The Three Ways: A Framework for Relationship Power Dynamics

Who's expendable here?

It's the question nobody asks. Not at the job interview. Not on the first date. Not when you're shaking hands on a business deal. Not when you're walking into the gym to start training with someone new.

Seeing the answer IS EASY. You make it unnecessarily hard.

You make it hard by assuming mutual respect. By believing shared goals mean shared power. By telling yourself "we're partners" when the math says otherwise.

Most people don't ask because they already know. And they don't want to know what they know.

Here's the uncomfortable reality: In any relationship—business, personal, training—someone is expendable. The only question is who. And whether you know.

The Three Ways Framework: A relationship power dynamics model that categorizes every relationship—workplace, business, personal—into one of three modes based on who holds expendability.

• Way 1: The Selector — You determine who's expendable
• Way 2: The Builder — You're expendable by design
• Way 3: The Exchange — Neither is expendable

One of these is always true.

The people who never ask this question spend their careers getting blindsided by layoffs. They spend their relationships confused when the other person leaves. They spend their training wondering why the coach doesn't invest in them anymore.

The people who do ask? They stop guessing. They start seeing the dynamic for what it is. And once you see it, you can finally make strategic decisions instead of emotional ones.

---

The Three Ways

Every relationship operates in one of three modes. One of these is always true. The only question is which one.

TL;DR: Every relationship operates in one of three modes:

1. Way 1 (Selector): You hold the power—they're expendable
2. Way 2 (Builder): You invest in them—you're expendable by design
3. Way 3 (Exchange): Neither is expendable—true mutual dependency

The framework applies to work, business, and personal relationships. One of these is always true.

Understanding which mode you're in changes everything.

It tells you where your leverage actually is (not where you wish it was). It tells you what to do when the relationship stops working. It tells you what to protect and what to accept.

Before I break these down: this framework is a cognitive ratchet. Once you see relationships through this lens, you can't unsee it. Every interaction—professional, personal, training—will pass through this filter automatically.

Some people wish they could go back to not knowing. You won't be one of them. But you should know what you're signing up for.

---

The Asset Management Lens

One way to clarify the power dynamics: think of relationships as asset management. Every relationship involves deposits and withdrawals. The question "who's expendable?" is really asking: whose account is this? Who's making deposits, who's taking withdrawals, and who controls the ledger?

• Way 1: Your account. You decide who gets access.
• Way 2: Their account. You're making deposits you may never withdraw.
• Way 3: Joint account. Neither can empty it without the other's consent.

Now let me break down each one.

---

Way 1: The Selector Position

Definition: You're in charge. You determine who comes along for the ride. At any point, you can decide someone else is expendable.

This is the position of power. You hold optionality. They need you more than you need them. You're not necessarily cruel about it—you simply have the ability to end the relationship without existential cost to yourself.

The boss who hires and fires. The client who chooses which vendor to keep. The investor who funds or walks. The partner who has more options and less dependency. The coach who selects which athletes to develop.

The key insight: Being the Selector doesn't mean being ruthless. It means owning the optionality.

Most Selectors don't think of themselves this way. They think the relationship is mutual because they're decent people who care about the other party. But caring about someone doesn't change the power structure. If you could walk away tomorrow with minimal consequence and they couldn't, you're the Selector whether you acknowledge it or not.

Examples Across Domains

In Business: The owner who has multiple qualified candidates for every role. The consultant who has enough clients that losing one doesn't threaten the business. The company with so many vendor options that no single supplier has leverage.

In Relationships: The partner who could leave but chooses to stay—because they want to, not because they have to. The person whose identity, finances, and social circle don't depend on the relationship surviving.

In Training: The coach who invests in an athlete knowing they can redirect that investment elsewhere. "I'll bring you along, but if you don't grow, I'll find someone who will." Every competitive gym operates this way at some level.

What to Do If You're the Selector

First, recognize your power. Not to exploit it—but because unacknowledged power creates distortions. You might be making decisions that seem collaborative to you but feel arbitrary to them. You might be offering "options" that aren't really options.

Second, ask yourself: Am I using this position to build something, or just to feel powerful? This is a version of the "Am I Safe?" question applied to power dynamics—are you safe from becoming the kind of person who extracts rather than builds?

Selectors who use their position well invest in people, create opportunities, and build things that outlast the power dynamic. Selectors who use their position poorly just enjoy the control.

Third, don't pretend equality exists when it doesn't. False equality creates confusion and resentment. If you're the boss, you're the boss. If you have the leverage, you have the leverage. Owning that honestly is more respectful than pretending otherwise.

The corollary: don't claim Selector status you haven't earned. Power that exists only in your head isn't power. If you act like the Selector when you're not, you'll make moves that reveal the bluff. The person who actually holds the cards always knows.

What to Do If They're the Selector

Acknowledge the power imbalance. Not with resentment—with clarity.

Then you have two options:

Option A: Build leverage. Make yourself less expendable. Increase your value, decrease your replaceability, develop alternatives. This is the strategic response.

Option B: Accept the dynamic. Some relationships work perfectly well with asymmetric power. Not everything needs to be a partnership. The question is whether you're consciously choosing this or pretending it's something else.

What doesn't work: Pretending you're in Way 3 when you're not.

---

Way 2: The Builder Position

Definition: You're building someone else up. You're investing in their growth, their success, their capability. At any point, they can decide you're expendable.

This is the position of investment without ownership. Your value is in what you provide. When they outgrow you—or believe they have—they can walk.

The mentor who makes themselves unnecessary. The consultant who solves the problem so well they're no longer needed. The parent whose child eventually leaves. The trainer who develops an athlete until they move on to higher-level coaching.

The key insight: This isn't a flaw. It's the design.

If you're in Way 2 and resent it when they leave, you were in the wrong mode. You wanted Way 3's permanence with Way 2's role. That's a contradiction.

Examples Across Domains

In Business: The consultant who solves a problem, implements a system, and trains the client's internal team to maintain it. Success means they don't need you anymore. The employee who trains their replacement and is then promoted—or laid off—depending on whether there's somewhere else for them to go.

In Relationships: The person who "builds up" their partner—supports them through school, helps them launch a career, encourages their growth—and then watches them leave for someone they met in their new life. The parent whose entire job is to make themselves unnecessary.

In Training: "I'm teaching you how to beat me."

That's not a metaphor. That's literally what good coaching is. If I can't eventually be surpassed by someone I've trained, I've failed them. The coach whose success is measured by students who outgrow them has accepted Way 2 completely.

I've been on both sides of this. Early in my coaching, I resented when students left for other instructors. It felt like betrayal. Like the deposits I'd made into their account were being withdrawn by someone else.

It took years to realize: their leaving WAS the success. That's what the deposits were for.

Now when someone I've trained beats me in competition, I don't feel replaced—I feel like I did my job. When they move on to higher-level instruction, I don't feel abandoned—I feel like the system worked. That shift took years. It required accepting that Way 2 means designing your own expendability.

The phrase I use now: "I'm teaching you how to beat me." Not as inspiration. Literally. If you can't eventually surpass me, I failed you. That's Way 2 fully embodied.

What to Do If You're the Builder

Accept that your expendability is the point, not the problem.

Build for legacy, not dependency. If you're building someone up because you want them to stay dependent on you forever, you're not actually building—you're extracting. You're using the appearance of investment to create obligation.

Real building means: The best possible outcome is they outgrow you. That's the goal. If resentment builds when they "leave," you weren't really in Way 2—you were pretending to build while expecting Way 3 payoffs.

Ask yourself: When they no longer need me, will I feel like I succeeded or like I was used?

If the answer is "used," you're in the wrong mode.

Apply the "Am I Safe?" question here: Am I safe building this person up? Only if you've accepted that success means they leave. If you're building expecting them to stay, you're not safe—you're setting yourself up for resentment.

What to Do If They're the Builder

Recognize what they're giving you. Building someone up takes energy, expertise, and attention that could go elsewhere. That investment is real even if there's no explicit contract.

Don't mistake their investment for permanent obligation. They chose to build you. That doesn't mean they owe you forever, and it doesn't mean you owe them your permanent dependence.

When you outgrow them—and if they did their job, you will—exit with integrity, not extraction. Don't take the skills they gave you and use them to undermine them. Don't disappear without acknowledgment. Don't convince yourself you did it all yourself.

The way you leave Way 2 relationships says everything about who you are.

---

Way 3: The Exchange Position

Definition: Neither party is expendable because both are essential. There's a mutual bartering of time, service, or energy. It works for both or it works for neither.

This is true partnership. Neither can unilaterally discard the other without real cost. The exchange isn't transactional moment-to-moment—it's balanced over time.

Co-founders with complementary skills. Strategic partnerships where both sides need the other. Marriages that actually work. Friendships with reciprocal investment. Training partners who push each other. Iron sharpens iron.

The key insight: Way 3 is the rarest and most valuable configuration. It's also the most commonly misidentified.

Most people who think they're in Way 3 aren't. They're in Way 1 or Way 2 and telling themselves a story about mutual respect. The test is simple: Could either party leave easily? If one could and one couldn't, it's not Way 3.

What Makes Way 3 Rare

Way 3 requires actual balance. Not the appearance of balance. Not "we both contribute." Not "we both care about each other."

Balance means: If I left, you'd hurt. If you left, I'd hurt. Neither of us has a clear exit option that doesn't cost something real.

That's hard to achieve. In business, one party usually has more capital, more options, more leverage. In relationships, one party usually has more alternatives, less dependency, more ability to rebuild. In training, one party usually needs the other more.

True Way 3 relationships exist. But they're rarer than people pretend.

Warning Signs It's Not Actually Way 3

• Only one person feels it's mutual
• One person could leave easily; the other couldn't
• "Partnership" is the story, but dependency is the reality
• One person does most of the adjusting, accommodating, compromising
• The "exchange" only looks balanced if you squint

What to Do If You're in Way 3

Protect it. This configuration is worth defending.

Don't take it for granted. Way 3 requires maintenance. It requires both parties continuing to invest, continuing to grow, continuing to bring value. The moment one party starts coasting, drift begins.

Watch for drift. One party silently sliding toward Selector or Builder changes the whole dynamic. Way 3 can become Way 1 gradually, without either party acknowledging it. Regular honest assessment matters.

What to Do If You're Receiving Way 3

Recognize how rare this is. Most people have one or two true Way 3 relationships in their lives. If you've found one, you've found something worth protecting.

Don't test it unnecessarily. The question "what would happen if I asked for more?" (from the expendability test below) can damage Way 3 relationships if used carelessly. In true mutual dependency, both parties already know the answer: we'd figure it out together.

Watch for drift in yourself. You can slide from Exchange to Selector without noticing. The moment you start thinking "I could do better," you've changed the power dynamics—even if only in your head. And what's in your head eventually shows in your behavior.

---

How to Tell If You're Expendable

The signs of expendability are often obvious in hindsight but invisible in the moment. Here's what to look for across different contexts.

At Work:

• Your projects get reassigned without explanation
• You're excluded from meetings you used to attend
• Your boss stopped investing in your development
• You could be replaced by someone with 3 months of training
• The company has already posted your role (or a suspiciously similar one)

In Business Relationships:

• They take longer to respond than they used to
• Negotiations have become one-sided
• They've started building alternatives to you
• You hear about their decisions after they're made
• The relationship survives on your effort alone

In Personal Relationships:

• You do most of the adjusting and compromising
• They could rebuild their life without you; you couldn't without them
• "Mutual" decisions always seem to go their way
• You're more invested in the relationship's future than they are

The Honest Assessment:

If you read this list and felt defensive, that's data. The discomfort of recognizing expendability is what keeps most people from seeing it. But seeing it is the first step toward either changing your position or making peace with it.

The question isn't whether expendability is uncomfortable. It's whether you'd rather know or be surprised.

---

The Expendability Test: 5 Questions

If you're not sure which Way you're in, answer these honestly.

1. If I left tomorrow, who would hurt more?

If they'd be fine → You're likely expendable (Way 1 or Way 2, wrong side)

If both would hurt → Possible Way 3

If only you'd hurt → You're on the receiving end of Way 1 or Way 2

2. Who has more options?

Options equal leverage. Whoever can walk has power. Count actual alternatives, not theoretical ones. "I could get another job" means nothing if you haven't gotten offers. "They could find another partner" means nothing if they're not looking.

3. Who's building whom?

If you're pouring into them → Way 2 (you're the Builder)

If they're investing in you → Way 1 (they're the Selector)

If both are investing roughly equally → Possible Way 3

4. What would happen if I asked for more?

If they'd laugh or leave → You're expendable

If they'd negotiate → Possible Way 3

If they'd comply without question → You're the Selector

This one's worth testing occasionally. Not as manipulation—as diagnostic. How someone responds to requests for more (more time, more money, more commitment, more investment) reveals the actual power structure.

5. Am I honest about which Way this is?

This is the real question. Most people tell themselves it's Way 3 when it isn't. The discomfort you feel answering these questions IS the diagnostic.

If you had to argue against your current answer—if you had to make the case that you're actually more expendable than you want to believe—what evidence would you use?

The real question underneath all five: Am I safe in my current assessment of this relationship? If the answer creates discomfort, that's data. The discomfort is telling you something you already know but haven't admitted.

The Job-Specific Version

For workplace relationships specifically:

• Could my boss replace me in 30 days? (If yes → You're expendable)
• Could I replace this job in 30 days? (If yes → They're expendable)
• Would leaving hurt my career more than it hurts the company? (Tells you who's in power)

---

The Meta-Insight: Awareness IS the Strategy

Here's what most people get wrong: They think recognizing which Way they're in is the first step toward changing it.

Sometimes it is. You can change your position by changing leverage, value, or exit options. You can make yourself less expendable through skills, relationships, or alternatives. You can shift from Builder to Exchange by creating genuine mutual dependency.

But here's the deeper truth: You can't change which Way you're in by pretending.

If you're expendable and act like you're not, you just make decisions that don't fit your actual situation. You ask for things you don't have the leverage to ask for. You take risks that don't match your actual position. You're surprised by outcomes that were predictable to anyone who saw the dynamic clearly.

Once you see it, you can't unsee it. And you shouldn't want to.

Once you see the relationship for what it is, you can make real decisions. Stay in Way 2 and accept it consciously. Build leverage to shift toward Way 3. Acknowledge you're the Selector and use the power responsibly.

What doesn't work is pretending. And most people spend their whole lives pretending about every relationship they're in.

---

Connection to Broader Philosophy

The Three Ways connect to something I've written about before: The question "Am I Safe?"

In BJJ, we ask that question constantly. Am I safe to attempt this pass? Am I safe in this position? Am I safe to go for this submission?

Apply it to relationships: Am I safe assuming this is Way 3 when it might be Way 1?

The answer is usually no. The risk of overestimating mutuality is higher than the risk of underestimating it. If you assume you're more expendable than you are, you stay hungry. If you assume you're less expendable than you are, you get blindsided.

The other connection is Control vs. Influence: "I can only control myself. I can only influence you."

In Way 1, you control—you have the power to make decisions that stick.

In Way 2, you influence until you're unnecessary—that's the nature of building.

In Way 3, mutual influence—neither controls, both shape.

Understanding which mode you're in tells you which tools you actually have available.

---

The next time you walk into a meeting, a relationship conversation, or a training session, ask the question nobody asks:

Who's expendable here?

The answer might be uncomfortable. That's the point.

The discomfort is the clarity.

And once you see it, you can't unsee it.

---

Simplify. That's what I do. If you're ready to stop making things unnecessarily hard—including the hard conversations about power dynamics and expendability—book a session.

---

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Three Ways framework?

It's the answer to a question nobody asks: who's expendable here? Every relationship operates in one of three modes. The Selector holds the power—they determine who's expendable. The Builder invests knowing they'll be outgrown—they're expendable by design. The Exchange is true mutual dependency—neither party is expendable. One of these is always true. The only question is which one, and whether you're honest about it.

How do I know if I'm expendable at work?

You're expendable if your employer could replace you in 30 days but you couldn't replace the job in 30 days. The test is asymmetry—whoever has more options holds the power. If leaving would hurt your career more than it hurts the company, you're on the expendable side of the relationship. Watch for signs: projects reassigned, excluded from meetings, development stalled, or a job posting that looks suspiciously like your role.

What determines who has power in a relationship?

Power belongs to whoever can walk away with fewer consequences. Options equal leverage. This isn't about titles, seniority, or stated intentions—it's about who needs the relationship more. Count actual alternatives you have right now, not theoretical possibilities. "I could get another job" means nothing if you haven't gotten offers.

What are the signs you're expendable at work?

Your projects get reassigned without explanation. You're excluded from meetings you used to attend. Your boss stopped investing in your development. You could be replaced by someone with minimal training. The company has posted a role suspiciously similar to yours. The 30-day replacement test reveals the truth: if they could fill your role faster than you could find equivalent work, you're expendable.

How can I tell if my relationship is truly mutual?

Apply this test: If you left, would they genuinely hurt? If they left, would you genuinely hurt? If only one answer is yes, the relationship isn't mutual—you're in Way 1 or Way 2, not Way 3. Most people claim mutual partnership when honest assessment reveals asymmetric power dynamics. Way 3 is the rarest configuration. If you think you're in it, pressure-test the assumption.

What is workplace expendability?

Workplace expendability is the degree to which your employer could replace you without significant cost or disruption. If your boss could fill your role in 30 days but you couldn't find equivalent work in 30 days, you're on the expendable side of the employment relationship. The Three Ways framework helps you assess this reality and decide whether to accept it, change it, or leave.

---

Related: This framework connects to Am I Safe?, the foundational risk assessment question. For the meta-skill of questioning premises before seeking answers, see Question the Question. For how to layer context once you have the right question, see Ask a Better Question.

---

George Samuelson is a second-degree black belt, award-winning digital marketer, and business consultant. He helps athletes, entrepreneurs, and professionals develop the frameworks that make everything else work. He's based in New Jersey and works with clients online and in-person.