In this paper, we will begin with the concept of asymmetry in social relationships (starting from family and group contexts) and then focus on the presence of symmetric and asymmetric relationships in professional settings (work contexts). By symmetry in interpersonal relationships, we mean a similarity/mirroring (but not coincidence) of conditions and experiences, in relation to an axis consisting of rules and principles of reference of the group, whereby the same conditions, opportunities, and conformity of treatment are recognised for the individual elements. By asymmetry in interpersonal relationships, we refer to all those behaviours that create, recognise, value, or discriminate against the differences among the individual elements of a group. The first part describes a form of "imprinting" on symmetry-asymmetry that provides the individual with "primitive reference paradigms" capable of subsequently influencing social interactions. These significant past experiences are sedimented over time, reinforcing an approach of substantial openness or closure towards symmetry-asymmetry. Following personalised paths, this approach is subsequently modified, integrated, and refined through the educational process and professional activities. The central body of the paper addresses concrete situations of symmetry and asymmetry in the workplace. Starting with asymmetries related to the concept of hierarchy and pyramidal structure, we then discuss asymmetric relationships among colleagues of equal rank and between workers and managerial figures. Afterwards, we briefly explore the connection between asymmetry and discrimination in work contexts, then we move on to the advantages of symmetry and a concise taxonomy of relational asymmetry in the workplace. The reflection concludes with the awareness that the symmetrical-fair-just connection is not automatic, nor is the asymmetrical-unfair-unjust connection. Social symmetry is neither good nor bad, just as asymmetry in interpersonal relationships is neither fair nor unfair.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Gianfaldoni et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: