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.”

In the last few years, the term “cancel culture” has become quite common.

It seems to have originated in the late 2010s to describe ostracizing or boycotting an individual or company thought to have behaved in an unacceptable manner. The term became popular on social media and used by celebrities and political figures. For example, Bud Light experienced a canceling boycott as a result of its hiring of a transgender TikTok personality.

Some argue the act of canceling is effective because it serves as a modern form of publicly shaming counterproductive individuals and corporations. To the contrary, others argue canceling is tyranny that denies the target any opportunity for defense or recourse.

Whether it’s the centuries-old practice of shaming or modern-day canceling, the intent is typically dismissive and limits listening to each other.

Early in the 20th century “study circles” became popular in Sweden allowing citizens to fully participate in community and national dialogues. In these designated groups people with various perspectives on issues express their opinions and listen to understand opposing perspectives. Everyone’s view must be presented and all are heard, but personal attacks are not permitted throughout the sessions. If anyone feels offended by something said or done they are encouraged to explain how it affected them. Rather than listening to find flaws and develop arguments, people try to understand the other position.

Rather than listening to find flaws and develop arguments, people in study circles try to understand the other position.

Being heard reduces tensions and divisions; Canceling prevents such opportunities.