Who’s Really There?

Communication difficulties often start because we see who we think is there but don’t actually take the time to find out who we are really relating with (or not!).

Eric Berne, the founder of Transactional Analysis, said that “In order to say Hello, you first get rid of all the trash which has accumulated in your head ever since you came home from the maternity ward, and then you recognise that this particular Hello will never happen again” (What Do You Say After You Say Hello, 1984). The “trash” consists of all the messages we have received, all the experiences we have had and how we have translated and made sense of them, in order to get by in the world as we see it.

In order to get by we have developed a frame of reference, a way of seeing the world that, in the long run, may or may not be helpful. In so doing we can believe that all people who are like this, or like that, are the same or similar. These projections and assumptions are quick to make and mean that we can maintain our frame of reference. This means that we don’t have to find out who, and how, people really are.

In the work place management and leadership have to make many decisions and, if we need to make a joint decision, many of us try to convert other people to our way of thinking. Conflict ensues and there is a tendency to polarise. We have very little understanding about why someone may think they way they do and we may write them off by saying “They would say that” etc. How different it would be if we put down our assumptions and prejudices and found out how the other person or people got to that decision, rather than trying to convert them to our way. After all is someone has been raised in Thailand, another in Poland, another from an Asian British culture it is to be expected that we will all have a different perspective and a way of doing something. We need to find out about each other first so that we can understand different perspectives and find the merits of these before promoting just our own view. This way we can move to a co-creative process taking the benefits of each and probably come out with a better solution.

When we don’t know someone, or don’t understand them, it is easy to write them off. How do we feel when we are dismissed and “written off”? I know I don’t like it and therefore aim not to do this to others. After all, maintaining all the “trash” we have accumulated since the maternity ward is actually a loss to us all, the organisation included and is a much bigger risk than dumping the “trash”. To do this I need to be aware of my own prejudices and assumptions about men, women, culture, ability, gender and be prepared to be known and to know others.

I have heard some say “We don’t have time to get to know and understand where others are coming from”. Well, actually, we don’t have time not to as so much time is wasted by conflict, or just plain resentment and passivity. As we do take the time to get to know with whom we are working and understand how come they got to that conclusion the process will become easier and the decision making quicker. In addition the outcomes are likely to be more creative and dynamic with an increase in respect for each other.


Mountain Associates facilitate open-workshops on a range of subject areas based on the application of Transactional Analysis. Do get in touch if you are interested in courses, coaching or supervision of coaches. We look forward to hearing from you.

Who Shall I Rescue Today?

How often have you gone to help someone and ended up feeling persecuted by them? If this has happened to you it may be that you did not ask the other person if they needed your assistance before assuming what they needed.

Karpman (1968) devised a simple diagram for analysing the “games” that people get into with each other. (In Transactional Analysis a game is a familiar pattern of behaviour with a predictable outcome). Karpman uses three roles as in a play or drama, namely Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim.

Are you one of life’s Rescuers? You think that someone else really needs your assistance and help them without checking whether this is appropriate. Alternatively they may need your help but not as much as you give. The position of Rescuer always discounts someone else’s ability to problem solve. It may be that you seem to be the one who does a lot of the organising on your team’s behalf, when in fact it would be more appropriate to spread this around between everyone.

Perhaps when you did organise an event or task you may not have got the outcome that others wanted and they have a go at you for this. If this happens you may feel bad and move down into the Victim position, which is in fact where you had put your colleagues or staff by thinking that you have to do everything. Your colleagues then move up into the Persecutor position. This feels a far more powerful place than being in Victim which is why people will make that switch.

So by getting involved on the Drama Triangle you can think that you are incapable, think others are incapable or hold others responsible for not looking after you “properly”. Once in any of the three positions - Persecutor, Rescuer or Victim - we can keep going round the Triangle indefinitely.

Often there is one position which we take up more than any of the others. Sometimes we don’t switch round. For example a partnership where one person always decides what is going to happen and when. In these instances there is usually an unspoken agreement that the one partner will look after the other. This “agreement” means that one person takes on the Compliant mode within the relationship whilst the other takes on the Critical or Over-Indulgent mode, thus creating a dependency. When one person tires of this then the roles on the Drama Triangle can start to show. Until this point there may be an unspoken agreement to use just two of the roles, for example, those of Rescuer and Victim, and only later does one of the players switch to Persecutor.

The way to avoid being on the Drama Triangle is to become aware when you and/or others may be discounting self, others or the reality of the situation. For more about this see the Transactional Analysis pages on our web site: www.mountain-associates.co.uk or take a look at some of the excellent books on TA that are around at the moment.

You may be interested to know that our own book on Organizational TA will be published in 2009. Keep an eye on our web site for more details.



Reference:

Stephen Karpman, (1968), “Fairy tales and script drama analysis”. TAB, 7,26, 1968, 39-43