Alliances at work

Benoît Pointet
2 min readJul 11, 2021

--

Two types of alliance at work

Throughout my work life, I’ve come to realize people come to build different relationships at work, they happen to ally on different grounds.

A first type of alliance is an alliance on mutual benefits, where you and I team up to serve our respective interests. It’s a “you do this for me, and I do that for you” agreement.

A second type is an alliance on purpose, where you and I team up for a third interest, the purpose of the work. This type of alliance doesn’t base on our respective interests, but on the purpose of the work we agreed to take, a purpose external to both of us, a “let’s work together towards that goal” agreement.

In real work life, things are however not so clear. Often, the three interests are present: yours, mine, and the work purpose. Yet, the distinction is still pertinent: in each situation, the “mutual interest” or the “third interest” tonality of alliance will prevail.

A personal preference

I have a personal preference for basing my alliances on purpose. To me, they cater for healthy work relationships. And this does not mean I am against friendship, kindness, or empathy at work. I simply do favour teaming up on purpose. I don’t believe I am at work to make deals between friends, but rather to serve a higher purpose, to contribute to something.

And this got me in trouble.

I have angered people because I have given priority to the third interest and poorly served theirs. And I’ve come to realize that some of these people probably thought that, because of a friendly relationship, we were in a “mutual benefit” type of alliance.

I’ve also seen people actively trying to ally with me on mutual interest ground and felt uncomfortable with that. I want to avoid committing to someone’s personal interest or to have them commit to mine, at the cost of purpose.

Open questions

Alliance is a strategy, a mean to an end. It’s about finding strategies that match our needs and our vision of the world. Yet, I wonder: where does that difference of alliance preference come from?

And is a third type of alliance possible, one where the three interests (and others)are met? Would it then be a matter of balance?

--

--