JUST WHAT DOES “TRANSACTIONAL” MEAN?

Lately I’ve been asked about the use of the word “transactional” and how it applies to conflict management.

The etymology of the word is from the Latin “transigere,” meaning, “to drive through” or “to accomplish.” The word first came into use during the 1850s. It’s now commonly used in business to refer to relationships where each party ”gives and gets” something of value.

On the surface that seems equable, but there are at least three other considerations.

First, transactional relationships are based solely on reciprocity. No consideration is given to morals, ethics, or any principle.

Second, there is no emotional component or personal investment to a transactional relationship. The parties do not have to like or respect one another.

Third, transactional relationships are by definition limited in time by the reciprocity. When either or both parties no longer ”gets,” the relationship is dissolved and no further interactions is desired nor expected. This third consideration is in stark contrast to contemporary conflict management and negotiation theory, which stresses the value of long-term mutual benefit and relationship development.

A person who values transactional negotiation and relationships values the immediate deal and has no interest in developing long term connections because there are always ”new deals to be made.”