Challenge or Shame and Ridicule?

I was recently at a seminar where a particular approach to interventions with our coaching clients was the theme. In teaching us this approach the facilitator consistently undertook interventions with the audience to illuminate what she meant. However, at least some of the participants there, including me, were hoping that the facilitator did not “pick on” them as they did not wish to be ridiculed or their comments twisted round. Not a good outcome!

So, what is the difference between challenging interventions that enable the person or people to develop and interventions that invite over-adaptation and are persecutory? To me the answer is that challenge is not a “theme” or an “approach” but a designed intervention geared to the person we are interacting with.

Berne wrote about:
•Interrogation e.g. “Did you actually steal the money?”;
•Specification e.g. “So, what you are saying is…………..”;
•Confrontation e.g. highlighting a discrepancy between what is being said “ Just before you said …. Now you are saying………. What is your thinking about this?”;
•Explanation e.g.”It seems that when you move out of being here and now you stop thinking”;
•Illustration e.g. an anecdote or simile that follows a successful confrontation for the purpose of reinforcing the confrontation and softening it.
•Confirmation e.g. “I understand you to be saying……., is that right?”;
•Interpretation e.g. “I understand the sense of what you are saying as….”;
•Crystalization e.g.”So you are now in a position to stop playing that game if you choose to”. (Berne E, 1966, p233-25)

I would also add Challenge to that list and to challenge with humour - but at the right time for the client and still remain OK/OK with them.

As you can see from the synopsis, each of the interventions has their own rationale and aim. This means that we need to design the intervention for the person, the issue and the context, as well as ensure that it is related to the contract. It is also imperative that we remain OK/OK in any transaction because, if not, we invite over-compliance or rebellion. If those we train, coach, or relate with, disagree with our interventions it is also important to be aware and sufficiently humble to recognise that the issue might be with us and/or the approach, rather than with the other person.

Whilst this may all sound difficult or contrived it is important to be professional, know we have options and use these options mindfully for the good of the other person.

This does not mean that we stop provocative interventions but that we carefully consider their use and, if they don’t work, not blame the other person e.g. “It’s that you’re too up-tight” or “You’re not ready for this”, implying that we are so evolved and the other is not.

If we keep all our transactions OK/OK and be with the other person in the now, rather than using one approach that may not fit everyone, all is likely to be well.

Leave us your comments below.

Our next Official Introduction to Transactional Analysis is on 14-16 June, 2011. We also have a one-day workshop by a French guest trainer entitled Rapid Diagnosis of Organizations on 14 July. The next academic year’s list of workshops is now up-loaded to our website. For all this information and more go to: www.mountain-associates.co.uk and either click on the Organizational TA Box or go to the drop-down tabs along the top and click on TA Courses.
Our up-coming book “Working Together: Organizational TA and Business Performance will be out in July 2011, so keep an eye on our website for further information or register on the site and we’ll keep you informed.

Talking With, Not To, People

One of the most important aspects of leadership is communication. No matter how strategic we are, how intelligent etc. if we cannot get our message across then we need to develop our communication skills.

Sometimes it seems that connecting with each other is one of the most difficult things in the world, when it should be as easy as breathing. The difficulties come when we:

• have the need to control
• aim to prove we are better than others
• put ourselves down
• feel put down and then try to do the same to the other person
• get defensive

Within communication there are so many nuances – how we say things, the tone of our voice, the way we stand, our facial expressions, etc. There also different types of communication – ones where we are talked to like a child, talk to others as if they were a child, talk about others as if they were less than us, imply something without actually saying it and, thank goodness, real communication when we care about the other person, know that we can have an impact on others, really want to relate and learn about what the other person thinks and are prepared to adjust our thinking accordingly. Of course it is sometimes appropriate to put in a boundary and be firm and effectively structuring, but this can be done in a way that is not punitive or “out to get” someone.

Here is an example of a communication process that has the potential to escalate and for at least one person to feel bad and how to avoid that.

Let’s take an example of a communication that appears out to “get someone”. You are doing a presentation and write up something you wish to teach on the flip chart. You teach from this and then, after some discussion, one of the participants says: “What is your thinking about spelling ‘behaviour’ differently on the flip chart?” There appears to be an ulterior transaction here – one that implies something without actually saying it. We, the receiver of this comment, then have a choice. We can feel stupid and shamed by the comment and become defensive, in which case the process will get very messy. Alternatively, we could keep ourselves and the other person OK, saying in an even voice that we did not notice and checking if this was a problem for the participant. In this way, if there was an attempt to show us up, this does not happen and we seek to understand the other person’s concern – for there may have been some reason for his comment that we do not understand.

So where we appear to be invited into a fight or to feel bad we have choices about how we respond. We need to keep ourselves and other OK and still deal with the situation in a way that puts in a boundary at the same time. Remember, suffering is optional!


Do comment on this post by going clicking on "comments" below and following the link.

For more information about Mountain Associates sign up on our web site: www.mountain-associates.co.uk