Reciprocity is defined in the Britannica dictionary as “a situation or relationship in which two people or groups agree to do something similar for each other, to allow each other to have the same rights”. In the professional world I think this is an invaluable characteristic. I have broadly encountered two types of lawyers (and indeed other professionals) in my working life. The first are prepared to help a colleague and share their time, knowledge and experience without expectation of any reward or recognition, but perhaps on the basis of generally improving the relationship. The second tend to want to keep their knowledge and experience close to their chests, and will only volunteer to help if they can see some form of immediate personal benefit. In the long run I suggest the first approach has more lasting benefits because it encourages a culture of sharing which is reciprocated over time to the overall benefit of the individuals concerned and the organisation they belong to.

See this blog The Principle Of Reciprocity Can Work For You which says “There exists a natural human tendency to repay someone in kind for something received, to return a favor. This is the psychological principle of reciprocity.” It then qualifies this by saying “generating such a reaction will be impossible if there seems to be an expectation of repayment attached to your initial action. Genuinely perform your acts of kindness without expecting anything in return.”It suggests workplace gratitude can be as simple as a thank you, specific [positive] feedback or an offer to help.

I once discussed the challenges of work allocation with a partner in a global law firm. He said that their rewards system had proved a problem because if you introduced one of say your UK clients to a colleague in another country, they had no means of recognising the value of their contribution. All the billable hours recorded were attributed to the UK partner for the purposes of determining success and distributions. This did not mean that the overseas colleagues would not help, just that they were not incentivised to do so. So they changed the reward system to reflect the contributions from the law which in turn encouraged a culture of reciprocity and sharing.

Developing this sort of sharing culture goes further than “I’ll help you if you help me”. See this blog Creating a Culture of Reciprocity which cites the reciprocity ring concept developed by Professor Wayne Baker, a sociologist at the University of Michigan’s Ross School of Business, and his wife Cheryl Baker, CEO of Humax. This works on the basis of generalised reciprocity which “is triggered when a person receives help from someone else, but instead of paying it back to the person who helped them, they help someone else or “pay it forward””. According to this research Paying It Forward vs. Rewarding Reputation: Mechanisms of Generalized Reciprocity “the simple act of helping someone else compels the person receiving help to help others.”

In Adam Grant’s book Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives our Success which I am just reading he divides workers into givers, takers and matchers. Givers proactively help others, matchers have a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" attitude, and takers are more out for what they can get. He suggests that givers can be more successful in the long run as while they may not receive any immediate benefit in return, they will ultimately benefit from the relationships they create and foster.

He cites some interesting quotes on the subject:

• Martin Luther King Jr. “Every man must decide whether he will walk in the light of creative altruism or in the darkness of destructive selfishness.”
• Samuel Johnstone “The true measure of a man is how he treats someone who can do him absolutely no good.”
• and the Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam “I’ll do this for you without expecting anything specific back from you, in the confident expectation that someone else will do something for me down the road.”

And for such a culture to exist then as with many behavioural traits it needs to start at the top. See the Forbes article Leading With Gratitude: The Power Of Reciprocal Appreciation which says “By embracing reciprocity, leaders can foster team cohesion, encourage collaborative efforts, and cultivate a deep sense of trust within their teams and organizations. It’s about nurturing a culture where acts of support, kindness, and assistance are consistently acknowledged, valued, and reciprocated.” It proposes that a hallmark of effective leadership is engendering trust amongst team members. “When leaders give praise, recognition, and support, they aren’t just making a team member feel good in the moment; they’re laying a foundation of trust. The act of giving signals to the recipient that the giver values their relationship. This cultivates a sense of loyalty and commitment, which are essential ingredients for high-performing teams.”

When I was younger I worked for one such leader who created a team spirit through reciprocity which still manifests itself in organising alumni lunches. He was replaced by someone who whilst equally intelligent and good at his job somehow never fostered the same atmosphere and team cohesion or spirit.

This also has to be open and genuine which was definitely the case with my first boss above. He was genuinely interested in the people working for him and their development. This article Unlocking Reciprocity: How Gratitude Transforms Workplace Culture cites Benjamin Laker, a leadership professor at the Henley Business School whose view was “that organizations that lead with gratitude foster a very special brand of thankfulness—reciprocity.” For reciprocity to be effective it has to be “authentic, balanced, and thoughtful”. The key takeaway is that “Nurturing a culture of gratitude in the workplace ultimately creates a powerful ecosystem of mutual appreciation and continuous goodwill. Grounded in our human nature, this approach empowers leaders to cultivate team cohesion, collaboration, and trust.” As such “Reciprocity unlocks a cascade of holistic benefits.”
​
As Confucius said 

• “There is one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one’s life – reciprocity.” and
• “When a man is guided by the principles of reciprocity and consciousness, he is not far from the moral law. Whatever you don't wish for yourself don't do unto others.”

The Cambridge English dictionary defines this term as “to blame or criticize yourself, usually in a way that is unfair or unnecessary:” and adds “If you fail, don't beat yourself up; just try again.” I have had a mixed year in many respects as I look back on it now we are heading into December. One of the lessons I have learned the hard way is how to cope with difficult challenges in my work and personal lives. One of our natural tendencies as professionals is to agonise over something that goes wrong and blame ourselves. This I have realised does not do any good at all and worse does not help to resolve whatever problem we are facing.

It is better by far to accept what has happened and not metaphorically beat yourself up about it. Just recognise the situation for what it is and seek a solution - which I know is easy to say and much harder to do. See this Harvard Business Review article Give Yourself a Break: The Power of Self-Compassion which suggests that we should treat ourselves as a friend might and “be kind, understanding, and encouraging” which directed internally “is known as self-compassion which creates a sense of self-worth because it leads people to genuinely care about their own well-being and recovery after a setback.” It observes “People with high levels of self-compassion demonstrate three behaviors: First, they are kind rather than judgmental about their own failures and mistakes; second, they recognize that failures are a shared human experience; and third, they take a balanced approach to negative emotions when they stumble or fall short—they allow themselves to feel bad, but they don’t let negative emotions take over.” It also proposes that self-compassion supports “what Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, has called a “growth mindset.””

In other words being realistic and whilst acknowledging what has gone wrong not dwelling on the negative and instead turning this into a positive learning experience, seeing the potential for growth and self-improvement. See this blog How to Learn From Your Mistakes which starts with a great quote "A smart man makes a mistake, learns from it, and never makes that mistake again." – Roy H. Williams (1958-), U.S. author and marketing expert. It then proposes techniques to help this learning process including “Stop beating yourself up, pause for a moment to reflect, and start thinking about how you can gain from the situation.” Echoing the Harvard article it proposes “If you have a "growth" mindset, you likely see mistakes as an opportunity to improve, and not as something that you are doomed to repeat because your mindset is "fixed" on the belief that you can't improve.”

See this Forbes article The Power Of Learning From Your Mistakes which suggests “mistakes are inevitable and failing is a universal part of the human experience. The key is to acknowledge when you make a mistake, learn from it and move on — to understand that failure and mistakes are opportunities for learning, feedback and even creativity.” Its advice includes “Take advantage of the tremendous support of mentors and your community.” And concludes “Mistakes don’t need be avoided or feared. They help move you forward, make you interesting and help you learn and grow to become a wiser and more compassionate human — and a better leader.”

I also quite like this practical blog Are you afraid of making mistakes at work? which advises “As long as you acknowledge errors and work to correct them (instead of hiding what happened), mistakes are a learning opportunity.”It suggests some practical steps to manage mistakes including:

• Take a deep breath, step away from work, go for a walk, or talk to a trusted friend. 
• Acknowledge your mistake
• Brainstorm solutions and capture lessons learned

And concludes “Mistakes are a part of life, and it’s not realistic to avoid them altogether. Instead, focus on creating solid team processes that allow for misjudgments and errors to occur.”

In order to truly give effect to learning from mistakes I suggest that any professional organisation also needs to avoid a “Blame Culture”. See this article 15 Proven Ways to Fix A Toxic Blame Culture in 2023 which says “Blame culture is when employees hold others accountable for the mistakes they make. It is reinforced when managers or leaders blame employees for the mistakes of the upper management.” By contrast “In a blame-free and positive culture, employees understand that errors are quite common in the workplace and anyone can make mistakes. They encourage their employees to come forward and admit their mistakes rather than shying away from them.” Features of a no blame culture include:

• A strong belief in transparency and accountability
• A culture of help and support where everyone lends their hand to everyone else.
• A non-competitive environment where company growth takes precedence over individual growth.

Ultimately in any firm or organisation it matters to have a culture which recognises that failure if treated in the appropriate way can be a catalyst for success. See this blog “How to Create a Company Culture that Encourages and Withstands Failure” which proposes “As opposed to quickly implementing a tried and tested solution that you know does the bare minimum needed to solve a problem, a culture that encourages innovation and failure allows for time to find the best way to achieve something, and never assumes that this way will be the best indefinitely. A culture that is open to failure constantly questions “the way that we have always done things around here.””
​
As Winston Churchill said “Success consists of going from failure to failure without loss of enthusiasm.”

I was privileged to participate as a panel member at a LexisNexis webinar this week discussing the advantages and challenges of generative AI in the legal workplace. We reviewed the opportunities and risks that AI represents for the legal profession. One of the topics I was thinking about afterwards is the impact AI will have on our relationships with fellow professionals in terms of knowledge sharing. Currently if we are really stuck with a professional problem, we consult colleagues who hopefully will share their knowledge. Will this eventually be enhanced or even replaced by a conversation with ChatGPT? AI is incredibly powerful – the image above was generated using Bing AI.

Knowledge sharing in the professional world is a challenge in its own right. I have broadly encountered two types of professional in my working life. Firstly, those who tend to hoard knowledge and keep it close to their chest because they think it will give them some advantage. And second those colleagues who will always give you their time and experience on the basis that this may be reciprocated and, in any event, even if it isn’t will benefit the organisation as a whole.

I firmly believe sharing knowledge openly will bring benefits across any professional practice. See this blog 7 Ways to Improve Knowledge Sharing Across Your Organization which starts “Knowledge sharing is the process of transferring tacit (undocumented) and explicit (documented) information from one person to another. In an organization, sharing knowledge not only increases productivity, but it also empowers employees to do their jobs effectively and efficiently”. It then proposes ways to achieve this including:

• Create Spaces for knowledge sharing to happen
• Lead by example
• Have experts share their knowledge.

What is however needed is a knowledge sharing culture in the first place. I saw this defined as:
“a workplace culture that encourages free exchange of knowledge and expertise within the organization. It creates an environment where employees work together and share ideas and feedback to achieve their overall business objective.”

See this Forbes article Why Knowledge-Sharing Must Be At The Center Of Any Professional Partnership which suggests “While a lack of knowledge-sharing can create added barriers for your professional partnerships, successful knowledge-sharing has the opposite impact, creating a true sense of empowerment and engagement among both parties.” It also recognises that knowledge sharing can play “a vital role in establishing a relationship a baseline of trust” which “enables collaborative relationships”.

Creating an environment which encourages sharing knowledge is challenging in its own right without any consideration of AI’s potential contribution. See this Harvard Business Review article Why Employees Don’t Share Knowledge with Each Other which proposes that even though knowledge sharing “leads to greater creativity, more innovation, and better performance, for individuals, teams, and organizations.” Still “many employees withhold what they know — a phenomenon known as knowledge hoarding or knowledge hiding”. It concludes “Effective knowledge sharing is essential for all organizations, yet many struggle to get employees on board. Our results suggest that if managers want to encourage more sharing, they need to design work so that people want to discuss what they know.”

Overlay the impact of generative AI on knowledge sharing and you create a different set of challenges. Will professionals forsake asking their colleagues as a source of potential wisdom and just converse endlessly with ChatGPT or its equivalent?

At present I don’t see this happening as the human touch is still essential. Yes, AI will have an important role to play in knowledge sharing but will not supplant us as individuals with our unique knowledge base and skill set. See for example this blog The Power of AI Knowledge Management which proposes that “Combining AI with knowledge management is changing how businesses grow, use and manage their knowledge bases while improving knowledge management solutions.” It concludes “AI impacts knowledge management, opening up many possibilities for organizations. AI-enabled businesses are more agile and efficient, staying relevant in the marketplace.”

See also this blog The Role of AI in Knowledge Sharing which suggests that AI “is becoming indispensable for businesses that aim to make their knowledge sharing and management processes more efficient and impactful.” It proposes that “In the realm of knowledge management, Generative AI can be a game-changer. Imagine having an AI tool that can not only curate articles but also generate new content based on existing data. Generative AI algorithms can analyze your organization’s existing knowledge base, identify gaps or areas for improvement, and then generate new articles, FAQs, or guidelines that fill those gaps.”

Knowledge sharing is critical to all professional organisations. As the American industrialist and philanthropist Andrew Carnegie observed “The only irreplaceable capital an organization possesses is the knowledge and ability of its people. The productivity of that capital depends on how effectively people share their competence with those who can use it.” 

Artificial intelligence used correctly has immense potential to support and enhance knowledge sharing. I like this quote from Larry Page former CEO of Google:

“Artificial intelligence would be the ultimate version of Google. The ultimate search engine that would understand everything on the web.”

And it may well be that failing to use AI will place a professional practice at a disadvantage.  Paul Daugherty Chief Technology and Innovation Officer at Accenture suggests “The playing field is poised to become a lot more competitive, and businesses that don’t deploy AI and data to help them innovate in everything they do will be at a disadvantage.”
​
But ultimately AI will in my view be a servant improving knowledge sharing for human professionals. I asked ChatGPT for its views which support this overall conclusion. Its response was “AI can complement traditional knowledge sharing by automating certain tasks and providing quick access to information. However, the human touch, empathy and critical thinking that professionals bring to knowledge sharing are unique and irreplaceable. AI is a tool to enhance, not replace, human expertise.”

I  have now finished reading Think Again: The Power of knowing What You Don’t Know by  Adam Grant which I highly recommend – see my blog Keeping an Open Mind. In it I came across a concept which I recognise and understand, but had never seen expressed or explained so clearly – “psychological safety”. This is described as “fostering a climate of respect, trust and openness in which people can raise concerns and suggestions without fear of reprisal.” It is a term that was first coined by Harvard Business School professor Amy Edmondson in 1999 who codified the concept as “the belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes, and the team is safe for interpersonal risk taking”.

The topic is well presented in this Harvard Business Review article What Is Psychological Safety? where the author “reached out to Amy Edmondson… for a refresher” and which explains how Amy Edmondson arrived at this concept and defines psychological safety as “a shared belief held by members of a team that it’s OK to take risks, to express their ideas and concerns, to speak up with questions, and to admit mistakes — all without fear of negative consequences. As Edmondson puts it, “it’s felt permission for candor.”” It says “As Edmondson explained to me, the sense of safety and willingness to speak up is not an individual trait, even though it’s something you do feel and experience at the individual level; “it’s an emergent property of the group.”” It suggests psychological safety is important because:

• [it] leads to team members feeling more engaged and motivated
• it can lead to better decision-making
• it can foster a culture of continuous learning and improvement
• 
  

The article also cites Project Aristotle carried out by Google which “sought to understand what makes a successful team. After conducting extensive research, they concluded that the most critical factor was psychological safety. In other words, the teams that felt safe to take risks and be vulnerable with each other were the most successful.” See this New York Times article What Google Learned From Its Quest to Build the Perfect Team.

This is particularly pertinent to any professional workplace. When I was in private practice I experienced two types of law firms. One was more collegiate and embraced its employees and partners in an open and co-operative way, encouraging collegiality and sharing work on matters for different clients. The other was more what was described as “eat what you kill” in which you kept all your clients to yourself and were very reluctant to expose the relationship to another colleague in case they “stole” the client. Of course, this is a matter of degree and there were elements of the opposite approach in each firm. I am also not saying one model is better than the other in terms of business success because they both work. However, looking back on my experience, I preferred working for the more collegiate firm, not just because it provided a more supportive environment, but because it encouraged open debate without fear of reprisal - which in turn led to better standards and improved business development. In other words it created an environment of psychological safety.

If you feel confident that a colleague will still support you after questioning an approach they may have – and vice versa – then you encourage an open culture where all can learn and grow. All are encouraged to have the freedom to speak up. See this article What Is Psychological Safety at Work? How Leaders Can Build Psychologically Safe Workplaces which starts “Psychological safety is the belief that you won’t be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes. At work, it’s a shared expectation held by members of a team that teammates will not embarrass, reject, or punish them for sharing ideas, taking risks, or soliciting feedback.” And “Having a higher level of consistent psychological safety helps to unlock the contributions of all talent in the enterprise and ensures the organization is better equipped to prevent failure.” It suggests 8 steps to achieve this state including:

• Facilitate everyone speaking up
• Establish norms for how failure is handled
• Create space for new ideas (even wild ones)
• Embrace productive conflict
• Make an intentional effort to promote dialogue

Creating this sort of environment goes further than just being inclusive (which is entirely justifiable in its own right for different reasons and which interacts with psychological safety) and is in a sense not just about being “nice” to colleagues; it is rather taking their views seriously and listening. Doing so it seems can significantly improve team performance in an organisation. Amy Edmundson in the Harvard Business School article cited above says that since the idea was first proposed there are “some important nuances” and “that psychological safety seems to matter more in work environments where employees need to use their discretion”. This certainly has to be true of professional workplaces and teams whether in house or in private practice. 

See also this McKinsey article What is psychological safety?  which says: “Psychological safety nurtures an environment where people feel encouraged to share creative ideas without fear of personal judgment or stepping on toes.” And “it is consistently one of the strongest predictors of team performance, productivity, quality, safety, creativity, and innovation.” And in particular “leaders have a critical influence on a team’s psychological safety.”

This is a theme that comes out from Adam Grant’s book and through these various articles: creating this sort of open environment has to start at the top. The leaders of any professional organisation need to embrace the concept themselves and be open to suggestions and even criticism or this just will not work in their business.

As Edgar Schein professor at MIT Sloan School of Management observes “When leaders become genuine learners, they set a good example and help to create a psychologically safe environment for others.” 

While the Stanford University professor Robert I. Sutton suggests “Psychological safety is the key to creating a workplace where people can be confident enough to act without undue fear of being ridiculed, punished, or fired – and be humble enough to openly doubt what is believed and done.”
​
And for a final word from Amy Edmondson “For knowledge work to flourish, the workplace must be one where people feel able to share their knowledge! This means sharing concerns, questions, mistakes, and half-formed ideas.”