Over the past few weeks, I’ve moved from donor meetings to a family reunion, from conversations with my husband to teaching at a ministry and attending a fundraising conference.
Different settings. Different relationships. Yet I keep finding myself asking the same question: What motivates us to be in relationship with each other? And why do we sometimes make those relationships so much harder than they need to be?
People enter relationships for many reasons: affection, obligation, shared purpose, belonging, security and sometimes opportunity. A donor’s relationship with a nonprofit isn’t a marriage. A supervisor isn’t meant to be an employee’s best friend. Different relationships carry different responsibilities.
But underneath those differences, research offers a compelling common thread.
A 2024 meta-analysis led by psychologist Gavin Slemp examined 881 independent samples involving more than 443,000 people. Researchers found that interpersonal support for three basic psychological needs — relatedness, autonomy and competence — was strongly associated with psychological need satisfaction and well-being.
In everyday language, we want to feel connected, have a voice and believe we have something meaningful to contribute.
Think about how that translates across relationships. A child wants to be loved and increasingly trusted. An employee wants direction without micromanagement. A spouse wants partnership without losing individuality. A donor wants a cause to believe in and confidence that their contribution matters.
Trust also plays an enormous role.
In 2024, researchers Caroline Greenhalgh and Paul Montgomery examined how personal relationships and trust influenced philanthropists’ giving decisions. Their findings revealed that trust was central to developing ongoing relationships with charitable organizations.
Similarly, a 2017 meta-analysis led by M. Lance Frazier, examining more than 22,000 employees, found meaningful associations between psychological safety and important workplace outcomes, including performance.
So what gets in our way?
I think one of our greatest obstacles is how easily we confuse connection with compliance.
We assume that if someone loves us, respects us or cares about our mission, they’ll see things our way. When they don’t, we assign motives. A spouse’s competing priority becomes selfishness. A teenager’s desire for independence becomes disrespect. An employee’s question becomes insubordination. A donor’s hesitation becomes indifference.
We stop trying to understand the person and start trying to manage their response.
And there’s fascinating research explaining why.
In a 2024 study published in Psychological Science, researchers Zhiying Ren and Rebecca Schaumberg conducted 11 studies involving nearly 3,400 adults. They found that people consistently rated those who disagreed with them as poorer listeners, even when the listeners demonstrated the same listening behaviors.
Think about that. Someone can genuinely hear us, understand our perspective and still disagree. Yet we may interpret their disagreement as evidence that they don’t care or weren’t listening.
Another study, published in 2023 in the Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, examined 116 married couples and identified associations among negative interpretations of partners’ behavior, loneliness and relationship conflict.
It’s remarkable how quickly our assumptions can become obstacles to the very connection we’re seeking.
And when we have authority or influence in a relationship, the temptation to control outcomes can become even stronger.
A 2025 meta-analysis involving more than 126,000 participants found that autonomy-supportive parenting was positively associated with children’s well-being, while psychologically controlling parenting was associated with poorer outcomes.
Of course, relationships require expectations and accountability. Children need guidance. Employers need results. Marriages require commitment. Donors deserve transparency.
But healthy expectations shouldn’t require someone to surrender their dignity or individuality.
So how do we make relationships less complicated?
First, name expectations rather than assuming they’re understood. Ask, “Here’s what I was hoping for. What were you expecting?” Sometimes the disagreement isn’t about values at all. It’s about two people operating from completely different assumptions.
(READ MORE: First Things First: When marriage becomes management)
Second, listen to understand rather than persuade. A 2024 study led by psychologist Guy Itzchakov found that high-quality listening helped people reflect less defensively during disagreements. We don’t have to agree with someone’s perspective to demonstrate that it matters.
Third, repair when you get it wrong. Research published in 2024 involving 217 couples found that attentive listening during conflict was associated with more helpful reconciliation afterward. Acknowledging a misunderstanding, taking responsibility and remaining open to another
perspective can help restore connection.
And recognize that some relationships require more than improved communication. Repeated dishonesty, coercion or unsafe behavior may require firm boundaries and meaningful change.
Lately, I’ve been wondering whether one of the most important questions we could ask ourselves is not, “How do I get this person to do what I need?” but rather, “What does it feel like to be in a relationship with me?”
Because our relationships may serve different purposes, but the people in them should never be reduced to the purposes they serve.
Lauren Hall is president and CEO of family advocacy nonprofit First Things First. Email her at lauren@firstthings.org.