The Tentacles of Obligation

Unpacking Relational and Transactional Languages: Purpose vs. Prove

Recap: Emma’s Case Study

Let’s revisit our previous case study to explore the final four unwritten rules that shape relational and transactional workplace interactions.

Emma, a senior marketing coordinator, had a strong performance record. However, when a new department manager, James, was hired, the dynamics began to change.

James adopted a transactional leadership style, characterized by:

• Dismissing team input
• Making unilateral decisions
• Creating a culture of exclusion and passive-aggressive behavior
• Setting unrealistic expectations

This shift made collaboration difficult and disrupted Emma’s sense of professional purpose.

Language Patterns and the Tentacles of Obligation

By applying the Tentacles of Obligation framework, we can analyze whether workplace dynamics are based on collaboration (relational) or self-interest (transactional). This helps us understand whether the environment fosters unity and mutual responsibility or promotes division and control.

Unwritten Rule Comparison: Relational vs. Transactional

Let’s explore the final four attributes using Emma’s situation:

Emma’s Relational Approach

Emma entered the role with a relational mindset, believing:

• Managers should collaborate, not control.
• Success comes from shared responsibility and respect.
• New leaders should support their teams and align with mutual goals.

She showed:

• Purpose: Working toward long-term team success.
• Maximized Effort: Highlighting James’ strengths despite concerns.
• Responsibility: Upholding professional standards and protocols.
• Relational Values: Assuming James would meet her halfway.

James’ Transactional Behavior

In contrast, James:

• Excluded Emma from discussions.
• Undermined her abilities.
• Dismissed her input.
• Focused on rights over responsibilities.

His behavior forced Emma to:

• Constantly prove her competence.
• Operate under unwritten rules she didn’t agree to.
• Feel undervalued, despite her efforts.

By shifting the focus onto himself, James distorted the relational norms and created an imbalance in power and language.

What Could Have Happened Differently?

If James had used relational language, he would have:

• Acknowledged Emma’s concerns.
• Clarified tasks instead of blaming.
• Taken responsibility for team outcomes.
• Built a respectful, collaborative work environment.

Instead, his transactional approach left Emma emotionally and professionally strained.

Why This Matters

This example illustrates the importance of shared relational language in the workplace. When both parties do not operate from the same unwritten rules, conflicts grow, and the need to “prove” replaces mutual purpose.

Maggie’s Legacy emphasizes that a healthy, productive workplace relies on both parties using relational language to create:

• Trust
• Shared success
• Long-term collaboration

Next Module Preview

What happens when someone like Emma doesn’t realize that relational and transactional languages are different — and instead tries to navigate both?

👉 Join us in the next module as we explore:

The Battle of the Tentacles of Obligation: The Psychological Cage