"How can you reduce relationships to mere transactions?"

​

Your protest misses the nuance of what a true transaction can represent. If we constrain the definition of a transaction to a narrow, short-term exchange, then yes, relationships would seem cold and calculating. However, when we expand our understanding to encompass a more holistic concept, the perspective shifts dramatically.

​

Consider a comprehensive win-win transaction: an arrangement between two or more people, sometimes explicitly stated, sometimes subtly understood, where each party independently concludes that the overall benefits—both immediate and long-term—outweigh the potential costs. In this broader view, transactions become the very fabric of good relationships.

​

I challenge you to identify a single good relationship that isn't fundamentally transactional. In fact, the most robust, enduring relationships are precisely those where the ongoing "transactions" consistently create mutual value. love, friendship, partnership—all involve intricate exchanges of emotional support, time, understanding, care, and shared experiences.

​

The more these exchanges genuinely benefit all involved, the deeper and more resilient the relationship becomes. It's creating a dynamic where everyone's fundamental needs and desires are met, where each interaction leaves all parties feeling more enriched than before.

​

Transactions, when viewed through this lens, are not cold calculations but the living, breathing mechanisms of human connection.

​

​​

Even even win-lose or lose-lose interactions are transactional

​

Consider an extreme scenario: a gunman confronting you with the ultimatum, "Your money or your life." This is not a win-win interaction, yet it remains fundamentally transactional. The gunman calculates, at least short-term, that the potential financial gain outweighs the risks of his criminal and hurtful action. Simultaneously, you evaluate that, long-term, surrendering your money is preferable to risking your life.

​

​

My family drama

​

In 1979, a deeply personal family drama illustrates a similarly complex transactional dynamic. My mother, Dorothy, informed her mother, Beebe, of her intention to divorce my father, Jack. Beebe's response was telling: "Dorothy, you can't do that. He needs you."

​

My mother chose to remain in the marriage for five more miserable years before she finally left him, not because the arrangement benefited her, except for the "benefit" of possibility avoiding her mother's disapproval.

​

Special note: I didn't learn about this until after my mother finally left my father five years later in 1984. If I had, I would have called my mother and asked permission to discuss it with her. I think I could have helped her see that her thinking was short-term and based primarily on avoiding possible blame rather than on having a happier life.

​

This interaction reveals a profound truth: transactions, most commonly non-commercial ones, are fairly often not win-win in the context of each person's #1 job being to take care of themselves, considering both short-term and long-term. Yet they are transactions nonetheless—calculated exchanges (even if done quickly) where each party, however unconsciously, weighs perceived benefits against potential losses.

​​

​

Claiming that good relationships are composed of win-win transactions

​

We tend to think of transactions as more short-term and involving just a few parameters to consider, as in trading some money for an apple. We need to consider the bigger pictures, looking longer-term to make the better transactional choices for ourselves in our relationships with others. In addition, most of us need to significantly reduce the weight we tend to put on the short-term benefits of either getting approval or avoiding disapproval from others. A willingness to look bad, at least in the short-term, if vital in supporting our ability to make the best choices for having the best life, including the best relationships.

​

​

Quite often we may forget we have a good deal when we do have a good deal

​

During a coaching session, I was speaking with a woman who was upset about her husband's recurring habit of forgetting to complete tasks he had promised her. I asked her, "While you might find ways to improve communication that reduces these oversights, let's take a broader view. When you consider all the benefits and drawbacks in your relationship, would you say you have a fundamentally good deal with your husband, regardless of this specific behavioral pattern?"

​

She reflected and affirmed that yes, she did have a good deal and a good relationship. This realization allowed her to gain emotional distance from the specific frustration. By staying grounded in the overall positive nature of her marriage, she became calmer and more constructive. She recognized that from this centered perspective, she could more effectively and creatively explore ways to enhance their communication and mutual understanding.

​

​

On the other side, sometime people have made an overall bad deal and they need to get out

​

In the big picture, the idea that some people should accept a bad deal is still propagated by the Old Ethics of Sacrifice. If this idea still makes sense to you, please read Premise 1: Your #1 job is to take care of yourself, one of the foundational premises of the New Ethics of Integrity.

​​

Consequently, if in the big picture, you don't have a good deal in your relationship with someone, it's part of your #1 to change the nature of that relationship, which includes the option of ending it, so that you are taking care of yourself.

​

​

But what if there's a chance you could have a good deal with someone?

​

Consider a complex marital situation. Imagine a wife who, up to a certain point, felt she had a good marriage. Then her husband develops a fentanyl addiction, creating significant disruptions in their relationship and raising serious concerns about the impact on their three young children.

​

After discussing the issue, her husband agrees to enter a rehabilitation program. The critical question becomes: Should she and her children continue to live with him?

​

On the one hand, it could turn out that taking the chance of their relationship returning to a "good deal for her and the children" level within an acceptable period of time turned out favorably. 

​

On the other hand, it could turn out unfavorably.

​

If she is happy to play that game, going for the favorable outcome but being okay if does turn out as intended and then separating, then she is deciding that she has a good deal in deciding to take those risks and play that game.

​

However, if she cannot take that on happily, the should cut her losses now and create the best possible separation with her husband.

​

​

The best relationships are those we each person thinks they have the better deal

​

To create and maintain these great win-win relationships, it's essential to have good approaches and good tools. That's what several of the most important toolkits in The 14:24 Guest House provide to you, especially the Oneself-Others Integrity Toolkit and the Man-Woman Integrity Toolkit.

​

A few of the more specific tools inside these toolkits include:

 

Partnership Conversation,

Saying "no,"

Making requests

Your #1 job,

100% responsible,

Good boundaries,

Undoing fear,

Undoing expectations,

Undoing defensiveness,

Undoing impatience,

Do you have a good deal?,

Are you willing to walk away?,

Are you messing in another's business?,

How to interrupt yourself?,

Listen twice-speak once, and

Undoing guilt.

​

​

Win-Win Principles Extend Beyond Personal Relationships

​

When engaging with companies, organizations, and countries, the fundamental win-win concept remains relevant, but with a critical distinction. Unlike personal relationships, these entities typically have pre-established conditions that define the parameters of interaction, benefits, and costs.

​

These organizational frameworks are not entirely rigid. Your ability to navigate them can be enhanced by specific strategies, such as consulting experts who understand the system's nuances. Lawyers, for instance, can provide invaluable guidance when dealing with governmental bureaucracies. If you're fortunate enough to communicate directly with an organizational representative, you might have some room for persuasion or negotiation.

​

However, the core reality is that most organizations operate within structured systems with predetermined engagement conditions. Your primary responsibility is to carefully assess these conditions and determine whether the potential benefits outweigh the costs relative to your alternative options.

​

​

An example

​

For instance, I currently reside in Da Nang, Vietnam, having made this city my home since June 2023. Da Nang represents just one of hundreds—perhaps thousands—of potential locations where I could establish myself. While Vietnam offers numerous advantages compared to my alternative options, there is one particular administrative requirement that adds complexity: maintaining my visa.

​

Every 90 days, I must take a day trip to Bangkok, Thailand, to exit and re-enter Vietnam. This process involves obtaining an exit stamp in my passport and returning with a new visa, which costs $25 USD. Though some might argue this requirement seems unnecessary, I've chosen to view it differently.

​

Instead of becoming frustrated by this bureaucratic obligation, I've transformed it into an opportunity. The visa run has become a minor adventure, a periodic journey that breaks my routine and offers a small change of scenery. While I could theoretically construct arguments against this requirement, I recognize that such protests would be futile.

​

More importantly, the minimal inconvenience pales in comparison to the substantial benefits I enjoy in Vietnam. The visa process is simply a small price to pay for the rich experiences, lower cost of living, and unique lifestyle I've chosen. I've secured an excellent arrangement, and a quarterly trip to Bangkok is a small trade-off for my overall quality of life.​​​​​​​​

​