Two Worlds
Transactional | Relational
Curiosity, commerce, and the power of human relationships
— Clay Hipp
“While conquest is a finite game, played for the pleasure of the win, curiosity is an infinite game, played for the pleasure of finding things out.”
Dear Reader,
When you read the title, what do you make of it?
Ponder it for a few moments more.
If nothing is coming, then perhaps it is simply that, for whatever reason, the critical words are not “speaking” to you.
So, if someone were to ask you:
“Are they the same thing (world), or is the title suggesting that they might be two separate concepts—two different worlds?”
Let’s explore that—perhaps an anecdote might help.
As I was studying, and later teaching, in a business environment, one of the fascinating subjects that I had never thought much about was the effect of cultural differences on the commercial world.
First it reminded me of the prevailing American image (in my growing up) of Japanese products—seemingly overnight—changing from cheap toys and little autos to finely engineered vehicles and highly desired stereo products.
I was somewhat amazed when my favorite, most desired, automobile was a Datsun 240Z. After serving in Vietnam, I bought two very large Sansui stereo speakers with twelve-inch “woofers” and carried them home as part of my personal baggage.
Hey, I was always a Chevy guy who played music on vinyl 45 and 33 rpm records on an American record changer from RCA Victor.
My first model train was a heavy metal set with only a few cars and enough track for a big oval, made in the early 1950s by Lionel. Within five years, my younger brother came home from a sleepover to report that his friend had a set with multiple cars, side buildings, and enough flexible track to make bridges and figure eights.
I asked him, “Is your friend’s family rich?”
At first I was impressed and jealous. But when I picked up the engine, it was plastic and easily flipped over. It was made by Tomytec, a Japanese company.
I kept my Lionel for years.
See where that early image of “cheapness” came from? My people were proud of buying American-made goods.
My 240Z changed everything.
Then, as I studied business marketing and international sales, I learned—and of course taught my students—that the aggressive manner of U.S. business managers might not serve them well when dealing with firms from other countries.
We read a case study told by an experienced American manager of international sales.
Early in his career, he flew to Japan to sell his company’s products. He had a tight schedule and an ambitious sales goal. He tried to make three or four stops a day, close deals quickly, and return home within a couple of days.
Short story?
On virtually every call, there was very courteous treatment, much bowing, and seemingly genuine interest in his product.
At the end of the hour he would say something like:
“So, we have a deal?”
In almost every case he was told:
“We should meet again tomorrow over lunch and learn more about each other and your company.”
As we learned from other similar scenarios, this was the cultural approach—leading slowly toward a true meeting of the minds.
I would ask my students:
“What do we learn from this account?”
My more astute students would eventually conclude that some cultures prefer engaging in commercial dealings only after gaining some understanding of the person and organization with whom they would be dealing with contractually.
One young man said what he took away was that learning the culture might benefit him and his company through higher sales and repeat business—even though it “cost” more in time.
Then one of my very fine and thoughtful female students (after the guys had gotten their say) went to the heart of the matter. She gently said:
“ I have always hated bargaining—haggling over price.”
(This “disinterested” person stopped short of voicing his bottom line: “Rather than thinking in terms of ‘paying the price,’ I would prefer ‘investing in the future.”)
My hope was always that my students might learn something of lasting value—professionally, of course, but perhaps personally as well.
So, have we moved any closer to answering my query?
Just so you know, this is not simply some academic linguistic puzzle we are exploring.
Almost every important issue in life involves human interaction.
What if we discover that some people instinctively prefer transactions over relationships? (Our earlier example above seems to mirror that conclusion— consider how the negotiations unfolded).
One of the ideas that triggered my thinking about this (the rest is too complicated to cover here) came from a TED talk by philosopher Michael Sandel titled Why We Should Not Trust Markets with Our Civic Life.
Sandel argues that markets do a reasonably good job allocating goods and services—but there are significant dangers in applying market logic to the important facets of our communal lives. He gives a number of good examples, and I recommend this as a primer.
His bottom line seems to be that some of our most pressing necessities should not be “commoditized,” and he proceeds to explain why.
If we return to my title, I am suggesting that we should spend time examining those parts of our lives that can be understood through the rational workings of our minds (the markets) and those that are better considered in terms of our relationships to others—and how we might make our lives together richer by considering the needs of others as well as our own.
Some would say that a good bit more compassion might help.
Please allow me to introduce a somewhat controversial perspective that may help us see, and perhaps better understand, what is being explored here.
In my formative years as a teacher in the world of business education, I experienced many revelatory moments. Here is one of them:
In her influential book In a Different Voice: Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (1982), psychologist Carol Gilligan challenged traditional raditional psychological theories, particularly Lawrence Kohlberg's stages of moral development, by arguing they were biased towards a male-centric "ethic of justice".
Gilligan proposed that women often develop an "ethic of care," emphasizing relationships, responsibility, and context, which was previously seen as a less mature form of moral reasoning but which she argued is a distinct and equally valid perspective.
The book was revolutionary because it gave voice to women's experiences and influencing gender studies, education, and political debate by highlighting the importance of relational morality.
A recent example can be found in a series of New York Times articles written in the mid-teens by Sheryl Sandberg and Adam Grant titled Women at Work.
Earlier, Sandburg had become known for challenging women in business to “lean in”, meaning, in part, to become more aggressive in order to get their voices heard.
Grant, a sociologist, found her work flawed, in effect, strongly implying that she was suggesting that to be successful women must mimic the styles of their male colleagues.
His motivation stemmed from his research and others that the workplace needed both approaches to make the organizations function most effectively if not immediately seeming to be as “efficient”.
Their splendid collaborations should be required reading for anyone negotiating the wild world of business and/or wanting to be a better leader (they include many excellent examples).
Some of the conclusions reached by researchers are stunning:
“When more women lead, performance improves. Start-ups led by women are more likely to succeed; innovative firms with more women in top management are more profitable; and companies with more gender diversity have more revenue, customers, market share and profits. A comprehensive analysis of 95 studies on gender differences showed that when it comes to leadership skills, although men are more confident, women are more competent.”
This idea of two ways of approaching life returns us to my earlier query.
For me personally, I see it reflected in our current geopolitical and governmental predicament.
Many of our leaders quite literally appear to prefer a transactional world in which one side must give something in return to reach lasting agreements.
Relationships seem to play a diminishing role. Power becomes the dominant currency.
(Perhaps even “complete surrender” is the quid pro quo).
My bottom line. We are at this moment destroying long-lasting international partnerships which have lasted despite tremendous national differences.
Why?
We once relied heavily on diplomacy—on the magnificent work of our Department of State and the quiet efforts of ambassadors.
At the same time we have made politically based differences to become worse than ever.
Division has become the preferred political mathematics of our time.
Which world would you rather live in?
I choose relationships every time.
While Sandberg seemed to suggest that women should get in touch with their masculine side, Grant appeared to argue that perhaps men ought to take research and experience into consideration and consider emulating the ways of those who speak “in a different voice.”
A wise speaker once said:
“The woman most in need of liberation is the woman inside every man.”
Maybe a bit to glib, but worth thinking about in a world that increasingly seems to want every problem resolved as a done deal.
— ✦ —
For me, a better world is one that begins when curiosity and human connection matters more than conquest.