Earlier this week, I sent a few emails on behalf of a women’s collective giving organization I belong to—a group of more than four hundred women pooling resources to fund grants for local nonprofits. It is the fastest-growing chapter in the organization’s history.
I was asking companies to become sponsors.
One replied almost immediately.
“Of course — here’s the form.”
There was a form.
A process.
A department that expected exactly this kind of request.
No apology was needed. No elaborate explanation. No convincing them that the work mattered before they would even consider supporting it.
The pathway already existed.
Later, I attended a meeting where the women around me talked strategy, compared notes, and helped each other think through who to contact and how to approach them.
Nobody seemed reluctant.
Nobody acted as though they were asking for a favor.
Nobody carried the awkwardness I often feel when I am the one making an ask.
They simply understood something I had not, yet:
The people on the other side of those requests were not being particularly generous toward us.
They were being invited into something they already wanted to support.
Their resources had somewhere meaningful to go.
Their names would sit alongside work they believed matters. It does matter.
We were giving their company an opportunity to participate in the community they wanted to help build.
The exchange was not charity extended downward.
It was participation.
I kept sitting with that.
Because underneath the sponsorship forms and the conversations and the logistics, I noticed something I had not really seen before.
The money was not the hard part.
The ask was not the hard part.
The interference was.
The obvious explanation is that it is easier to advocate for others than it is to advocate for yourself.
Many of us know this pattern.
We can speak passionately about someone else’s work. We can champion someone else’s gifts. We can see clearly what another person brings to the world.
But when the same question turns toward us—our work, our name, our value—something changes.
It is tempting to call that humility.
Selflessness.
Putting the mission first.
I have stopped trusting that explanation.
Because if the issue were simply that asking for myself was harder, it would require a little more courage.
A little more effort.
A little more willingness to tolerate discomfort.
That is not what happens.
What happens is stranger.
The moment the exchange turns toward me, something goes quiet.
Not anxious.
Not dramatic.
Just unavailable.
A capacity I clearly have in every other context seems to disappear.
Not the difficulty.
The disappearance.
I have started calling it the interference.
It is the moment when something has already been offered—and somehow I still find a way to step in between myself and receiving it.
The offer is there.
The other person has decided.
The exchange already makes sense to them.
And still, I soften it.
Discount it.
Explain it.
Add something extra.
Find a way to hand a piece of it back.
The strange thing about the interference is that it does not happen before the offer.
It happens after.
Someone has already said yes.
And somehow I begin negotiating with a decision that was never mine to make.
A decision that has already been made.
The first time I really saw this pattern was years ago, when I was beginning to coach.
Before I was certified.
Before I had a business in any formal sense.
Clients were asking me what I charged.
Not because I had convinced them.
Because they wanted to pay me.
Their lives were changing.
Something was shifting in how they thought, what they decided, how they moved through their days.
They wanted to participate in an exchange.
And I struggled to let their valuation stand.
I would add more time.
Give more than we agreed on.
Make sure they knew how much they were getting.
I told myself I was being generous.
And sometimes I was.
But there was something else happening too.
I could not quite let myself believe that what I offered was simply worth something.
That charging could actually be the more honest choice.
Because people do not want to receive something valuable for free.
That creates its own imbalance.
What I could not locate was the internal yes:
This exchange makes sense.
What I offer matters.
What they are offering matters.
Both can be true.
Looking back, I think the deeper issue was not whether I believed in my work.
I did.
The deeper issue was whether I believed them.
Whether I could trust another person to know what something was worth in their own life.
They had made a decision.
They had evaluated the exchange.
They had said yes.
And I was quietly, and awkwardly, overriding it.
I was taking their clear yes and making it more complicated because their certainty did not match my own.
That realization stayed with me.
Because it changed the question.
The question was not:
“Am I valuable enough to receive?”
The question was:
“Can I respect another person’s ability to decide what they value?”
I practiced with eggs.
Literally.
I had backyard chickens.
I decided to charge fifty cents an egg.
I used locally grown, organic feed.
Every chicken had a name.
I could tell you which eggs had been laid that morning, and the name of the chicken who laid it.
And I acted as though I were asking people to sign over the deeds to their homes, in order to be able to afford my chicken eggs.
People would ask if I had any eggs that day.
I would hesitate.
Apologize.
Throw in extras.
Say, “Just take them.”
Meanwhile, people were begging to buy the whole batch.
The demand was never the problem.
The price was never the problem.
The exchange already made sense.
The only person questioning it was me.
At the time, I thought I was just being generous.
Now I see something else.
I was overriding everyone else’s clear yes.
They wanted the eggs.
They had decided.
My job was not to correct their decision.
My job was to let the exchange be what it already was.
Mutual.
Complete.
Clean.
I think about those eggs often because it was such a simple experiment.
No credentials.
No business strategy.
No complicated questions about worth.
Just eggs.
Supply.
Demand.
Everyone benefited.
The only problem was me.
And maybe that is what makes receiving so complicated.
We think receiving puts us in the smaller position.
The one who needs.
The one who owes.
The one who has to justify why someone would choose us.
But what if that is the wrong frame?
What if receiving is not the lesser side of the exchange?
What if receiving is the thing that completes it?
Because the person offering something is not simply giving something away.
They are expressing a choice.
A value.
A desire.
A priority.
When we refuse to receive, we sometimes think we are protecting ourselves from taking too much.
But we may also be blocking someone else from gaining something they clearly chose.
This is what keeps coming back to me about those sponsorship emails.
The money was not waiting reluctantly.
The companies were not being persuaded into generosity.
The resources already existed.
The desire to contribute already existed.
The system was already there.
The only thing required of me was to show up and facilitate the exchange, allow it to happen.
That same clarity I had when I was advocating for the organization.
A different valve when the ask turned toward me.
I am becoming interested in the moment before the interference takes over.
That half-second.
The moment when I reach in and rearrange what was already whole.
Because I do not think the answer is simply to stop interfering and become better at receiving.
That feels too neat.
The impulse to give is real warmth.
And sometimes it is also protection.
Those things can exist together.
The question is not whether generosity is good.
The question is whether my generosity is coming from fullness...
or from an inability to allow the exchange to be complete.
The interference is tricky because it borrows the language of kindness.
It says:
“Make sure they get enough.”
“Give them something extra.”
“Do not make this too much about you.”
“Do not ask for too much.”
It sounds generous.
That is why it is hard to recognize.
But sometimes what looks like generosity is actually a refusal to trust.
A refusal to trust that another person can choose.
A refusal to trust that their yes belongs to them.
Their yes belongs to them.
I keep coming back to that.
Not mine to edit.
Not mine to negotiate downward.
Not mine to improve.
If someone has decided that something I offer matters, perhaps the most respectful thing I can do is believe them.
I do not think this is something I will master.
The interference is quiet.
It arrives before I have noticed it.
Sometimes all I catch is the familiar movement:
The urge to soften.
To explain.
To add.
To wave something away.
But I am noticing it now.
And noticing changes things.
Because sometimes, instead of stepping in...
I let the exchange happen.
And every time I do, something surprises me.
Nothing falls apart.
No one feels taken advantage of.
The relationship does not become less generous.
If anything, it becomes more honest.
I still think about that first sponsorship reply.
“Of course — here’s the form.”
There was no hesitation.
No awkwardness.
No negotiation.
Just an invitation meeting an eagerness to say yes.
The system was already there.
The resources were already looking for somewhere meaningful to go.
The exchange was already complete.
I just had not believed it yet.
Maybe that is what the interference really is.
Standing in the middle of an exchange that was never asking for our permission.
I have been thinking about how often this appears outside of money.
Noticing the interference has made me see it everywhere.
A compliment arrives, and we immediately explain why it is not quite true.
Someone expresses gratitude, and we rush to tell them they did not need to.
Someone offers help, and we say, “I’m fine.”
Someone tells us that something we created mattered, and some part of us begins gathering evidence for why they might be mistaken.
The pattern is the same.
Someone reaches toward us.
And instead of simply receiving the gesture, we step in and manage it.
We make it smaller.
More comfortable.
More acceptable.
Sometimes we do this because we do not want to be a burden.
Sometimes because we do not want to appear self-important.
Sometimes because giving has become the place where we feel safest.
The giver knows who she is.
She knows how to contribute.
She knows how to make things better.
Receiving asks something different.
It asks us to stay still.
To allow ourselves to be seen.
To allow another person’s experience of us to exist without immediately editing it.
And apparently, for some of us, that is a very different skill than giving.
I want to be careful here.
The answer is not to stop being generous.
It is not to become someone who takes without consideration.
That would simply create another imbalance.
Generosity is beautiful.
Care is beautiful.
Offering ourselves to something larger than ourselves is one of the best parts of being human.
But there is a difference between giving because we have something to offer...
and giving because receiving feels impossible.
One expands the exchange.
The other quietly interrupts it.
I am learning to notice the difference.
The thing I find most interesting about the interference is that it does not feel like rejection.
It feels like responsibility.
It feels like being thoughtful.
It feels like protecting the other person.
But sometimes the most respectful thing we can do is allow another person to make their own choice.
To trust their judgment.
To trust their generosity.
To trust their ability to know what matters to them.
Maybe that is what I was missing all along.
I thought receiving meant accepting something someone was doing for me.
Now I think receiving is accepting something someone has chosen for themselves.
Their resources.
Their appreciation.
Their support.
Their yes.
Those things belong to them.
And honoring them means letting them keep ownership of their choice.
I do not know that the interference ever disappears completely.
Maybe that is not the goal.
Maybe these moments are not problems to solve.
Maybe they are invitations to notice where an old story is still trying to have the final word.
The story says:
Be careful.
Do not ask for too much.
Do not make it uncomfortable.
Do not assume someone would choose you.
And then reality reveals more information.
Someone did choose you.
Someone did value this.
Someone did want to participate.
The work is not convincing ourselves to believe a new story.
The work is allowing the truth to count.
That may be the thing I am learning now.
Not how to become more worthy.
Not how to become better at asking.
Not even how to receive.
But how to stop arguing with what has already been offered.
The sponsor who says yes.
The client who wants to pay.
The neighbor who wants the eggs.
The person who says, “I appreciate you.”
The friend who shows up.
The opportunity that arrives.
What if we did not immediately reach in and adjust the exchange?
What if we allowed the other person’s yes to remain a yes?
I keep returning to that zoom room of women.
The ease with which they talked about asking.
The confidence that there were people who would want to be part of the work.
They were not trying to extract something from anyone.
They were creating an opening.
They were saying:
Here is something meaningful.
Would you like to stand alongside it?
And the people they asked were free to answer.
Yes.
No.
Not now.
Whatever their answer was, it belonged to them.
That is what made the exchange clean.
Maybe that is the lesson I am still practicing.
A clear ask.
A clear offer.
A clear yes.
And the willingness to leave all three alone.
No unnecessary apology.
No extra explanation.
No reaching back into the exchange to make it easier for me to accept.
Just letting it be what it already is.
I am still watching for the moment the interference begins.
That half-second where I reach to rearrange what was already whole.
But now I notice it.
And sometimes, instead of stepping in...
I let the exchange happen.
A few things I am sitting with:
Where do you advocate easily for something or someone you believe in, but go silent when the same energy is directed toward you?
Where might you be softening, discounting, or explaining away something another person has clearly chosen?
Whose yes might you be overriding because it feels easier to discount their generosity than to receive it?
What would change if receiving—payment, appreciation, gratitude, support—was not evidence that you had taken something...
but evidence that an exchange had become complete?
I do not think receiving is the opposite of giving.
I think they are part of the same movement.
Something offered.
Something received.
Something completed.
The next time someone wants to give you something—a compliment, a thank you, an opportunity, a dollar, a moment of trust—I wonder what would happen if you let their yes belong to them.
And let your role simply be this:
To receive it.
When people want to give you money, let them.
0 comments