You get what you tolerate

You get what you tolerate.

In both personal and business relationships, there is a class of people and organisations that will push as far as they are allowed. In personal relationships it rarely starts as something obvious. It shows up as small imbalances; one person always initiating, always adjusting, always absorbing a little more friction than they should. Nothing individually serious, but over time it defines the shape of the relationship. Not necessarily because they are malicious, but because there is no clear boundary telling them to stop. Sometimes it is framed as being thorough, or commercially aggressive, or simply “not leaving anything on the table.” In practice, it usually just means they will keep taking until something pushes back.

This shows up clearly when a small startup signs a deal with a large, established company. The initial engagement is usually modest; a pilot, a proof of concept, something contained. There is optimism on the startup side that this relationship might unlock something larger if they perform well.

Then the scope starts to move. In personal terms, this is the shift from mutual effort to one-sided investment. Plans become your responsibility. Communication becomes something you maintain. The other side responds, but rarely initiates.

A small request here. A quick addition there. A “while you’re in there” change that doesn’t seem significant in isolation. Each one is easy to justify. Each one feels like an opportunity to demonstrate value.

The mistake is thinking that this behaviour is being tracked and rewarded.

It usually isn’t.

Inside the larger organisation, the people making these requests are not thinking about your long-term success. They are trying to solve their immediate problems with the least friction possible. If you make it easy to get more from you without cost, they will keep doing it. Not out of malice, but because the system they operate in rewards that behaviour.

Over time, the startup begins to absorb more work than it priced for. Margins shrink. Delivery slows. The team starts to feel the pressure as expectations increase without any corresponding increase in resources or compensation.

At that point, the relationship has already shifted. In a personal context, this is the moment where you realise you are carrying the interaction. The dynamic has moved from two people building something to one person sustaining it.

It is no longer a commercial engagement. It is an extraction.

The executive team often allows this to continue because they believe it will earn goodwill. The personal equivalent is the belief that if you are patient enough, flexible enough, or accommodating enough, the other person will eventually recognise the effort and respond in kind. The thinking is that by being flexible now, they will be rewarded later with a larger deal or a deeper partnership.

That rarely happens.

Instead, the organisation has learned that your boundaries are soft. That you will continue to deliver even when the agreement is no longer being respected. From their perspective, this is simply an efficient arrangement.

From yours, it is slow erosion.

The cost is not just financial. In personal relationships, the cost is attention, time, and self-respect. You begin to normalise behaviour that you would have rejected early on, simply because you are already invested. The team burns out trying to keep up with expanding expectations. Other opportunities are neglected because resources are tied up servicing a relationship that is no longer commercially viable. Internally, trust begins to erode as people see the company give away work while asking them to absorb the consequences.

All of this stems from a single decision made early on: not to enforce the boundary when the scope first shifted.

There is a point where the correct response is simply to say no. In personal terms, it is the point where you stop negotiating with yourself about whether the behaviour is acceptable and recognise that it is not. Or more precisely, to say: this is new work, and it needs to be treated as such.

That moment is uncomfortable, especially when the other party is larger, louder, or more established. There is a real power imbalance, and it will be exploited if it is permitted. If you let the fear of losing the deal stop you from saying “no, I won’t work for free,” then you have already set the terms of the relationship. That discomfort is the price of maintaining a sustainable relationship.

Because the alternative is predictable.

You get what you tolerate.

If you tolerate scope creep, you will get more of it. If you tolerate one-sided effort, it will become the baseline. If you tolerate being an option instead of a priority, that is the role you will continue to occupy. If you tolerate asymmetry in the relationship, it will deepen. If you tolerate being treated as an unlimited resource, that is exactly how you will be used.

And once that pattern is established, it is much harder to undo than it is to prevent.