The Tentacles of Obligation
Unpacking the Relational and Transactional Languages of Purpose vs. Prove
- Recap: Case Study — Emma and James
In our previous module, we introduced Emma, a senior marketing coordinator at a mid-sized firm, and James, her new department manager.
- Emma had long been a high-performing, collaborative employee.
- When James arrived, he introduced a transactional leadership style, making unilateral decisions and often dismissing team input.
- Over time, patterns of exclusion, passive-aggressive behavior, and unrealistic expectations made collaboration difficult.
Using the Tentacles of Obligation Framework, we can evaluate their communication patterns to determine whether their interactions reflect:
- Relational language (collaboration, trust)
- Transactional language (self-interest, control)
- Understanding the Remaining Unwritten Rules
Let’s explore the final four unwritten rules that shape workplace behavior:
- 🔹 Purpose vs. Prove
- 🔹 Maximize vs. Minimize
- 🔹 Responsible vs. Rights
These reveal how trust, motivation, and leadership styles either foster unity or lead to division.
- Emma’s Perspective: Relational Language in Action
Emma entered her role with a relational mindset, shaped by expectations of:
- Mutual respect
- Shared responsibility
- Collaborative leadership
She believed that:
- Managers should guide and acknowledge contributions
- Success is achieved through teamwork, not hierarchy
- Professionalism means supporting leaders constructively
Even as James’ behavior affected morale, Emma continued to:
- Highlight his strengths
- Maintain her integrity
- Support team objectives
Her language reflected key relational attributes:
- Purpose: Focused on shared goals and team building
- Maximize: Committed to organizational success
- Responsibility: Continued fulfilling her duties, despite difficulty
- James’ Behavior: Transactional Language in Motion
James operated from a transactional mindset, characterized by:
- Self-promotion and control
- Avoiding responsibility
- Pressuring Emma to prove her worth
When Emma sought direction or raised concerns, James:
- Dismissed her feedback
- Accused her of misunderstanding
- Undermined her abilities
- Prioritized his rights as a manager over team development
His language revealed:
- Prove: Emma was constantly justifying herself
- Minimize: Her contributions were downplayed
- Rights: He focused on his title and entitlements
- The Clash of Unwritten Rules
Emma and James were not speaking the same language.
- Emma: “We are a team.”
- James: “It’s all about me.”
This disconnect led to:
- A power imbalance
- Constant emotional pressure on Emma
- A breakdown in trust and communication
Had James engaged in relational language, he would have:
- Validated Emma’s contributions
- Clarified expectations
- Shared responsibility for the team’s dynamics
Instead, his transactional approach left Emma feeling:
- Undervalued
- Micromanaged
- Constantly pressured to perform without recognition
- Maggie’s Legacy Insight
A productive and respectful workplace requires:
- Mutual use of relational language
- Reciprocal trust, effort, and communication
- Awareness of how language shapes culture and morale
When only one party operates relationally, the imbalance breeds conflict, confusion, and stress.
Maggie’s Legacy teaches that both leaders and team members play a role in sustaining healthy, collaborative environments.
- Coming Next: Navigating Both Languages
What happens if Emma doesn’t realize that relational and transactional languages are two distinct systems—and tries to use both at once?
In our next module, we explore:
The Battle of the Tentacles of Obligation
and how it creates the psychological cage—a space where individuals feel trapped, emotionally and professionally.