One of the things that I have come late to in life is the understanding of a concept that I call "Transactionalism". My understanding of it in a clear way (I suspect it was always there) was brought about due to a relationship at work.
There was a particular co-worker with whom I had what I would call a "not very good" relationship in that they never seemed to engage on almost anything. At first I took this as a failure on my part - after all, I really work hard to make sure I have a good relationship with almost the entire world - and so I felt initially rebuffed by this. I doubled down on my attempts of engagement, only to find that the situation did not improve at all.
And then I noticed something: when this person needed or wanted something, they always engaged. And then went away again.
It was at that moment - or rather after a series of those moments and by observing their interactions with other people - I realized that this person interacted only when they needed a particular thing. When granted (or denied), they disappeared.
This, I suddenly realized, was Transactionalism.
---
Transactionalism (IPA: transactionalism): Interacting with another individual for a specific purpose only (TB Definition)
If I think about it, the idea of Transactionalism is not something that should surprise me. It is something I do multiple times a day in life. I greet people when I am entering the gym or in a checkout line. Maybe we exchange a short "How are you doing"? or comment about the weather, but that is about as far as it goes. We then carry on about our lives.
That said, the more the interaction matters, the more I tend to want to have more of a relationship.
We have been helped endlessly in New Home and at The Ranch with relationships that could have been argued to be transactional - service providers, renters - but were much, much more because of the relationship that surrounded the transaction. We got advice, suggestions, even things we were not charged for because of the transaction.
My assumption - perhaps wrong - is that the more time one spends in contact with a group of people, the less transactional those relationships will become. At some point, at least in my experience, human contact and relationship takes over the "we are in the same space every day and see each other every day). Maybe that is not with everyone - there are almost 200 people at my particular site of course - but there has often been this sort of shared involvement because of purpose or time spent, if nothing else.
But, apparently, that is not always true.
---
Understanding this about my colleague made things clearer and easier to manage in my mind.
The relationship for them is and never will be about a relationship beyond work: it is purely designed around "Can I get the thing from you that I need?" If they are seemingly engaged, it is not because there has been a sudden thaw in the relationship: I am needed for something. Likewise if I am not acknowledged for long periods of time, it is not because I have done anything wrong or become odious: I am not needed for something.
To someone who - in spite of introverted leanings - very much prefers at least some level of relationship with everyone no matter what is involved, this is a foreign concept to me. But one I have come to accept - after all, I cannot control anyone but myself.
---
It strikes me that Transactionalism makes for a very lonely world devoid of human interaction beyond the most basic of levels - but perhaps, given where we seem to be so often as a society, this is precisely the reason why we find ourselves where we are. Because when everything becomes a transaction, when so many of our transactions now are with automated items like ATMs and websites and self-checkouts, when all of our interactions are based purely and completely on our own benefit, we may in the end reap a great many rewards of efficiency and finance. But I wonder if we lose the emotional side, the side that makes interactions a thing worth having.
In the end, perhaps, the things that makes us human.
A cognizant observation TB, humanity requires humans.......all kinds eh?
ReplyDeleteIt does, Nylon12. I would also argue it involves relationship, at some level. Something it often feels like we are moving away from.
DeleteAn extremely interesting post, TB. As usual, your careful analysis is fascinating. So, (here we go) true confession here. I am usually the person like your co-worker. And I can somewhat identify the reasons for this. In a work or task-oriented situation, it is because I am a monotropic thinker, which means my attention intensely focuses on only one thing at a time. If something (or someone) interrupts, I have difficulty hanging on to my focus. My interactions must be brief and to the point so that my brain doesn't jump tracks and I lose my focus on what I'm supposed to be doing. I realize this comes across as rude, but it's something that is hardwired for my neurotype, and can't be retrained. So I can very much relate to your coworker. The kindest thing that can be done for such a one is to be helpful, kind, available, and don't ask for anything more.
ReplyDeleteRelationship. Maybe the thing to be examined is what do you mean by relationship(?) I perceive it as a somewhat intimate concept that requires some sort of emotional effort. If communication styles are different between two people, this can be uncomfortable, not to mention draining. Maybe there are different types or degrees of relationship in everyday interactions, or maybe it's okay if some interactions are simply on task but friendly and nothing more.
Leigh - Thanks, in turn, for your commentary and willingness to be open.
DeleteI suppose one thing you are pointing to is that we simply cannot really know - unless they tell us. I can certainly sympathize with the difficulty of hanging on to one's focus. Perhaps you are simply pointing the need to have grace in such times and not feel personally offended.
Relationship: I think what I am keying on in this specific circumstance is the sort of thing where someone only seeks you out if they specifically need something from you. Done enough, it makes me feel very much like a reference text or being used to advance a particular point or agenda without any context in the conversation. Over time, that sort of thing makes me very unwilling to offer more than the briefest of opinions or answers and not commit to anything.
Around here, Amish are notorious transactionalists, to the point as we see one coming down the road in a buggy, we start speculating on what they want.
ReplyDeleteAs someone who has always developed relationships with coworkers over time, I have often wondered if those transactionalists at work just had other friend groups outside of work and so didn't need to be anything but a transactionalist at work. I on the other hand didn't have large friend groups outside of work so needed something more than transactionalism in my work life.
Interesting Ed. I have never lived around Amish; I wonder what makes them that way. The idea of dealing in a very specific way with the world?
DeleteTransactionalists do have friends outside of work (but then again, I have known "friends" that were transactionalist. Like you, I do not have big friend groups and benefit from relationships inside and out of work.
I blame it on their religion. They believe "Englishmen", their term for us, are on the fast road to hell and so they want to limit their exposure to us by only coming to us when they need something.
DeleteI guess, viewed from that lens, it makes a certain amount of sense - but does kind of ruin the relationship aspect of it.
DeleteI've met a select few Amish who buck this trend a bit and I've gotten to know them well. One used to work on our farm for a number of years but now runs a lawnmower repair/resale shop where we get our farm lawnmowers serviced.
DeleteI am gobsmacked sometimes though at how sheltered lives they live. Once in a conversation with one, he asked what a violin was, never having heard of the term since the ones in my neck of the woods don't believe in music.
Ed, I would be surprised as well, but I already see signs of the generations behind us not believing that events from before their lifetime. In another 10 years, I am willing to be people do not believe one could ever have written a long form paper without AI.
DeleteI laugh whenever I hear the modern request (usually coming from a certain generation) for transactionalism…”Hey, do me a solid will ya?”.
ReplyDeleteWhen I saw your term “transactionalism” I immediately thought of the older term, “using people”, which usually denotes selfishness. Of course not all transactions are selfish.
AnonJ - That is the sort of phrase that can cover this sort of thing.
Delete"Using people" is perhaps a bit different in my mind in that it assumes a certain sort of selfishness, as you not. But I also think that Tranactionalist may not think of "using people" in that sense; they are just trying to get something done (which may or may not have selfish motives.