One of our readers recently brought up an issue that I think deserves its own post. It’s the cause of much misunderstanding regarding the development of Social Capital and why many people have shied away from actively working to increase their portion of it. It’s not an easy issue to talk about so I ask that you please bear with me as we discuss it.
This is not one of our “action” posts. It’s academic and while I’m generally not a fan of this type of discourse, I still think it’s an important thing to be able to do so here we go.
Does the storekeeper really care about you?
Kant has an interesting and illustrative story regarding a storekeeper. This storekeeper is a gregarious fellow and never fails to engage his customers. He remembers their names as well as those of their loves ones. He recalls all their conversations and actively works to create relationships with his customers. In one scenario, he does this because he is a genuinely friendly person who is interested in the lives of his customers. In the other case, he does it because it is good for business.
The fact of the matter is that the customer will never really know the storekeeper’s true motivations. True - all of us have some ability to discern inauthenticity but the fact remains that the storekeeper could be a better actor than you are a judge of character. No one but God really knows what goes on in another man’s heart.
The point of this story–in our case–is not that we should shy away from categorical moral judgments but that the storekeeper’s motivations don’t really matter when it comes to servicing our needs.
Think about it when you go to a restaurant. Do you think that because the waiter is polite and attentive that he is your friend? Do you enjoy his professional services less because you have to tip him? If it does than the problem is with you and your expectations. You’re not going to the restaurant to make friends with the staff. And the staff isn’t there because they want to make friends with their customers. Does that mean they shouldn’t be friendly? Is their friendliness inauthentic or just good service?
It’s still a professional relationship - and that’s OK
Or to mention a venue I have absolutely no degree of familiarity with - the strip joint. I’ve heard that the women there can be really nice to you but you have tip them. I wouldn’t know but I imagine that the more you tip them, the nicer they treat you. Now, does anybody but a complete fool believe that any of those women actually care romantically about their customers, even if one of them parted with $500? Does the fact that they’re playing a role diminish the pleasure of the moment? I can’t imagine it would. Or at least it shouldn’t.
That’s easy to say but every one of those strip joints are built on the dollars of men who confuse this important distinction. No one in the world is better at obfuscating the line between professional and personal than exotic dancers. How many men spend their hard earned dollars night after night because they believe that their favorite dancer has romantic feelings for them? We laugh at these misguided lot but how many of us have made a similar miscalculation in our professional lives–confusing a professional relationship for a personal one–and expecting too much. Or perhaps we made an inappropriate comment and crossed a line? I’m definitely guilty of that.
Maybe my strip joint example tweaks your nethers too much. Here’s another. Let’s say you go to a restaurant and your waiter had a really bad morning with his family - he’s in a bad mood. Let me ask you: would you have a better time at the restaurant if your waiter was genuinely inattentive and rude that day? Or would you expect a certain level of professionalism regardless of his situation at home?
Work relationships are not personal relationships
Work relationships are work relationships. We should not confuse them with personal relationships. Sometimes the definitions overlap but we should be conscious of when they do and not allow it to happen mindlessly.
“Friend” versus “Friendly Relationship”
Much of the problem lies in the English language. We do not have a word for friend that suits our purpose. “Friend” connotes a personal relationship. But what about a “friendly relationship” that isn’t personal? For example, let’s say I’m “friendly” to someone. Does that automatically make them my friend?
Maybe I want to make it perfectly clear to someone that our relationship is a business relationship, not an intimate friendship. Do I have to be cold and impersonal to that person to ensure that my intentions are clear? Definitely not.
What we’re describing is a category of relationship that is friendly and amiable but not necessarily personal and intimate - unfortunately, we just don’t have a word for it.
There’s a great saying that the military teaches its troops who are serving overseas. Be courteous to everybody but a friend to no one. This is how I try to behave in my professional relationships. I treat everybody well but not so well that they believe they are my personal friends. My courtesy and general “bonhomie” is not inauthentic because I do my best to try to avoid misconceptions. I may give everybody on my staff presents for their birthdays but not one of them would have my home phone number. I will treat them well but they don’t have any illusions about the nature of our relationship.
Social Capital is part of your overall professionalism
Is it inauthentic to try to consciously develop your Social Capital? Is it inauthentic for the waiter to remember your name and your preferred after-dinner beverage? Do you think that because he remembered where you worked and that you like your steaks well-done that you must now take his calls at 2:00 AM and bail him out of jail? It’s not inauthentic if everybody understands what’s going on.
The problem here is that a lot of people aren’t clear about such distinctions or they try to hide their lack of competency with good social skills. They try to develop a “friendship” so that the other party might overlook their deficiencies. Of course, I’m not suggesting that you’re doing that. I’m assuming you’re competent. I’m just saying that competence isn’t enough anymore (besides, that type of ploy never works long-term anyway). No, I’m talking about developing your Social Capital to augment your competency. Social Capital is part of your overall professionalism.
Virtue and self-interest are not mutually exclusive
This all leads to the big question: are virtue and self-interest the same?
Most empiricists and secularly-minded people would say that they are. I don’t want to get too deep into this discussion here because, well, it’s not what we’re here for.
However, I think it’s important to understand where our issues with Social Capital might come from. It’s important to understand that virtue and self-interest are not mutually exclusive. Something is not less virtuous because it is also serves self-interest. Nor is something less self-interested because it also happens to be virtuous.
Behaving in a manner that makes others think positively of you and makes you easy to work with is a sort of virtue. A professional one, anyway. Creating an environment where people enjoy their time around you and feel cared for is also a good thing. Does it make it less so because you happen to gain a measure of advantage?
In the end, it’s good for both of you
We’re saying that you should work on developing your Social Capital because it will help you achieve your professional goals. And, just like the shopkeeper example, when you develop your Social Capital, the people around you are going to feel cared for. This is just one of those happy cases when doing good–making people feel cared for–is also good for you. If you’re serious about your career, there aren’t any good reason why you shouldn’t do it.
12. March 2009 by Richard Chen
Featured, Uncategorized