We Can’t Organize Transactionally

It’s tempting—especially for those of us trained in academia or the corporate world —to treat relationships like transactions.

Show up.
Do the work.
Get the output.

We’ve been schooled in systems where relationships often are transactional. Students ask, “Is this on the test?” and we get annoyed, but we also designed the system that made that question rational. Publish or perish. Grants in, papers out. Inputs and outputs.

But organizing doesn’t work that way.
And trust definitely doesn’t.

When we’re asking people to take action—especially actions that carry risk—we have to move at the [speed of trust](https://bookshop.org/p/books/the-thin-book-of-trust-third-edition-an-essential-primer-for-building-trust-at-work-charles-feltman/21088963, not the speed of urgency.

Why Trust Matters More in Organizing

Organizing asks us to work across difference.
Across identity.
Across culture.
Across lived experience.

And science has not always treated people well. There is a real and painful history of scientific racism, sexism, ableism, and eugenics. There are communities who have every reason to be cautious around scientists showing up with clipboards and “solutions.”

So if we show up only when we need signatures, attendance numbers, or donations, people feel that. They’re not wrong.

Transactional relationships might get you a big turnout once.
Transformational relationships keep people with you when things get hard.

The “Unsexy” Work of Base-Building

There are moments when we need rallies, protests, rapid response.

And there are long stretches where the work is quieter:

• Offering trainings
• Deepening political education
• Checking in one-on-one
• Practicing new tactics together
• Building shared language and trust

This slower work can feel unglamorous. It doesn’t always produce impressive numbers. But it produces something more important: relationships strong enough to hold risk.

If we only show up when we need something, people fall away.
If we stay in relationship, we build power.

Scientists Know This Problem—Just Not Always About Ourselves

Many scientists worry about [declining public trust in science](https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2024/11/14/public-trust-in-scientists-and-views-on-their-role-in-policymaking/.

But sometimes we frame that decline as a failing of “the public,” instead of asking harder questions about how we relate to people. If our engagement is transactional—only appearing when we need buy-in or funding—why would communities trust us?

This shows up clearly in what science communication scholars call the deficit model: the belief that if people just had the right facts, they would change their minds. It treats audiences like empty vessels waiting to be filled.

But communication isn’t a data transfer.
It’s a relationship.

And relationships change both people.

Being Willing to Be Changed

Transformational relationships require something uncomfortable:

We have to be open to becoming a different version of ourselves in the encounter.

Not abandoning our expertise. Not pretending all knowledge is equal. But recognizing that other people are experts in their own lives, cultures, and experiences—and that listening might change us.

This is the same posture that makes science communication more inclusive and organizing more effective:

• Asking questions
• Being curious
• Listening deeply
• Taking accountability when we mess up

From Transactional to Transformational

A transactional interaction asks:
“Can I get your signature?”

A transformational interaction asks:
“Can I know your story?”

Community organizers call this deep canvassing or relational organizing. Instead of trying to win an argument, you listen to someone’s experiences, their fears, their hopes. You connect shared values before shared positions.

Research shows this approach is actually more persuasive—but more importantly, it builds real relationships. Both people leave changed.

The World We Want Requires Different Relationships

We often focus on what we need to do: the next rally, the next petition, the next policy fight.

But we also have to ask: Who are we becoming in the process?

“Look closely at the present you are constructing: it should look like the future you are dreaming.” ― Alice Walker

Transactional relationships won’t build the world we deserve.
Transformational ones just might.

That means moving at the speed of trust.
It means tending relationships even when there’s no immediate “ask.”
It means being willing to be changed, not just trying to change others.

In organizing—and in science—how we relate to people is not a side detail.
It is the work.

An Invitation to Practice This Together

If transformational relationships are the world we want, then we have to practice them somewhere. We have to build spaces where listening is normal, where we’re allowed to be unfinished, and where we take small, doable steps in solidarity instead of trying to do everything alone.

That’s what our Scientists in Solidarity Action Hours are for.

They’re not just meetings. They’re spaces to get grounded, find your people, and practice organizing at the speed of trust—together.

If you’ve been wanting a place to plug in without being pressured to be perfect or have all the answers, you’re warmly invited to join us.

Register for the next Action Hour here:
https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/wxnDlXzhQHypIwScvcnRNg

Come as you are. Bring your questions, your worries, your curiosity.
We’ll build the relationships—and the world—we want, one hour at a time.