How to Grow Professional Relationships

Over my career, I’ve had the opportunity to get to know some of the world’s most incredible builders. This same career has also seen quite a significant amount of gatekeeping: various (m|b)illionaire boys clubs and cliques have made it quite clear that they’d prefer to keep their world small and exclusive, and that there’s no room at their table. To each their own, but this dynamic has led to some thinking and reflection around the nature of professional relationships, friendships, and identity—ultimately resulting in what I’m calling TJS (The Journey to Synergy) Collaboration Model.

This spectrum is how I measure professional relationships and where I stand in those relationships. It outlines seven states moving from a competitive, zero-sum mindset to one of shared identity (which is equally problematic).

Let’s briefly understand each state. One way we can make this information really practical is to understand it in context. A great illustrative context for this is my podcast, because it requires regularly interacting with people that inevitably reveals where we land on this spectrum.

States of the TJS Collaboration Model

The TJS collaboration model is made up of the following seven distinct states.

1. Everything is a competition: in this initial state, interactions are characterized by gatekeeping and a zero-sum mentality: the idea that for one party to eat, the other must starve. People are not willing to share information, resources, or opportunities. There’s usually discrimination and exclusionary behavior here, either from racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc. I tend to not spend too much time with parties that hold this perspective.

   In the context of the podcast, this is usually characterized not by rejection but instead by outright refusal to participate in any interaction whatsoever: what some call “ghosting”. I’m not entirely sure if they leave read receipts on to make their point, but I’ve found this behavior to be a pretty good indicator of where we stand on this spectrum. Of course, there are those that simply don’t receive any notifications and have read receipts turned off: these folks are likely not in this state and are just as busy as the rest of us.

   Also in the context of the podcast, I’ve had guests accept an invitation and then later decline closer to the time of recording because they got invited to go on Lex Fridman and mention “thanks for the invite, but now I don’t need this anymore”. There is no judgment at all here, but such behavior indicates where on this spectrum these relationships stand.

2. Coexist: parties acknowledge each other’s existence but maintain minimal interaction, summarized as “I know of them, but we don’t really talk”. This is usually characterized by mutual respect, but a general distancing for myriad reasons that might include:

   • Personal differences: people might not get along personally, and while they may respect each other, they choose to maintain a distance. Ultimately, human beings are more or less big bundles of chemicals with legs. When chemicals interact, there’s usually a reaction: sometimes positive (2H₂ + O₂ → 2H₂O), sometimes negative (SO₃ + H₂O → H₂SO₄). This is usually natural and nothing personal.

   • Professional differences: people may have different professional goals or values, which can lead to a lack of shared interests or collaboration. Some might want to be influencers, some might want to be builders, some might want to be investors—they pick the right relationships to be in for them at the time.

   • Values differences: people may have different values that lead them to invest in different relationships. Some might value emotionality highly, leading them to be friends with other emotional people; others might value logic and reason, leading them to be friends with other logical people. Some might value money, leading them to be friends with other wealthy people, etc.

   In the context of the podcast, I’ve experienced folks who are aware it exists and even talk about it, but have never expressed interest in being a guest on it. I too have not extended invites here because we’re both in the same state of the spectrum. There’s nothing wrong with this: instead it’s kind of beautiful that both parties clearly understand where the other one stands on this spectrum and can move without any drama. It also doesn’t exclude the relationship from ever progressing and is usually just a matter of time before it does.

3. Communicate: basic information exchange occurs, where either party would describe the other as “we spoke about something once” but the relationship doesn’t progress much further for similar reasons as above.

   In the context of the podcast, this is where a conversation eventually leads to “yeah, let’s do it”, and then nothing ever happens, or an event is scheduled but has not yet taken place. Communication has happened, positive communication even, but—specifically in the case of the podcast—we have not yet cooperated on anything.

   This is where the vast majority of western relationships live: a “comfortable distance” of sorts. We see traits of this outside a professional context as well, where shallow friends will talk and say “let’s get coffee some time!”, but then never actually follow up. Perhaps even worse, people in this state often make plans and then cancel at the last minute because it’s simply not convenient.

   It’s pretty remarkable that this state is quite prominent in western culture and less so in other parts of the world as eloquently highlighted by my former Spotify colleague Himanshu in his blog post about moving back to India.

4. Cooperate: parties participate in a neutral task together, where they’re both contributing to the same goal. The stakes are usually low, and the relationship is still mostly transactional.

   A great experiential example of this from my career is when I’ve spoken at conferences with some folks who I’ve heard of but haven’t really developed much rapport with. The relationship is cordial, but not much else. How this low-stakes cooperation goes strongly influences next states: from here, either party can choose to remain in earlier states, or progress to the next state, Coordinate, based on how well they were able to work together (as popular culture calls it, “the vibezzz”).

   In the context of the podcast, this is where we actually spend time in conversation together on an episode: both parties are contributing to the same goal, cooperating with each other to meet it. It’s slightly less convenient than the previous state, but given the quality of the cooperation, leads to far better outcomes.

5. Coordinate: at this stage, one or both parties take deliberate steps to coordinate their actions toward a goal that belongs to one of the parties. This goal is often “adopted” by the other, looking something like:

   • “we’re both going to be at this conference a day earlier, shall we go explore the city together?” — one person’s goal of exploration is adopted by the other.

   • _“I see you’re working on a new course—shall I do a giveaway on my podcast when you launch?”_ — one person’s goal of promoting their course is adopted by the other.

   Both of these cases are coordinated efforts. Though the latter is a more advanced state of coordination, the main gist here is that one or both parties take deliberate steps to coordinate their actions to achieve a newly shared goal: to support each other.

   Either party can make the first move, and this tends to be a pretty chaotic space because it calls into question a number of topics like motivation, trust, and alignment. The party that makes the first move risks the other one thinking they’re being too aggressive, pushy, or plain weird.

   They also risk the other party questioning their motivations:

   • “Why is this person offering to amplify my course launch?”

   • “Why do they want to explore the city together?”

   • “What’s the catch?”

   • “Will I owe them a favor later?”

   The coordination state is usually perceived as risky—though empirical evidence proves it is not because people are on average more good than evil according to research from the lab of Dr. Jamil Zaki at Stanford University’s Department of Psychology, where they have demonstrated that coordinated efforts can lead to increased trust, motivation, and even happiness.

   Coordination is typically an inflection point in the relationship, as referenced in the diagram. If people have not spent enough time in previous states, this state usually will not work. If there were intense positive vibes in previous states, this will feel natural and seamless. Ultimately, both parties grow synergistically from coordinated efforts while working on entirely separate but complementary topics.

   Folks that I’ve coordinated well with include:

   • Kent C. Dodds on deprecating his library glamorous in favor of emotion: we built separate things that were complementary and coordinated on them together.

   • Aymen Ben Amor, Clark Sell, and Josh Goldberg on supporting their conferences via the podcast: they were building a conference, I was building a podcast, and we coordinated on promoting the conference together (I adopted their goal of promoting the conference).

   • Alex Moldovan who runs JS Heroes and has me as an ambassador: he creates the conference and coordinates with a set of ambassadors. We do not create the conference together. If we did, this would be the next step—Collaboration.

6. Collaborate: something beautiful happens when two or more people repeatedly execute successful coordinated efforts: there is a common recognition of high-quality synergy; that together, they are greater than the sum of their parts and they can continually share joy in their work. Collaboration is not when people coordinate efforts on building separate things that are complementary, but instead when they build the same thing together.

   I’ve had the privilege of collaborating with a number of great folks over my career. If I was to start a company, go to war, or happen to be in a zombie apocalypse, I’d want these folks by my side. At this stage, all parties have established a high level of trust and understanding of each other. They understand boundaries and each other’s value systems extremely well. They are able to push boundaries and challenge ideas respectfully, with grace, without ego, at the right time and in the right circumstance.

   Folks that I’ve had and continue to have excellent collaboration with include:

   • Fabien Bernard and Mikhail Potomin, where we built some software that was cool at the time but is now obsolete. Specifically,

     • Restful React: a RESTful data layer for React applications that had a fully type-safe interface for working with REST APIs predictably.

     • Operational UI: a React component library whose documentation had interactive Monaco Editor playgrounds with IntelliSense for TypeScript autocompletion in the browser. I did a talk about this at React Finland in 2019 where I first met

   • David Khourshid and Jenny Truong, where we built their wedding ceremony together where I was the officiant. This is a collaboration and not a coordination because we built the same thing (a wedding ceremony) together, instead of coordinating on building separate things that are complementary.

   • Daniel Afonso, Sergii Kirianov, Matheus Albuquerque, Mark Erikson, Rick Hanlon II, and more where we built my book Fluent React together. I may have authored the book, but it was a strong collaborative effort where they reviewed it and continued to provide high-quality feedback until it was ready for publication. It was one thing that we all built together: a collaboration.

   I don’t yet build the podcast with anyone, but I’m open to it.

7. We are the same: the final state represents a shared identity and enmeshment, which is not a positive state. Keeping with the old adage of “too much of a good thing is a bad thing”, this is a state where parties are co-dependent and enmeshed, where one or more members unhealthily depend on the other. There is a dissolution of individuality, a loss of identity and boundaries: this is a toxic state. In this state, we find and experience burnout.

   It’s easy to exploit this state and take advantage of one or more members. Ownership over collaborative efforts is also disputed in this state, and it’s not uncommon to see folks take credit for things that they didn’t do, or to see people step down from collaborative efforts because they feel they’re not being valued.

   Attempts to reach ideal and healthy levels of collaboration often go wrong and end up here, usually by employers using toxic positivity and platitudes like “we’re a startup family”. You may recognize you’re in this state by several key warning signs:

   • Loss of Personal Identity: inability to develop or maintain a strong sense of self, only being able to describe yourself in relation to others, being uncomfortable taking credit for your own good work, and difficulty knowing your own wants and needs.

   • Difficulty Making Independent Decisions: struggling to make choices without consulting others, feeling unable to function independently, anxious overthinking, and constantly seeking approval before taking action.

   • Lack of Boundaries: having trouble saying “no,” allowing others to invade your privacy, and being unable to separate your emotions from those of others.

   I’ve fallen into this state a few times for very short periods and what has helped me get out of it is to redevelop my identity alone as a separate and beautiful thing from really any other party. That and separation from the problematic party. The combination of rediscovering self-identity, establishing healthy boundaries, separation, and working with a board-certified therapist is something that can be helpful for folks that find themselves in this state.

   Ideally, we learn to recognize quality collaboration as the peak of synergy and protect against this state. I am thankful to rarely if ever find myself here and take strong measures to avoid it. If you’re in this state, it is my hope that this diagram and post will help you understand where you are and how to move forward. Keep reading for some actionable steps you can take to move your relationships forward.

Making it Practical

Take a moment to think about where your relationships stand on this spectrum. It’s a great exercise to help you understand where you are and where you want to be. I’ve already mentioned a few of my own excellent collaborators and folks with whom I coordinate well—who are yours? Who can you credit? For real, scroll up, copy the image, place it beside you, and ponder it closely.

Who are folks that you coexist with? Why? Who gatekeeps and excludes you? Who would you build a company with? I’d encourage carefully considering the answers to these questions and even copying the graph and placing avatars along its axis to help you visualize the status of your relationships. From there, you can start to take action to move relationships to where you want them to be, ultimately bringing your social setting into alignment with your goals and values.

Should you decide you’d like to move some relationships forward, here are some actionable pathways you can take.

Moving Relationships Forward

There’s plenty of evidence that shows that we’re at our worst when we are exclusionary and zero-sum. The inverse is also true: we are at our best when we are collaborating well with others. For example, this paper has two key ideas that I think are worth repeating here:

Working in isolation creates significant limitations:

1. It creates a false sense of security because ideas are not likely to be challenged.
2. It results in work that will not reach as wide an audience.
3. It wastes limited resources through duplicated efforts.

The paper also states that:

The benefits of collaboration allow participants to achieve together more than they can individually, serve larger groups of people, and grow on individual and organizational levels.

With this, we can see that collaboration is not just a nice-to-have but a necessity. It’s not just about getting along with others, but about building greater things together. Should you decide to move some relationships forward, here’s what has worked well for me:

1. Cultivate an abundance mindset: not virtue signaling, but I often give away money and time to folks. People question this from time to time and ultimately, the answer I end up giving is that there is so much to go around. The world is abundant and not zero-sum. I intentionally let people take advantage of me because I know I’ll recover whatever I need in another way. If you pour your entire bucket into others, it may become empty but it will never stay empty: it has rained on this planet since the beginning of time on rich and poor alike, and it will continue to rain. The rain will fill your bucket again.

   To cultivate this mindset, these practical steps from these scientific papers may help:

   • Start Small: begin with micro-giving. Allocate a small percentage of your resources to deliberately give away. I do 10%, but you can start with 5% and see how it feels. Another useful habit is to practice random acts of kindness daily, whenever convenient.

   • Build Social Connections: join giving circles, participate in community service, and create giving networks. This is a great way to meet like-minded people and cultivate relationships. It’s like “scarcity mindsets anonymous”: a rehab group for those that suffer with scarcity mindset. Cooperate and collaborate with each other to achieve goals that are greater than the sum of your parts.

   • Mindfulness Practice: daily gratitude journaling, abundance visualization, and regular meditation focusing on interconnectedness have all been scientifically proven (papers above) to help shift your mindset towards abundance.

   • Track Impact: keep a “giving diary” to document your positive outcomes and ripple effects. This can help you remember to do it again and track your personal growth.

2. Abandon lost causes: people have literally blocked me on social media, ghosted me, or outright said “there’s no room for you at this table”. Anti-foreigner folks have physically attacked me and mentioned “go home” (to your country) in Germany, where I am a tax-paying permanent resident.

   A lesson I learned from reading Mark Manson’s “Models” as an awkward stupid teenager who wanted to get girls is that the world is an abundant one full of all kinds of people: some who shun us, others who love us. When someone reveals that there’s no room for a relationship, they do us a huge favor and free us up to go pursue others who are open to it. I’ve seen great success in quickly being thankful for the data and moving on.

3. Love your neighbor as yourself: I really love myself well. I feed myself good food, I give myself good exercise, I make money to invest in myself. I’ve seen enormous value and joy in extending the same love to others, beyond just one’s physical neighbor. It would be strange of me to expect something in return from myself as I take care of myself. When I treat people the way I want to be treated—and honor them appropriately, giving expecting nothing in return, there usually ends up being quite a wonderful return that leads to quality collaboration.

   Obviously this isn’t every time, but the few times it works is worth all the times it doesn’t. It does open you up to abuse and being taken advantage of, but the few times it has worked for me heavily outweighs the times it hasn’t. I’d recommend reading Hope for Cynics by the aforementioned Dr. Jamil Zaki for more on this topic.

4. Sweat the details: we live in an age where we’re constantly bombarded by random nonsense vying for our attention. Conforming to the pattern of this world, it’s fairly common to respond to folks with low-effort communication.

   • “sup”
   • “lgtm”
   • “sounds good”

   This is characteristic of the communicate state in our diagram.

   Every single time a relationship has moved forward for me has been when I cared. A lot. It has been when folks have mentioned something that’s stressing them out and I listened. It has been when I followed up with them about it weeks later. It has been when my people and I have shown up and done the work that puts them at ease or actively invests in their goals—when we don’t conform to the pattern of the world, but instead transform our behavior to align closer to our values.

   To circle back, coordination happens when one party adopts the goal of the other and takes initiative to support it. Sweating the details and doing the work, even at a cost to ourselves, is a great way to move from cooperation to coordination. When there are repeatedly successful coordinated efforts, the relationship will naturally progress to collaboration.

Conclusion

If you’ve made it this far, I hope you’ve found this useful. I also hope that you have actually done the exercise (and cooperated with me) to identify the current state of your relationships and feel empowered to move the ones that you’d like to forward.

If you’d like to join a coordinated effort to bring this information to more people, you can do so in the following ways:

• Share this post on social media however/wherever you want.
• Share your version of the graph above with avatars superimposed on it with your collaborators and others.
• Share your thoughts about this text with me on 𝕏 or other platforms.

If you’d like to collaborate on this post or its ideas, some great ways to do so are:

• Translate it into other languages to make it more accessible to more people.
• Suggest typo fixes and studies to include.
• Fact check and suggest removal of any inaccuracies.

Notice how for collaboration, we’re working on the same thing (this post) together, and for coordination you’re creating separate things that are complementary? Okay, I think I’ve made my point.

Goodbye.