oosioo
Cover for keeping a relationship going: make reciprocity explicit, and know how to repay and to forgive
SeriesNotes from the Office · Ep. 20

The One Who Gives First (4) — Sustaining a Relationship Is Harder Than Starting One

Reciprocity breaks down the moment one side feels "I'm the only one giving." Here's how to make reciprocity explicit, how to repay and forgive, and what becomes of those who only take.

· SYSOP · 3 views

Sustaining a relationship is harder than starting one. Reciprocity tends to break down the moment one side feels, "I'm the only one giving here."

Make reciprocity explicit

At first, both sides help each other. Then, at some point, one side starts only receiving. They say they're busy when asked for help, and only get in touch when they need something. When this repeats, the thought creeps in — "Is this person using me?" — and by then the relationship is already in trouble. That's why it matters to make reciprocity explicit. You shouldn't leave it as an unspoken expectation, because when expectations go unmet, resentment follows, and resentment is what ruins relationships.

In a collaboration where I needed to receive data, I said it plainly: "If you share the data, I'll make sure you can use the analysis results in your own research too." That single sentence changed the whole character of the relationship — from "taking from you" to "building this together." When you state clearly what the other person gains, their defenses come down.

The same holds true even among close relationships. If you've helped someone, it's better to give them a chance to repay you. Rather than brushing it off with "Don't worry about it, it was nothing," saying something like "Just help me out when I need it later" actually keeps the relationship healthier. That way, the other person can carry the relationship forward without feeling indebted. There's a long-standing observation that the person who does you a favor ends up liking you more, not the other way around. The story goes that the statesman Franklin once asked a legislator who disliked him to lend him a rare book — and the legislator who lent it became his lifelong friend.

Some organizations have gone so far as to build reciprocity into formal policy. One Korean steel company has long run a program with its partner firms: whenever they jointly cut costs or improve quality, half of the savings is paid out to the partner company in cash. The promise that "profits made together are shared together" was written down in black and white. Because what the partner stood to gain was made explicit, the partner companies worked just as hard to grow the shared profit. That said, the same company's record on industrial accidents remains a separate and serious problem of its own.

There are also companies that reached out first in a moment of crisis. At one food company, the founder personally handed cash to a partner firm that was on the brink of shutting down, long ago — and that bond grew into a partnership lasting more than thirty years. What was given was a single act of help, but what came back was decades of trust. Reciprocity lasts when it's written into rules and actions, not left to goodwill alone.

Give first, but don't be a pushover

Scholars once ran computer tournaments studying repeated relationships. When various strategies competed against each other, the one that came out on top was, surprisingly, a simple one: cooperate first, retaliate if the other side betrays you, and forgive immediately the moment they come back. It isn't always the best strategy, but the direction it points in is clear — give first, respond clearly to betrayal, and forgive right away when the other side returns. Because giving first and being a pushover are not the same thing.

Illustration of the three tit-for-tat principles: cooperate first, retaliate on betrayal, forgive on return

The fate of those who only take tends to follow a predictable path. One dairy company was caught forcing its distributors to take on unwanted inventory. The fine itself wasn't large, but amid the boycotts and loss of trust that followed, the founding family ultimately lost control of the company. The owner of a pizza franchise was convicted for charging franchisees a so-called "toll tax" and retaliating by opening competing stores nearby — and the company was delisted from the stock exchange.

What they tookWhat they lost
Revenue forced through unwanted salesControl of the company, amid broken trust
"Toll" extracted from franchiseesCriminal conviction and delisting

They succeeded in squeezing out short-term gains, but in doing so, they lost something far more valuable: the relationship itself.

In the next piece, I'll talk about how this reciprocity spreads beyond just the two of us, and how it differs from sacrifice.

Read this series from the start: Notes from the Office.