He Acts. She Monitors.

Relationships require coordination.

Two adults sharing a life cannot operate as completely independent countries with occasionally open borders. There are schedules, children, money, appointments, meals, transportation, responsibilities and all the ordinary logistics involved in combining lives.

Someone has to tell someone something.

The problem begins when coordination quietly becomes management.

The distinction can be difficult to recognize because management does not always arrive announcing itself as control.

Sometimes it sounds perfectly ordinary.

We're leaving.

I need you to come with me.

Why aren't you ready?

I told you what I was doing.

You should have known.

Watch what I'm doing and follow me.

Eventually an operating structure can develop in which one person's plans become the plans, while the other person's responsibility is to remain sufficiently attentive to adjust.

He acts.

She monitors.

He changes direction.

She recalculates.

He becomes impatient.

She moves faster.

And after enough repetition, he may not have to say very much at all.

The System Teaches Before We Notice It

Most people are trained by systems long before they are old enough to question them.

School teaches timing, permission, measurement, and compliance. A child learns when to speak, where to stand, how to move, what counts, who evaluates, and how much of herself is acceptable in the room.

Work teaches hierarchy, access, performance, and approval. A person learns how to read power, how to manage tone, how to appear useful, and how to keep pieces of herself outside the door.

Family teaches role, loyalty, silence, expectation, and emotional assignment. A woman may learn who she is supposed to be before she ever asks who she is.

Money systems teach safety, delay, shame, access, and desire. They teach whether a woman feels allowed to want more, charge more, receive more, rest more, own more, and expect more.

Business systems teach whether a founder leads from command or spends her energy recovering the operation all day.

The lesson may look personal by the time it reaches the body, but it often began as structure.

That is the part many people miss.

A woman may think she is overwhelmed when she is really overexposed to systems with no containment. She may think she is inconsistent when she has been living inside environments that require constant recovery. She may think she lacks confidence when she has been trained to wait for permission before trusting what she knows.

Recognition changes the question.

Instead of asking, “What is wrong with me?” she begins asking, “What has this system been training in me?”

That question restores power.

There is a quiet form of power in becoming the person everyone else must keep watching.

Because attention is not an unlimited resource.

The person being watched gets to proceed with what he is doing. The person watching must divide her attention between her own life and the movements, moods, timing and expectations of someone else.

One person moves.

The other person moves while monitoring.

Those are not identical operating conditions.

When Management No Longer Requires a Manager

This may be the part I find most interesting.

Systems become extraordinarily efficient once people internalize them.

A workplace does not need a supervisor standing behind every employee every minute if everyone already knows what will be rewarded, questioned or penalized.

Families develop systems too.

So do marriages.

So do friendships.

So do entire cultures.

When we live inside an operating environment long enough, we learn what it requires.

That can be useful. Human beings could hardly function together without learning one another's rhythms.

But something changes when anticipation is driven primarily by the desire to avoid another person's reaction.

You begin checking yourself.

Am I taking too long?

Should I stop what I'm doing?

Did I misunderstand?

Is this going to become an argument?

What does he expect me to do next?

Eventually something remarkable happens.

The system no longer needs to manage you as aggressively because you have begun managing yourself on its behalf.

You hurry before being told to hurry.

You adjust before being asked to adjust.

You abandon your own timing because you anticipate someone else's dissatisfaction with it.

You are no longer simply responding to another person's behavior.

You have installed that person's expectations inside your own decision-making process.

And that is an extraordinary thing to catch yourself doing.

What If the Outcome Wasn't the Only Outcome?

I am a systems person, which probably makes this particularly irritating to me.

If the objective is accomplished, I naturally want to know whether the process worked.

Did we get there?

Was the problem solved?

Did the thing that needed to happen actually happen?

Good.

But there are interpersonal dynamics in which the correct outcome is not enough.

You completed the task, but not the way you were told.

You arrived, but not according to the preferred sequence.

You solved the problem, but you didn't follow the prescribed method.

And suddenly the disagreement becomes much more interesting.

Because perhaps the desired outcome was never the only outcome being measured.

Compliance with the process was being measured too.

If two competent adults agree that something needs to be accomplished and one of them successfully accomplishes it, why should the other person's preferred method remain authoritative?

That is no longer merely a question about efficiency.

It is a question about authority.

Coordination says:

Here is what we need to accomplish. How are we going to make this work?

Management says:

Here is what needs to happen, and here is how you should move while making it happen.

One allows another competent adult to participate in designing the shared system.

The other can slowly reduce that adult to an implement inside somebody else's operating system.

The argument may appear to be about how something was done.

Underneath it may be a much more revealing question:

Who gets to establish the operating conditions?

The Woman Who Notices Everything

Women have historically been praised for anticipation.

Knowing what everybody needs.

Remembering the appointment.

Packing what the child will require.

Making sure there is water.

Knowing when someone is hungry.

Keeping the household moving.

Reading the room.

Recognizing that something is wrong before anyone says it.

Remembering birthdays, preferences, medications, schedules, groceries, clothing sizes and the location of the thing everyone else insists they already looked for.

Some of this is simply competence.

Some of it is care.

Some of it can absolutely be love.

I don't want to flatten all attentiveness into oppression. There is something beautiful about knowing the people you love well.

But I think we should remain curious about the point at which attentiveness becomes an obligation to monitor.

Because there is a difference between:

I know you.

and

I must watch you.

A woman can become so accomplished at anticipating the people around her that nobody notices how much attention the anticipation requires.

Including her.

And perhaps that is why some forms of invisible labor are difficult to explain.

The labor is not merely the thing she eventually does.

It is the attention she had to keep allocated in order to know the thing needed doing.

That is a different cost.

Attention Is Part of the Labor

We talk frequently about who did what.

Who cooked?

Who cleaned?

Who made the appointment?

Who packed the bag?

Who picked up the prescription?

Those things can be counted.

Attention is harder to count.

Who remembered that the appointment needed to be made?

Who noticed the prescription was running low?

Who realized what needed to be packed?

Who was keeping enough awareness of everybody else's movements to recognize what would be required next?

There is labor in doing.

There is also labor in remaining available to notice.

And if one person's role in a relationship increasingly requires monitoring another person's timing, moods and expectations, then attention itself has become asymmetrically allocated.

One person gets more uninterrupted possession of his attention.

The other spends part of hers watching him.

Hmm.

That seems worth noticing.

Coordination Requires Information

There is another remarkably simple thing that becomes obscured in these dynamics:

Adults cannot reasonably be expected to execute plans they have not been given.

Watching another person is not communication.

Guessing correctly is not communication.

Learning to recognize someone's irritation quickly enough to prevent it is definitely not communication.

Coordination requires information.

Where are we going?

When?

What needs to happen first?

What are you asking me to do?

Has the plan changed?

Those are not unreasonable questions. They are the basic information required for two autonomous people to coordinate their behavior.

A relationship becomes unnecessarily exhausting when one person is expected to obtain that information primarily through observation.

It keeps attention pointed in one direction.

Toward the person whose behavior determines what happens next.

And perhaps that is another indication that the shared system is no longer entirely shared.

The Moment You Catch Yourself

The most useful part of noticing a system is not immediately deciding what to call it.

I have become increasingly cautious about our cultural appetite for instant diagnosis.

Everybody is a narcissist.

Everything is trauma.

Every difficult relationship is toxic.

Every unpleasant interaction receives a clinical vocabulary before we've even finished describing what happened.

Sometimes a pattern needs to be observed before it needs to be named.

What happened?

What did I do?

Why did I do it?

What was I expecting would happen if I didn't?

Those questions can reveal an astonishing amount.

For me, one of those moments was realizing:

I am rushing because I expect a reaction.

That is different from:

I need to rush.

The first describes an adaptation.

The second describes a fact.

And once I could separate the two, I could see something I hadn't seen before.

The rushing wasn't really the interesting part.

The interesting part was that nobody needed to tell me to rush anymore.

I already knew the operating conditions.

Personal Sovereignty Can Be Very Ordinary

We tend to make sovereignty sound grand.

Declarations.

Boundaries.

Walking away.

Dramatic acts of reclamation.

Sometimes sovereignty is much quieter than that.

Sometimes it is continuing to put on your clothes at a reasonable pace.

Finishing the sentence you were writing.

Asking, “What time are we actually leaving?”

Expecting another adult to communicate a plan rather than requiring you to study him.

Doing something effectively in your own way.

Allowing another person's irritation to remain another person's irritation long enough to determine whether you actually did something wrong.

These are small acts.

But systems are often maintained through small acts too.

Perhaps personal sovereignty begins there—not with refusing every accommodation or becoming unwilling to coordinate with anyone, but with recognizing the difference between cooperation and submission, consideration and monitoring, communication and anticipation.

The people we love should matter to us.

Their needs should matter.

Their time should matter.

Their preferences should matter.

But mattering is different from governing.

A healthy partnership requires two people capable of influencing the shared system.

Management requires only one person establishing the operating conditions and another learning how to function inside them.

And perhaps that is why something as ordinary as rushing can become so revealing.

You catch yourself doing it.

You stop.

And instead of immediately asking how you can move faster, you ask a different question:

Who told me I needed to?

Hmm.

Continue Reading & Shop