him, they were coming to my event through him. If you have influence over someone that has influence over someone, you have influence over the last one (A->B->C: you have influence over C through your influence through B).

I think that giving value generally increases power, but if you start out negative on a power scale and you increase your power from -5 to 0, you'll still be the least powerful person in the room.

Yes, it is true. However, my realisation is that F. despite all his resources, his human qualities is not as powerful as B. who is better at frame control and power-awareness and power dynamics in general. B. does not have the pretty (crazy) GF, does not have the large apartment with a view over the lake. But B. is power-aware and manage to stay on top. So people respect him.

However, I also see that on the long term, F. is going to get ahead because he's working a lot to increase his resources (he bought a house). So his Power (ability to do things) will increase with the house. However, his power (influence) will also decrease because the house is far so he has to get us to go to his house.

Also, he does not realise that his house is a display of his power. So to invite his peers who don't have a house far away is a stretch because we will compare us to him and we will have to make an additional effort to go to his place.

So like you say, giving value isn't necessarily enough to make you high power, but I think it will almost always be a positive thing to do.

Of course. As I said, this title is provocative on purpose. Some people (politicians) fabricate value out of thin air (shared feelings of hatred, belonging, righteousness, etc.).

In my personal case, I have all these friends because I learned to obey the WIIFT law. I get them what they want: fun, interesting conversations, interesting friends, good food, etc.

When they come to an event I'm organising, they know they'll have a good time. As a friend, I listen to them without judging them. I give advice and support when needed. Of course I provide value to my friends. My point is that I realised that I did not have to give as much as I thought I needed to give.

For instance, I provide leadership and that is valuable in and of itself.

Also, there are plenty of takers who are high power. And this might be unsettling or triggering but it is true.

I'll give another example:

I created a group for my upcoming exam and plenty of people joined in. I provided value. There were translations to do and I did my part: I did one. However, many people did way more work than me for the translations. However, they will not get more power as this group will not exist anymore after the exam. So I actually provided the most value by creating the group.

Clarification

After writing this paragraph, I will reframe the title. Actually, it is my leadership which is the value that I provide the most. That is why I don't need to provide as much value as I thought I had to.

There are actually 3 concepts in this thread:

Power-awareness can beat Value-giving
Leadership is Value
Material Value vs Immaterial Value

Maybe I'm underestimating the passive value I give to people. Maybe now my personal value is as or more valuable that the material value I can give. I don't know. This is new to me, I have to think about it.

Mats G has reacted to this post.

#10 · May 30, 2022, 6:43 am

Quote from John Freeman on May 30, 2022, 6:43 am
Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 30, 2022, 6:10 am
Yes, absolutely, giving value is not enough.
And if you "give and give" without power and without making sure to enforce boundaries and set win-win, you end up with win-lose (you losing).
This is why this website was critical with the review on self-help literature based on giving only (I'm thinking I should bring back those reviews of crappy self-help actually, can serve as a good warning).
I made this mistake in the past of course, hence the thread.
There are also several layers of "giving".
Giving with action and help is the most likely to be taken without reciprocation, and the most likely to leave you low in power.
Call it "working bee" approach.
Giving that is more strategic and more based on leadership, dominance, charisma, bonding & connecting, etc. has higher ROI, so to speak.
Interesting concept. Yes, the cook and the one organizing the party do not enjoy the same
Eagle leaders must rebalance that "low ROI giving" of working bees
However, just because the giving your friend was doing was low ROI for HIM, it doesn't mean it wasn't valuable.
It was very valuable work for the group.
So a good leader must step in to make sure he gets his (social and emotional) reward.
So what I'd do is to go around him, help a bit, chat him up, maybe help him carry the food when ready, and then acknowledge him publicly in front of everyone.
Yes it was valuable to the group. That's what I do naturally. I told him that the sausages he brought were good, I praised his grill, I cut the food he was cooking. But I did not do it consciously. Now I'm going to do it consciously, thanks to you.
You make me realise that as I become more Power-aware, I become less centered on the group and more on myself. I did chose the BBQ because I could picture the group having more fun with the sun out. However, I realise it's important to keep the group as the focus in order to be a good leader.
That's important because there are almost always people who bring nothing more than the "working bee" but ALSO don't do shit for the group.
So it's not fair that the working bee is at the same level of those who bring little and do little.
Very true. My friend A. (psychiatrist) always bring the bare minimum, even when inviting us. It makes him look cheap. At his birthday he ordered pizzas. I did not mind as I'm a simple man. However, everybody else noticed it.
He also does not bring a lot to the group. He comes to enjoy himself and that's it. He's a fun and interesting guy. However, he does lack the giving mindset. That is why I could notice that he:
Came late
Did not bring any beverages
Brought food only for himself and took it back with him
And it's fair and well deserved that the working bee gets his credit.
That will keep the working bees contribution coming, and will encourage more active giving from others.
Yes, and this is maybe one of the takeaway in this thread. It's not that he did not get any Power. It's that he did not get enough credit (Power) for what he did.
So I was the one responsible for distributing the credit and I missed the opportunity to do it more consciously.
Also it was an event organised collectively as each of us brought something. It's different from when you invite people at home.
It's not: "thank you for inviting us" and "thank you for coming".
It's: "thank you for having brought the grill", "thank you for having brought beers", "thank you for having cooked the food", publicly of course.

Quote from Lucio Buffalmano on May 30, 2022, 6:10 am
Yes, absolutely, giving value is not enough.
And if you "give and give" without power and without making sure to enforce boundaries and set win-win, you end up with win-lose (you losing).
This is why this website was critical with the review on self-help literature based on giving only (I'm thinking I should bring back those reviews of crappy self-help actually, can serve as a good warning).

I made this mistake in the past of course, hence the thread.

There are also several layers of "giving".
Giving with action and help is the most likely to be taken without reciprocation, and the most likely to leave you low in power.
Call it "working bee" approach.
Giving that is more strategic and more based on leadership, dominance, charisma, bonding & connecting, etc. has higher ROI, so to speak.

Interesting concept. Yes, the cook and the one organizing the party do not enjoy the same

Eagle leaders must rebalance that "low ROI giving" of working bees
However, just because the giving your friend was doing was low ROI for HIM, it doesn't mean it wasn't valuable.
It was very valuable work for the group.
So a good leader must step in to make sure he gets his (social and emotional) reward.
So what I'd do is to go around him, help a bit, chat him up, maybe help him carry the food when ready, and then acknowledge him publicly in front of everyone.

Yes it was valuable to the group. That's what I do naturally. I told him that the sausages he brought were good, I praised his grill, I cut the food he was cooking. But I did not do it consciously. Now I'm going to do it consciously, thanks to you.

You make me realise that as I become more Power-aware, I become less centered on the group and more on myself. I did chose the BBQ because I could picture the group having more fun with the sun out. However, I realise it's important to keep the group as the focus in order to be a good leader.

That's important because there are almost always people who bring nothing more than the "working bee" but ALSO don't do shit for the group.
So it's not fair that the working bee is at the same level of those who bring little and do little.

Very true. My friend A. (psychiatrist) always bring the bare minimum, even when inviting us. It makes him look cheap. At his birthday he ordered pizzas. I did not mind as I'm a simple man. However, everybody else noticed it.

He also does not bring a lot to the group. He comes to enjoy himself and that's it. He's a fun and interesting guy. However, he does lack the giving mindset. That is why I could notice that he:

Came late
Did not bring any beverages
Brought food only for himself and took it back with him

And it's fair and well deserved that the working bee gets his credit.
That will keep the working bees contribution coming, and will encourage more active giving from others.

Yes, and this is maybe one of the takeaway in this thread. It's not that he did not get any Power. It's that he did not get enough credit (Power) for what he did.

So I was the one responsible for distributing the credit and I missed the opportunity to do it more consciously.

Also it was an event organised collectively as each of us brought something. It's different from when you invite people at home.

It's not: "thank you for inviting us" and "thank you for coming".

It's: "thank you for having brought the grill", "thank you for having brought beers", "thank you for having cooked the food", publicly of course.

Lucio Buffalmano has reacted to this post.