The basic idea of enriching interpersonal relationships by making the relationship a net gain for the other person is a great idea, but the "emotional bank account" analogy isn't the best.
If you view this in the naive sense of being owed more favors than you owe other people, you have to be the only one employing this strategy. If I have a positive "emotional" (favors) balance with you, you must therefore owe me favors and have a negative balance with me.
Unless you're the type of person, or in the type of relationship, that keeps track of favors owed, then the zero-sum bank account analogy falls down. A functioning relationship, working or personal, is built out of a series of positive-sum interactions. The kind of things the OP gives as examples of "deposits" (signs of respect, really). In that kind of relationship, once you've reached the level necessary to ask, and win, serious favors (the manager relocating to Orlando), that manager might have had more trust and respect after moving to Orlando, if only to maintain a consistent cognitive model (I must really trust and respect this guy, I moved to Orlando for him).
The basic concept can be summed up in 2 sentences: Do nice things for people and they'll do nice things for you. Treat them like crap or ask for too much too often and they'll treat you the same way in return. Which pretty much seems like common sense to me.
The idea of a give and take bank account balance is somewhat strange. I can see where the intent is with the metaphore, but I don't think it's an accurate, or, more importantly, entirely healthy one.
I prefer to keep my relationships a little more fluid, rather than keeping a record of who owes who how many favors. But maybe I'm in a unique situation with regards to my job, in that my employer is also a really great friend and it's pretty much a given that we'll both do all we can to help the other out, just because we like doing so.
great concept, especially for developers who tend to focus on content over process, and otherwise miss "the big picture."
"emotional" currency is more complex than actual money, since the two parties may disagree about what constitutes actual money (let alone disagree on valuation). this seems more problematic for personal rather than work relationships.
If you view this in the naive sense of being owed more favors than you owe other people, you have to be the only one employing this strategy. If I have a positive "emotional" (favors) balance with you, you must therefore owe me favors and have a negative balance with me.
Unless you're the type of person, or in the type of relationship, that keeps track of favors owed, then the zero-sum bank account analogy falls down. A functioning relationship, working or personal, is built out of a series of positive-sum interactions. The kind of things the OP gives as examples of "deposits" (signs of respect, really). In that kind of relationship, once you've reached the level necessary to ask, and win, serious favors (the manager relocating to Orlando), that manager might have had more trust and respect after moving to Orlando, if only to maintain a consistent cognitive model (I must really trust and respect this guy, I moved to Orlando for him).