bles are turned. Through the words of the group, understanding begins to form. Their concern of an increase in manager workload lessens; they now see this is part of the usual employee evaluation process. Their concern in losing employees from direct work to training lessens; the work will continue by using overtime or making other personnel available in time of need. Understanding is complete through their words and their agreement forms. A new issue arises, how will the training labor be paid- direct or indirect?The managers do not object to using some direct funding for training, but are sure that is not enough. Unknown to them, but known to me, is that some overhead funds are set to be available to support employee labor for program. Rather than make such information known now, this issue becomes an action item for another time. The goal of this meeting, to gain understanding and agreement by the managers, is complete. How one pays for the program is not an issue for now. The resolution of the new issue can confirm the understanding and agreement of the old. The moral here is that upon achieving the goal, fight the new need on another day.ConclusionThe transactional model enables one to not only perform, but also understand and prepare, for dynamic communications. It includes the rhetorical model, but expands ones vision to that of others when seeking resolution or mutual agreement among others. Both models are a part of this transaction and show the need for systems thought. The results of any message, though, are never complete until another interprets it as intended. Feedback is necessary to confirm receipt of the message, in this case understanding and agreement by a group. In this transaction, the feedback is not only agreement from the meeting, but by what continues thereafter. The feedback of success here appears evident by the lingering conversations after the meeting. The managers chats are positive and su...
