In his book Intent, Etsko Schuitema explains that we are transacting all the time with everything about us and that we do it with our intent rooted in one of the three attentions; “We are here to get”, “We give to get” or “We are here to give”.

Our intent and attention configures the response of the other (who we are transacting with) . In this article, I will give examples through different scenarios, of how our concern elicits a certain response from the other.

First Attention: I am Here to Get

This is the crudest and most self centred approach to interacting with others about you. This stance is demanding and domineering. Etsko, in his book gives the analogy of an infant in describing this attention. An infant demands an immediate solution to its problem. There is no bargaining or patience in waiting for a hungry little tummy to be filled or a soiled diaper to be changed. Unfortunately some people retain this stance even as they grow old. The immediate response to this concern is fear or an implicit resistance. Consider the following scenarios:

Scenario 1:  A parent who keeps a slipper wrapped in a plastic bag by the table when serving milk to an adolescent who habitually refuses to have it. The parent threatens to beat the kid with the slipper if the milk is not finished.

The parent might argue, “But my intent was for the kid’s benefit!” The truth is that even though the parent’s intent to put good nutrition into the kid’s system was well meaning, it becomes a self centred approach of getting since the parent is insistent on achieving the end (finished milk) rather than working on the means (the kid). The kid will either drink in a state of abject fear and develop a lifelong distaste towards milk or the kid might think of sophisticated ways of resisting the drink.

Scenario 2: The ‘Do As I Say’ boss who demands unquestioning submission from employees and roughs up anyone who ‘flouts’ the code of conduct. If employees do not comply, a termination letter is handed over at the spot.

Obviously, the stance elicits terrible work morale, low productivity, high turnover. Interestingly, it will also produce a set of people among the workers who might form a union to win their rights, or another bunch that wishes to gratify the boss’s need for significance and submission by sophisticated acts of appeasement.

Second Attention: I Give to Get

This is a conniving approach to getting. Conniving because it attempts to manipulate the other. It seeks to fool the other into believing that one is interested in their welfare when actually one is only interested in getting what they want at the end. Again, a person with this stance is interested in the end rather than the means of the transaction. For instance,

Scenario 1: The parent who will always reward the child with the favourite chocolate for finishing milk in time.

The kid will expect a reward for finishing milk every time. When there is no chocolate, there will be no finished milk. In fact, the kid will develop of habit of wanting a reward for every ‘good act’ and will pretty soon start manipulating the parent for favours against favourable behavior!

Scenario 2: The incompetent boss who wishes to win over a bunch of subordinates by giving them undeserved perks.

This stance breeds mediocrity and nepotism in a workplace. Merit, competence and excellence goes decadent. There is very little respect for the boss because the employees understand very well, that the boss is not concerned for their welfare and growth but for his own ends. The employees in fact are the means to the end of saving his own position.

Third Attention: I am Here to Give

This is the most mature stance as it seeks to serve the other with what is in the best interest of the other. Giving here could also mean an act of great courage like standing up to tyranny because that is in the best interests of the majority. Consider the scenarios:

Scenario 1: The parent explains the benefits of drinking milk to the kid, sets up an example of drinking milk with the kid and allows the kid to skip drinking now and then if the kid wants to.

This stance is about being appropriate. It seeks to be unconditional about meeting ends and works on the means of a transaction. It elicits willingness in the kid to drink milk for its benefits or for the simple pleasure of having milk rather than out of fear or for rewards.

Scenario 2: The boss who keeps assigning tasks with a view to remediate  the weak areas of an employee. He demands excellence from an employee even if it means late sittings, redoing drafts and complicated assignments.

Clearly such a boss considers the employee as his end and wishes to enable the best in him. He might seem exacting and fussy but the intention is to grow the employee to his best potential. The employee realizes over time that the boss does not have a stake of his own in growing him (meaning he is unconditional in his stance towards the employee) and responds by willingness to go the extra mile, motivation, and excellence.