steve blank is comparing relationships with institutions to relationships with people and he is suggesting that this also applies to romantic relationships.
i'd like to argue that this is not so. especially not for romantic relationships. yes, people change, and goals change. but in a romantic relationship, the relationship IS the goal. if you grow apart in a romantic relationship, then you have failed the goal itself.
of course this can happen when you discover something about your partner that you just can't bear. but most likely what you discover has always been there and is not a new development.
and that institutional relationship. it ended because it was never a strong relationship to begin with. was it maybe more a relationship with the individuals involved? is there still a personal relationship with that first director?
had they had a stronger relationship with the institution, they would have noticed the change of goals earlier.
to be honest, to me it feels very strange that i would even call on an institution without being aware of what relationship i have with them. when i talk to a company that i have worked with before about a new project, a change in personnel, specifically, a change in my contact person, would be the first thing that tips me off to reevaluate the relationship before talking to them.
because generally relationships are with people. relationships with institutions are defined by a contract. no contract, no relationship.
when a sales or support person moves from one company to another, it is possible that some customers follow, because they felt that they had a relationship with that person, not with the company.
Couldn't agree more with the personal relationship point you made.
The relationship IS the goal 100%. It takes a lot of effort and sacrifice. It doesn't come easy.
Also in my experience, passion is there to make going through the difficulties a bit easier. Love isn't found but built over time.
Not sure if this is completely different from relationship with institutions. Both sides have to be aware that a good relationship will not just "happen". Have to deliberately work for it.
I experienced this kind of thing in some places I work. Management is wondering why the employee isn't "committed"/working-hard so they feel on the edge. And the employee feels the same way but the other way around.
IMO 80% of the responsibility falls on the company in this case. But the dynamic is very similar.
sure, with institutions you want a good relationship, especially between employees and employers or clients and providers. but the relationship itself is not the primary goal. i had very good relationships with almost all my employers and clients. but we separated when our interests were no longer aligned.
Early in life it makes sense to move on more easily, not because we value people or partners less, but because we’re still figuring out ourselves and how the world works. There’s just more uncertainty.
Later, when we know more about who we are and what fits, it’s natural to switch less.
Good article. What I've found disappointing as I age is the extent that people I know treat friendship as a zero sum game. I feel like I'm always being looked at in the context of the value I provide, rather than basic camaraderie between two people. This is basically the norm.
I read a book on the Anthropology of friendship in the past year, and it said that some people have the ability to be 'true' friends. That is they extend goodwill regardless of circumstances or who you are. Most people don't have the ability to do this, which is why I think everyone always feels disappointed by their relationships.
i'd like to argue that this is not so. especially not for romantic relationships. yes, people change, and goals change. but in a romantic relationship, the relationship IS the goal. if you grow apart in a romantic relationship, then you have failed the goal itself.
of course this can happen when you discover something about your partner that you just can't bear. but most likely what you discover has always been there and is not a new development.
and that institutional relationship. it ended because it was never a strong relationship to begin with. was it maybe more a relationship with the individuals involved? is there still a personal relationship with that first director?
had they had a stronger relationship with the institution, they would have noticed the change of goals earlier.
to be honest, to me it feels very strange that i would even call on an institution without being aware of what relationship i have with them. when i talk to a company that i have worked with before about a new project, a change in personnel, specifically, a change in my contact person, would be the first thing that tips me off to reevaluate the relationship before talking to them.
because generally relationships are with people. relationships with institutions are defined by a contract. no contract, no relationship.
when a sales or support person moves from one company to another, it is possible that some customers follow, because they felt that they had a relationship with that person, not with the company.
reply