Getting In Your Own Way

Our beliefs can keep us from achieving what we want to achieve.  How many times do you say to yourself: 

Ø      I won’t be able to do that

Ø      People like me don’t make it

Ø      I didn’t get a degree so I’m not intelligent enough to….. 

Our thoughts prevent us from getting where we want to be.  These self-limiting beliefs are just that – beliefs.  However, we act as if they are facts and live our lives by them.   

Other beliefs include things like: 

Ø      If I enjoy myself today something awful will happen

Ø      I can’t do that until I’ve done ……. (e.g. all the work)

Ø      I tried that before and it didn’t work then and so I won’t bother again

Ø      I did succeed in doing………… but it wasn’t worth it

Ø      I did get there but now I see I that I need to be moving on to the next goal (the outcome of which is dissatisfaction) 

These beliefs are all part of our script.  The “script” in Transactional Analysis occurs when we make decisions when young, based on limited life experience, and live our lives accordingly.   

So, if you want to progress and experience being stuck, explore your beliefs about success.  Are you allowed to be successful?  What is success to you?  According to other people are you already successful but you don’t feel it?  What do you believe would happen if you became successful?  Are you “allowed” to be happy and successful?  What are you discounting that reinforces your belief that you’re not, or can’t be, successful?  What do you need to account that would help you shift your self-limiting beliefs?  (You may need to ask people who know you about this one!). 

Get in touch and share how changing your beliefs about self, others and life, has helped you move forward and own your success.

Buy our book today direct from our website, Amazon or Gower:  Working Together, Organizational Transactional Analysis and Business Performance.  There’s a free download chapter on our website:  www.mountain-associates.co.uk  Come to our guest workshop on Managing & Using Emotions in Organisations on 19 April, 2012, with Olivier Montadat from Paris and our next Developmental/Organisational TA module in May on The Politics of Attachment.  See our website for further information.

Making the Shift

How often do you feel that the other person you are relating has the upper hand in the dialogue?  Perhaps your role is new to that organisation, or your ideas don’t seem to fit in with that culture.  At such times the temptation is to either withdraw or fight.  Neither option is really effective.  Instead here’s an idea for you. 

I have just been facilitating a seminar for directors and shared with them this idea which was found to be valuable.   

You are sharing your opinion about a project with someone who discounts you and your views.  They seem to misunderstand you, your role and/or your perspective.  Rather than feeling angry or demoralised I invite you to consider this as an educational issue and keep yourself and them okay.  Then, having done a quick bit of positive internal self-talk, go for the idea of a mini-contracting process with them.   Let’s say the person you are talking with is called Peter and you are Chris.  Here’s what it might look like:

Peter: (Discounting your and your professional and organisational role) We’ve got this issue sorted really.  What you are offering doesn’t really fit with our frame of reference but I’m sure we can find a way of appeasing X/Y on this one.

Chris:  Mmm, that’s good information for me (keeping self & Peter OK).  As I’m new to this organisation/role would it be worth you taking an hour of your time to find out what I do and the impact on (sales/culture/community/customers etc.)? (A question that invites Peter to account rather than discount).  We could also discuss the relationship between our roles.  Would that be sufficiently important for you to put time aside? (Assessing the reality of the importance to Peter).

Peter:  Well, I guess it would.

Chris:  So, how are you fixed for …….. at ……? Shall I come here? 

Peter:  Yes, that’s fine.

Chris:  What might get in the way of that meeting?

Peter:  Well, X/Y could.

Chris:  Okay then, let’s reschedule at a time when you’ll be clear of any other pressures.         When would that be? (This last transaction helps to avoid sabotage).

This mini-contracting process is helpful because you are asking questions that need a “Yes” or “No” response.  In reality it is hard for someone to say “no” they’re not interested and you are also checking that they are not going to set up a meeting then cancel it.  It’s helpful if you can find something that they need to be cognisant of which might be sales, impact, budgets etc. so that they can see the benefits of meeting with you.  On the other hand, if they were to say “No” then at least you know where you are and you are then free to consider a different strategy. 

When you remain in the Mindful Process you will have more thinking available.  You are also more likely to hook the other person’s Mindful Process i.e. thinking, awareness, connection (for further details of the OK Modes Model which has Mindful at its heart see our book Working Together, Organizational Transactional Analysis and Business Performance.  Information on our website:  www.mountain-associates.co.uk).

Ø      When did this type of contracting process pay off for you? 

Ø      When, by keeping yourself and the other person OK, did you engage and enable effective communication?

We are available for in-house training and coaching.  In the meantime find out more about our approach and how we can be of assistance to you by purchasing "Working Together".  See Amazon.co.uk for reviews and download a free chapter from our website:  www.mountain-associates.co.uk.  We also facilitate open-workshops and Anita Mountain is available to speak at your event.

Avoiding Game Playing

Some of you may know that in Transactional Analysis a definition of a “game” is a familiar pattern of behaviour with a predictable outcome. In other words you will be able to describe a game by saying when they do ………., I do ……….., then they do………….then ………happens and I end up feeling ………. (of course, you might have initiated the transactions). So by the end of the game you might find yourself saying something like “Why does this always happen to me?”, or “How did that happen again?”

When someone else initiates a game one way to keep out of it is to notice the discount. Every game starts with a discount. To discount something is to ignore or deny some aspect of reality, this is done outside our awareness. For example, someone might say something and there appear to be two messages going on – one at the social, or surface level and the other at the ulterior, or psychological level. Here’s what someone may say: “Where is that report you said you would do by today?” On the surface it sounds like just a factual question, but add in a tone that says you are late with this, then the whole thing sounds and feels totally different.

When face to face, it is often easier to notice these two levels as the content and the tone of voice are not congruent. However, how do you pick this up in an email? One way is to look for a communication that hints at something else other than what is in the content. Here are some ideas of questions to ask yourself:

• Is the other person clear about what they want?
• Do they have any right to make this request or demand?
• Do they ignore or deny some aspect of reality? In other words are they putting you, someone else, the situation or themselves down?
• How do I feel about what they are saying?
• Does the tone of the communication remind me of anything or anyone from my past?
• If so, how will I unhook myself from the past situation and/or person so that I can respond in a mindful, here and now way?
• Do I have a sense that there is something or someone else behind the surface-level communication with this person?
• What is the outcome I want?
• Have they stated the final outcome they want?
• Do I feel I’m in a monologue rather than a dialogue?

If you are unclear about any of these questions then you need to be more considered in your response and seek clarification from the other person or people. You might ask them for clarification of a point for example, or check what their interest might be in what you are doing, saying etc. so that you find out the intention behind their actions. In other words get the contract clear so that you will all know when you have agreed the end point and the actions necessary to achieve this outcome.

There are many other aspects to avoiding game playing but I thought it would be helpful to outline ways to spot a discounting process. Just taking the time out to ask yourself these questions will slow down the process and give you time to make a more considered response that is more likely to avoid getting into a game. All of which is likely to lead you to a happier more contented working life.

Happy discount spotting!

Let us know about discounts that you have been involved in and what you did to get straight communication. Please be respectful to others and keep them OK in the process as we play games outside of our awareness. It's always best to talk about your own discount or talk generally without naming, shaming or blaming others.

Find out more about how to improve relationships and communication with others and buy our book: Working Together: Organizational Transactional Analysis and Business Performance, to be published by Gower in July, or come on our next Advance Communication Skills, level 1 (incorporating The Official Introduction to TA) on 14-16 June and again on 22-24 November, 2011. For more details go to our website: www.mountain-associates.co.uk

Self-Limiting Actions

I was sitting having a coffee with a friend the other day and we started talking about relationships at work. She was commissioned to undertake a project with a small family-run business and yet the owner/MD was not acting on her advice. On further discussion it transpired that she acted differently with the MD and felt like a child, in the way she had done with her father. She also thought that the consultants should not take the money from clients but should let her do it on the reception desk when she was in the building.

My friend had not realised that she was inviting the owner to discount her. She acted “small” around him and then sat at reception taking money – which was not what she was being commissioned to do, which again gave her power away.

There are many ways in which we can give our power away and we need to be alert to how we can do this. Above are two ways in which my friend did it – how do you give your power away?

Contact us if you would like to find out how to do things differently in your life.


Mountain Associates coach, consult and also facilitate a range of different workshop both in-house and open. Our next Official Introduction to Transactional Analysis is in September, followed by our Foundation Course and our on-going Organizational TA programme. Call us now for an informal chat about how we can help you and/or your organization.

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