I have discovered an insight that “relationships” are between two people. One cannot have a relationship between a group of two or more persons. For example: “A” and “B” have a relationship, “B” and “C” have a relationship and “A” and “C” have a relationship … but “A” cannot have a relationship with “B&C” nor “B&C” in any combination with the others, because “A,B & C” as a group do not have a relationship, they have, at best, an association; they live in a “context of commonalities”. This is the same for “employees”, “people”, “them”, “they”, “us” or “y’all” – any generalization of a group of people is an association and one cannot have a relationship with a group (IMHO).

So I agree with you that getting to know a “person” is a valuable endeavor, but I caution readers that one cannot apply those insights to a “group” of people and expect the same kind of relationship results.

I have heard persons say that it is difficult to manage all their relationships. I think that is because they are trying to be what others want them to be in those relationships or that the person themselves are not being their “authentic self” in each of those relationships. If one takes a moment to think about relationships, what is the common denominator amongst them all ? “You”. Being yourself in each relationship is how you capitalize upon multiple relationships and when those relationships are grouped together in some common context, one can feel very free to interact with all parties, making relating to “groups” of people easier.

Being authentic also helps to solidify your thoughts and ideas and where you stand, because you are taking and more importantly walking the stand you take regardless of the relationship or the interaction and co-mingling of relationships.

/da/