The Law of Reciprocity: True or False?
January 30th, 2007 by rivercrow
Part of the culture change meeting included a discussion of Covey’s Law of Reciprocity and his “emotional bank account” concept. If you’re unfamiliar with these, Terry Bragg’s website can clue you in.
You should probably read that website before you continue, if you’re completely in the dark.
The nutshell version is “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours,” which certainly seems to work in theory. Probably in practice, for many people, as well. I mean, this kind of thing is supposed to be the fabric of society, isn’t it? I don’t think we all approach reciprocity the same way.
Part of this difference may be the different value on the “goods” exchanged. (Terry does mention this.) Some of this seems to hang on previous relationship, in which case there is practically no way to ever join in the system–the odds are stacked against you. I guess what I’m saying, without wanting to blurt it out, is that the concept of reciprocity needs equality, fairness, and open-mindedness for it to work as described.
I also have a problem with the grounding of reciprocity on expectation. (I’ve written about the problem of “deserve” previously. “Deserve” is much like “expect.”) I think it probably is human nature to look at relationships in terms of emotional capital, but I am uncomfortable with this. Expectation sets up the perception of a debt situation and depends on equal valuation of goods exchanged. Instead of being motivated to do things because of right action, the concept demands that we’re motivated by what we can get. I suppose this is probably a more “realistic” way to view things. The throw-away of “expectation repaid by the world”–evoking karmic equilibrium–seems like a token nod to non-Western religion and doesn’t effectively remove the mercenary tang.
My main argument is that I just don’t see this working where I am. It won’t cut through the favoritism, cronyism, cliquism. Massive retraining is necessary–awareness of motives and actions and willingness to confront these.
I suppose that is a reason culture change is so difficult. None of these are easy tasks. Individually, most of us will never do these things. To make this commitment to change as a collective–a huge undertaking. Yet, if we don’t do it, we’re stuck where we are.
Other variations:
Coaching Tip on Reciprocity (also on the Law of Love)
Mike Sander’s on Covey for Bloggers
One Response to “The Law of Reciprocity: True or False?”
Leave a Reply
An analysis of the reasoning why people remain contained within the same behavioural patterns reveals that people just can’t be clever enough to effect such radical changes.
This is something I’ve discussed with my father repeatedly. The majority of the populace just don’t have the spare processing power (to equate to computers) to be able to handle life and think about it’s deeper meanings and flow. Let’s face it how many people still do not recognise the utility of a computer? How many years will it be until programmers start to think about how their programs will actually be used and compensate properly for them? Will it be in our lifetimes that businesses will stop thinking in such closed views as bits of paper and just promoting at will or will they convert to a fuly integrated recruitment and promotion system which takes into account the personality and real world capabilities of prospective employees, then taking to promoting those who show the qualities they desire in higher positions rather than those who perform well in their current roles or who show a desire for power and promotion?
There are many things wrong with the world and many could be laid at the feet of not thinking things through with intelligence? Basically any system can be criticised and all of them have failings. Selecting the best would be a subjective measure and to employ it as standard would be to follow in Taylor’s footsteps and that never works.