The Nanny’s Delusion

A nanny’s child fell ill, but there were no hospital beds available. After the employer put in a good word, a bed was arranged for her.

Years later, when the child recovered and it was time for school, the nanny figured: “You know people. Could you not just introduce us to someone who can help process the enrollment? It shouldn’t be that hard.”

The employer just smiled, said nothing, and fired the nanny at the end of the month. A replacement was hired.

It’s a fascinating story. Why?

The nanny simply couldn’t understand it. In your eyes, both requests were trivial favors. Why did you help me last time, but refuse this time?

Economists call this the nanny’s illusion.

The nanny views the situation from the angle of whether the task is easy or difficult for the other person to accomplish. But she fails to consider another dimension: does the matter actually align with the other person’s own interests?

Why did the employer help arrange a hospital bed for the nanny?

Because if the child’s illness dragged on, the nanny would be distracted, which would degrade her work performance and, ultimately, harm the employer’s own interests.

You can’t fire a nanny every time her child catches a cold. People eat rice and drink water—every household encounters illness. You’d get a new nanny, only to face the same problem again.

It was out of consideration for his own interests that the employer stepped in.

Now you’re telling me your child wants to attend a top-tier school, to climb the social ladder. Pray tell, what does that have to do with the employer’s interests?

When something has nothing to do with the employer’s interests, yet you still come asking for help, that only shows the nanny lacks clarity—and a sense of boundaries.

A person without boundaries is a liability. Left around, they’ll eventually cause trouble. To eliminate the risk, it’s better to part ways early.

Consider this real-world scenario:

A director at Client A has been grinding away at tasks assigned by the top executives day after day,while his wife teaches at a university more than a hundred kilometers away. The two have lived apart for ten years, seeing each other only on weekends.

Did the top bosses at Client A’s group know about this?

Yes, they did.

Could they have helped resolve it? Actually, they had the means.With a bit of maneuvering, transferring her to a different university was entirely feasible.

But did they do it? No.

Why wouldn’t they help someone so close to them?

The answer is straightforward: in the eyes of the top leaders, it wasn’t necessary. Would helping him actually make him work harder and put in more overtime? Would it?

Probably not. Living apart and being weekend spouses might, in fact, allow this director to travel frequently for work and stay late at the office with greater convenience. After all, on weekdays he’d be home alone anyway, with no one to complain.

If the bosses had really helped relocate his wife to another institution and reunited the couple, would the director truly become more dedicated at work? Or would he simply settle into a healthier work–life balance?

Likely the latter.

So it’s better to let them remain apart.

You’re separated, perfectly free to focus on overtime—what’s wrong with that?

Just because it’s bad for you doesn’t mean it’s bad from the boss’s perspective. After all, clients are always short on willing workers.