Whose approach should shape the work?
A colleague likes to discuss an idea as soon as it occurs. You would rather consider it before talking. If every conversation follows their rhythm, you may feel hurried. If every conversation waits for your preparation, they may feel they cannot get started.
This is a recognisable question in working relationships: how do we make room for each other while still doing what the work requires? It is worth discussing before either person interprets a difference as a lack of interest or commitment.
What does adaptation involve?
Adapting might mean sending a short note ahead of a conversation, giving the headline before the supporting detail, or leaving space for a written contribution afterwards. These are small practical arrangements that colleagues can agree together.
They work best when both people can explain what helps them and hear what helps the other. Understanding a preference does not create an obligation to meet every request. Deadlines, customer requirements and the needs of other colleagues still count.
What can reciprocity research tell us?
Regan’s 1971 experiment explored how receiving a favour affected compliance with a later request. Clark and Mills later distinguished exchange relationships from communal relationships, where responding to another person’s needs is not simply an immediate exchange of equivalent favours.
These studies invite reflection on how people respond to one another. A working relationship is more complex than an experiment, so I would not turn the findings into a promise that adapting first will make someone adapt in return. It is a conversation to have openly, rather than a technique for securing compliance.
How could two colleagues begin?
Use a task both people recognise. Each person describes what they need to contribute, where they can be flexible and what the task requires. Check your interpretation with the other person: a delayed answer might reflect workload, uncertainty or preparation, rather than a particular preference.
Then agree an arrangement. For example: send the question in advance, discuss the options together and confirm the decision in writing. Decide when to review it, and make it easy for either person to say that something needs adjusting.
What would make the conversation useful?
A useful outcome is an agreement both people understand and can sustain. It might be a different meeting format or a clearer handover. It might also reveal that the issue concerns authority, capacity or missing information rather than preferences.
A shared map can support the discussion when the people involved choose to use it. The value lies in what they learn about the work and what they decide to do with that understanding.
Sources and further reading
What would you like to explore?
If this relates to work in your organisation, we can begin with a conversation about your situation and what you want to achieve.
Talk with David ↗