Controversial Currency – Reactions to a Better “You’re Welcome”

Posted on March 10th, 2011 by Keith Ferrazzi

Let’s talk about Tuesday’s tip, the controversial interview clip in which Guy (and by reprinting it, I) endorse replacing “you're welcome” with “I know you would do the same for me.”

First thing to say is that Guy Kawasaki is among the most generous people I know in the guru biz. He is not a man who keeps score, and his book Enchantment shines with his good will. If instead of quoting from Guy’s glib interview with me I had reprinted the full passage from the book, which emphasizes that it’s never enchanting to make someone feel like they owe you, controversy would have been averted.

But I’m glad it wasn’t. The seemingly hard edge of Guy’s advice spurred a conversation that gets right at some of the wrong-headed black and white logic that still governs conventional thinking on relationship building, and especially business relationship building.

Many of you shared the opinion of Tom A., who emailed me, “It is not generous to expect something in return, it’s just a business transaction.  If generosity is a value that produces goodwill and deepens relationships, then I help someone not because I expect a favor, but because friends help friends (and sometimes strangers). Generosity helps me dig deeper in the relationship. Reducing my act to favor for favor, in my opinion, devalues the relationship.”

Of course Tom is right about not keeping score. But it's also true that business relationships and relationships are not sleazy on one side and sacred on the other. We are beyond the either/or days. We're social animals, living in an age of social business. Generosity and candor are more important than ever before. I argue that Cialdini’s quote supports both.

Now, the clip confuses things, because Guy jokingly emphasized the “velvet hammer,” the “you owe me” aspect of the comment. But here’s what’s really at play.

So many of us are great at being generous to others, but think that receiving (or god forbid asking for) a hand is a state of selfishness. Or that to have a motive in building a relationship makes it necessarily “transactional.”

In fact, true generosity, the generosity that makes us human, that makes business tick and markets climb, is reciprocal. It recognizes that we all have agendas and that we’re all both looking to support and looking to be supported. Create the right network and your system of relationships falls into balanced exchange – you give and you get and you give and you get and everyone’s happy, healthy and wealthy.

Reciprocity matters. It matters to you, and there’s never a moment that you’re not aware of that. If you pretend that that’s not the case – that you’re wandering the earth looking for endless opportunities to do a good turn – then you’re not being candid. You’re being disingenuous. And people sense that.

That’s the second reason I value Cialdini’s quote. It’s honest. Avoiding this admission that you have self-interest is why so many people have to ask me, “Now that I’ve made a friend, how do I turn the conversation to business?” Stop hiding your agendas! They are implicit in everything we do and there’s nothing wrong with that. It doesn't mean you don’t care about the people you meet, it doesn't mean your generosity is false, and it doesn’t mean you’re keeping score.

To paraphrase the two sides, on the one hand there is, "Just love everybody and give generously without ever keeping score!" and on the other hand there is, "Love and give generously to ensure you score well."

If I had to choose between the former (the overwhelming response in the comments) and the latter (the essence of Guy's story), I'd choose the latter. It's at least more authentic. Pretending to be Mother Theresa isn’t real.

The best path lies somewhere in between. But again, I’d argue that the rush to slam Guy’s quote suggests not just a desire to be selfless, but even more so a culturally-inscribed fear and disavowal of openly admitting that YES, you require the generosity of others to survive and thrive. The more often we’re willing to admit we need others, to wear that on our sleeves, the more free we’ll be to be truly generous.

Send a trackback!
16 comments // In Relationship Development Skills
Bookmark and Share
« Previous Post Next Post »

16 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

  1. Why are people afraid of saying that their relationship has a purpose? I would much rather have a conversation with a purpose. Lack of purpose = meaningless = wasting someone's time = no business.

    Don't think that by building a relationship and then springing 'surprise I work for a business which would like to deal with you' is going to be a winning strategy.

    Being up-front and honest IS being a professional salesperson. Being nice/interesting/knowledgeable/etc is optional and is your differentiator.

    Not being clear about the real purpose of a relationship just screams of being afraid to ever close. A fear of rejection. That fear doesn't get better or worse by delaying the truth, it just delays the objection, and your opportunity to handle it.

    PS: I thought Tuesday's post was right. I told my wife and she thought it was rude and offensive... I suspect it's in the intonation and your knowledge of the person you are saying it to.

  2. "I know you would do the same for me." reinforces that there are two sides to the relationship - that there is an equal amount of give and take AND that you appreciate the help that they have and will continue to offer you.

    To deny the other person's involvement in the relationship and your appreciation for their past and future involvement suggests that it is (and apparently in some people's minds, should be) one sided: I give willingly and freely and the other only takes.

    Interestingly, when I say, "I know you would do the same for me" it makes it about the other person. When I say, "Of course I'd help you - that's what I like to do" (or some variation of that) I am making it all about me.

    It also seems that some of the uproar was that "I know you would do the same for me" doesn't fit all relationships and situations. Nothing does. Most important is the authenticity and depth of the relationship. If I barely know someone then, yes, it will be disingenuous. Yet, if I know them well enough to know that they actually would help me, then this is a comment that bonds and builds the relationship by letting the other person know that you value them.

  3. Thanks for resetting the context Keith. This makes much more sense - and you've done a fabulous job of listening, and following up with those of us that were confused by the comment. After rethinking the original post, and my initial reaction to it, I now have thought of several places and relationships the "I know you'd do the same for me" reply would be completely appropriate, and mutually beneficial.

  4. Thank you for the original post as well as revisiting it with this post. I was caught off guard when I first read the suggestion of saying "I know you'd do the same for me," particularly because of the "you owe me" implication but I appreciated the different perspective. Regardless of the closeness within my relationships, I would not have considered this response as an option until now. It is definitely acknowledging an exchange between people, which is the main purpose of a relationship and that is freeing...providing some relief in knowing that it's out in the open.

  5. Keith.

    Been a follower for a long time, and liek you, I have amassed a netowork of people that I look to constantly catalyze (for myself and others).

    A few thoughts.

    1) Wouldn't "I hope you'd do the same" actualy be a little more edgy.. and perhaps on the mark?

    2) While reading your comments above, I couldn't help but think about the fact that over the last 8-10 years I have noticed a few patterns about those I help.. and how I naturally react to the variance (i.e. do they reciprocate, say thanks, etc). It is not that I keep count, nor do I try to keep track, but what I find is that I can spot people who are only driving down one way streets and I place limits on my efforts to help them. It's not that I do or do not want to help them, but I naturally lean towards helping those who I know invest in a wider community somehow/ somewhere..

    R

  6. Reciprocity is the point. In some cases acknowledging it is comfortable, and "I know you'd do he same for me" is nice. In some it's unspoken and even more powerful.

    In 2009 when you published "Who's Got Your Back," you were on a book tour and seeking groups to speak to. A business friend of mine, Fred Silverman, introduced you to our firm and brought you to our office to present. We all enjoyed the content and appreciated meeting you. And we bought books for all attendees.

    This worked out well for our firm, for the guests we invited, and for you and your publisher. But what was in it for Fred? He knew (even without me saying so) that I would do the same for him. And some months later, I did. I assisted him with a project where his only gap was self-confidence in a particular skill. Rather than doing all the work I bid on, I offered to coach him and support him in doing it himself, at no charge.

    That kind of reciprocity is what I've learned from your writing, and it serves me well every day. I suspect that mutual generosity, spoken or unspoken, is working nicely now between you and Guy - I just took his online test, and downloaded his book to my Kindle.

  7. Very thought-provoking, and I agree - it's a fine line, a balance, and you're right - a lot of us are afraid to own our agendas.

    Thanks for keeping it real -

  8. Three points:

    1) "I know you'd do the same for me" is manipulative and dishonest unless it is already true.

    2) If you really trust in the power of love and generosity as a principle, you don't have to worry about getting back from everyone you give to. Even the limited concept of "karma" gets past relationship reciprocity - "If I give to you, you may not give back to me, but someone else will."

    Even better, though, is to have a commitment to complete generosity. I do business so I can make money so I can spend it on / give it to other people - my family, my employees, my friends, my church, the world. I invest some in myself so I can give more later. If this is your real commitment, you don't have to balance between selfless and selfish. If I give to someone and they give nothing back, I've already succeeded. If they do give something back, I have more to give somewhere else. Here the principle is not that giving is the best way to get, but rather that giving is the best way to live.

    3) A commitment to selflessness doesn't leave one powerless to ask. To the contrary, it empowers one to ask more boldly. Mother Theresa could really shake someone down! I heard a story of when she and another nun visited a businessman who she had asked to donate a large sum. He politely told her that he wanted to help but could not donate that sum. Mother Theresa said, "Let us pray." She knelt and prayed for the man to soften his heart and for the people his donation would serve. After they all stood again he repeated that he would like to help but couldn't donate the sum. "Let us pray." The process was repeated several times until he relented.

    When one is serving something greater than themselves, they can ask of others with more persuasive power than when they are asking only for themselves.

  9. Christopher Frawley says:
    March 14, 2011 at 5:03 pm
    Reply

    "You're welcome. We're here to help each other."

    Now you've stated a personal value (if you believe it). You've put out the reciprocity message (and karma), but you haven't implied the expectation of "payback."

    Wanting something in return (directly or indirectly) is different from expecting it. Sure I can admit that I want to be supported, but not at the same moment I'm being thanked (please, if that's the case, say it with cash!)

    "Love and give generously to ensure you score well" - if our capacity to love is in unlimited supply, why would I ration it?

    Let the genuine flow of appreciation be untainted.

    Thanks for the conversation.

  10. I'm going to agree with much of what Paul Taylor says in his comment. I'll leave out whether one is "serving something greater than themselves" or not because I think it muddies the waters a bit.

    "I know you'd do the same for me" is manipulative. It is obligating someone, at the moment it is spoken, to deliver a quid pro quo. If you are honest about your intent, it doesn't make this response less manipulative, just easier to say.

    If you have a problem asking a friend to do business with you, then there is already dishonesty in your relationship. If we agree that organic and transparent business/social relationships are the kind of relationships to be developing, then your friends already know that discussing business comes along with the rest of the package known as "you." Again, no reminders (You'd do the same for me...") necessary.

    You don't have to be Mother Teresa to selflessly help people. You just have to know that all that you do is likely to come back to you...somehow. It may NOT be quid pro quo...it may even be far greater value returned your way...as long as you are open and honest in your relationships.

    And people don't usually experience a fear of realizing that they will need help some day. As you point out in your first book, nobody makes it alone. Smart people know that, in part thanks to you. What people experience is a fear of rejection when they ask for help. Having them pave the way for that moment by sounding like Don Corleone (Someday, I will ask you for a favor...") won't change that fear. Knowing that the quality of their relationships will often guarantee that their plea for help won't be rejected is what will relieve that fear.

    Wake up each day asking yourself how you can best be of service to those around you. The rest is all details.

  11. Keith, thank you so much for this response to your readers' responses! I completely agree with you on all counts. You are spot on- life is about generosity and reciprocity, the two aren't mutually exclusive. It's okay to have an agenda with a relationship as long as that's not the ONLY driving force in your relationship. We should be building our networks and our communities to do good for others and to allow good things to come our way. When I read the initial post about saying "you would do the same for me" instead of "thank you" I thought it was sheer brilliance (and I still do). Life is not simply black or white and neither are relationships.

  12. Thanks for another round of thoughtful comments folks. I love Christopher's version: "You're welcome. We're here to help each other." That gets right at it, doesn't it?

    • Martin Fleischmann says:
      March 20, 2011 at 8:24 pm
      Reply

      Sorry for checking back late on this debate but I wanted to see how it went. I'm glad others believed as I did that Guy's/Cialdini's response just doesn't sit right in most circumstances -- though Owen's further elaboration on Cialdini's intent makes sense in that one shouldn't downplay or cheapen a special effort. But on balance, on this round Keith I have to say I totally agree with Jon Strum's assessment over your March 10th post.

      While it was good you gave some additional background to explain their original points, I think you sidestepped the correctness of the majority opinion by putting it back on us. You implicitly (actually explicitly) linked it to responders (or all readers?) either not being honest/candid about our needs or being assertive enough to ask for help or favors ourselves. So I'll be assertive enough to tell you I think you're just not correct on this, I'd say the vast majority of the people who read and react here are plenty aware and self-actualized. Yes there's reciprocity in life and business, but how one is gracious in accepting genuine thanks matters in a different way.

      And while I like the "we're here to help each other" line also, I like the Mother Theresa "let us pray" story more. A parallel thought in Judaism is the translation of the word Tsedakah, often thought to mean charity, but its root is the word justice and it's considered an obligation, not a nice choice that makes you feel good. Mother Theresa had the guts to fully live that obligation and call others out to it when needed. Likewise I've always believed, as Paul Taylor put well, that one can feel good about doing well in business when success means good things for the community you can help outside of yourself or your own family. So here's to everyone's success!

  13. I love Christopher's suggestion. GREAT! I started saying "It is my pleasure" around the time I noticed so many people saying "No problem." No problem? What does that mean anyway?

    When someone says thank you, they are thanking someone for showing generosity. I want that person to know that it was certainly my pleasure.

  14. About 3 maybe 4 years ago I listened to an hour long interview with Dr. Cialdini on this very subject. I knew I had it on a CD somewhere. I found it and listened to it again. There's something that's being missed in this debate which was made clear in the interview. Simply, Dr. Cialdini is not suggesting that response (I know you'd do the same for me) be used casually. As he explained, when you do something for someone where you have gone "above & beyond" (particularly in a business transaction), to simply say "you're welcome" or "no problem. I do this for all my clients/friends", you have in effect devalued the very thing you did and the relationship. That person no longer feels special, because you do that for "all your clients". In this he's suggesting that there's a missed opportunity of power and influence. If we're honest with ourselves, this is something that we all want to have in many of our relationships, either consciously or subconsciously - overtly or covertly. "I know you would do the same for me" is saying to that person I know you are honorable and that if the situation ever arose where you could go above and beyond, I know you would. So, it's not you owe me, it's more "I believe in you".

Leave a Reply