Archive for the ‘Resources – Trainers’ Category

Who’s giving training a bad name?

Wednesday, March 9th, 2011

I sometimes wonder how people are appointed to positions as trainers. Do some organisations see it as a position that people are moved if they might be good at it, and are then left to get on with it – without any training or support? Do businesses think training is such a waste of time that they just employ anyone in the position? Whatever the reason, there appear to be too many companies or trainers giving training a bad name.

I see requests for assistance from trainers on various forums, but I’m not sure how they expect people to be able to respond with targeted and focussed suggestions. I’m meaning where people are asking others to suggest methodologies. Here are a couple I have recently seen:

“I have a four-hour workshop to give on presentations skills. I see the same participants the following week and they have to give a five-minute using the information they’ve learned in just four hours. Any recommendations? No technology available for them except for one laptop. They do not have laptops themselves.”

“I work in a manufacturing facility and I am about to conduct management development training for supervisors/managers to teach them more about ‘HR in their jobs’.   Does anyone have any good icebreakers that will compliment this training?”

Do these same people (or organisations) say, “I’m going to buy a car, which one would you recommend?”, or “I’m going on holiday and need a coat – which do you think I should buy?” I think not. So why do it for training?

Trainers asking such questions cannot expect to receive any sort of meaningful advice or assistance. And if they do use what is offered, does the organisation realise how much money it is potentially wasting?  

Let’s say we have 12 people in our group, and each receives a salary of £100 per day. That means with salary on-costs they probably cost their organisation £120 per day. That’s £1,440 in wages for attending a day’s training. Add another £200 for the trainer’s delivery and preparation time, £100 for the administration of getting the people on to the course, £50 for room hire and £10 for photocopying costs – that gives us a total cost of £1,800 for the day. There may also be travel and meal costs, but we’ll leave it at this for the purpose of the exercise.

If we have 6.5 hours contact time, it means that each hour of delivery is costing our organisation approximately £277.00. Or £4.62 per minute.  So a half hour opening exercise comes in at £138.

And if it costs £138 it needs to be focussed – not focussed on the ideas of others who have no knowledge of the organisation, but focussed on operational effectiveness, focussed or organisational goals, focussed on delegate needs and focussed on extracting a return on the investment. Effective evaluation.

As effective trainers know, evaluation starts at the planning stage. An evaluation of the needs of the attendees and the organisation. Once a Training Needs Analysis of some sort has been undertaken, planning, validation, delivery and further evaluation follow. This evaluation can show the organisational and operational improvements that have been achieved as a result of the training. Very satisfying, and likely to lead to the increased credibility of the trainers and L&D function.

Training people effectively is costly. Training people ineffectively is even more costly as we reduce (or fail to get any) the return on the investment.

Or have I got it all wrong?

Paul

Leading through change

Monday, February 28th, 2011

Handling change effectively can be really satisfying. We are generally not the instigators of change, almost always the recipients of some change or other and are sometimes required to implement it.  This makes it important – but it isn’t always managed as if it’s important. It needs the human touch.

If we reflect on some of those times when we have been recipients, we may well be able to come up with examples of how the change was managed well. We can almost certainly come up with examples of occasions when it was not dealt with as well as it could have been.

Because of the emotions that experiencing change can generate, it is an area of management where the manager can have a particularly positive or negative impact. And whilst the manager may also be affected by the change process, he or she will do well to invest some time into managing it well – if they want as motivated and effective staff as possible post-change. It is a short-term investment of time that reaps long-term gains.

In my previous blog post, I described four 4 types of people we encounter during change – The Entrenched, The Overwhelmed, The Whirling Dervish and The Learner. And where they sit depends largely on their ability and willingness to deal with change.

Having previously described their probably reactions, I said that in this post I would give you some hints on how to manage the different individuals. This will help you to assist them as effectively as possible – or understand how you need to be managed in order to deal with the change as well as possible.

The Entrenched – You need to attend to The Entrenched person’s emotions or stress. A phased introduction of the changes will help them, as will clearly linking them to their past successes.  Don’t expect too much too soon from them, or you may have another Overwhelmed person. Find safe places and situations for them to test their learning, and use Learners as role models.

The Overwhelmed – The Overwhelmed person needs to be shown understanding in dealing with their stress and fear.  They need lots of support and encouragement for the future, and they require protecting from rapid empowerment or responsibility. Ensure that they can achieve some quick or easy wins. Finally, use effective colleagues to promote their confidence – you cannot do it all yourself!

The Whirling Dervish – Whatever you do, don’t empower The Whirling Dervish or let them loose with a wide remit! You need to limit their influence over others, hold them accountable for anything you ask them to implement and give them plenty of feedback. Ask them to address core issues and solutions, not symptoms and quick fixes. Help them recognise and address the true extent of their abilities.

The Learner – You need to help fill any gaps in The Learner’s personal knowledge. Focus them on processes rather than the task. Give them the freedom to model learning for others, and consider offering them new and demanding roles with high impact opportunities.  Learners can sometimes take on too much and become all things to all people – support them and ensure that this doesn’t happen as you don’t want to lose your Learners.

If you have been able to identify your own ‘preferred’ position, do some of these tips on how you should be managed make sense? Or as a manager, can you see how they would work with your staff?

Remember, attitudes are caught, not taught. If you as a leader or manager are negative about change, your staff are likely to follow the example you set. And effectively managing the human dimensions of change can have a really significant impact on the performance of a team or business.

Paul

The Human Dimensions of Change

Wednesday, February 23rd, 2011

There is much change taking place at the moment. Here in the UK there are many people, particularly in the public sector, soon to be looking for different jobs, and many other people are having their roles changed due to organisational restructures. Difficult personal times.

And they are often made more difficult than they need to be by how they are handled. I have for some time worked on the basis that there are four main categories that people experiencing change fit into. I have seen these labelled as The Entrenched, The Overwhelmed, The Whirling Dervish and The Learner. I have absolutely no idea who came up with these classifications, but if you know, it would be great to be able to mention them and give them the credit.

So which are you? Or where do those people you manage fit? By understanding more about how change impacts on us, we can help ourselves – and our colleagues – to cope with such situations more effectively. Here’s a little more detail to help you to understand the categories.

The Entrenched – An Entrenched person has the ability to learn and capacity to change, but is generally not particularly willing to engage in this. The change experience can lead to them feeling frustrated or angry, and to be frightened of what the future holds. They are confident of their proven skills and their past performance – and as such, may well work harder to seek to justify their existence and prove that there is no need for change. They can struggle to understand the organisation’s change in attitude towards previously valued behaviours. They also tend to dismiss the reasons for the change.

The Overwhelmed – Like our Entrenched colleagues, our Overwhelmed people are not willing to engage in the change. Where they differ from the Entrenched is that they don’t particularly have (or believe they have) the capacity to change or the ability to learn the required new skills or processes. This potentially makes them feel powerless, fearful and unhappy. In order to deal with these emotions they can avoid issues and block stressful events. They can blame and commiserate – and hope that normality will return. They also tend to avoid risk, focus on the safe and known tasks and look busy.

The Whirling Dervish – Our Whirling Dervishes really rather look forward to the change, and are willing to embrace it. Unfortunately though, they tend not to have the capacity to make the required changes and learn the new skills. This leads to them being ready to get going with the changes and wanting to implement change – any change. They can be over-confident in their own abilities and as such seek positions of influence. They want quick action and visible results. They are surprised by and unsympathetic towards colleagues who demonstrate caution or concern for the future. They can have a particularly negative influence on Overwhelmed colleagues – as they attempt to lead such people down the garden path.

The Learner – Our final category of people has both the willingness to embrace the change and the capacity to learn the new skills. They tend to be a little anxious, but they are optimistic as they can see the positive benefits – they tend to have a balanced approach, being able to see the pros and the cons. They focus on any problems rather than apportion blame. They are not afraid of making mistakes, and can find humour in difficult circumstances and use it to help others.  

Have you been able to – even roughly – label yourself?  Perhaps you can identify where some of your colleagues fit?

This human dimension to change is really important – and the more we understand it, the better we can cope with it – or for managers, the better they can assist others.

In my next blog I’ll give some ideas as to how we can help and manage people within each of these categories to deal with change more effectively.

Paul

How do you respond in difficult situations?

Wednesday, February 2nd, 2011

I mentioned the ‘Responses to Dominance’ model in my last post about the Sky Sports sexism furore. I have always found this an interesting and helpful model for enabling us to understand how people may respond differently to ourselves in the same or similar situations.

The model (also sometimes referred to as the ‘Conflict Continuum’) has three named positions on a horizontal line (the continuum). At one end of the line there is the Withdrawal (Avoidance) position, and at the opposite end is the Resistance (Confrontation) position. And in the middle of the line the point labelled Acquiescence (Diffusion).

The model is labelled as a continuum because a person can take any of these positions – but can also change their position on the continuum at any point. People will often adopt different positions in different situations, however, usually a person will have a ‘preferred’ or default position when finding themselves in a position of conflict.

It is possible to develop the Sky Sports scenario further in order to illustrate the model. Let’s say, in our hypothetical situation, that there is a camerawoman who works for Sky Sports who has witnessed the now public sexist incidents (and possibly other similar situations) that have occurred within the Sky Sports studios and elsewhere where Sky Sports have been reporting from. ‘Camerawoman’ is a bit of a mouthful to keep repeating, so let’s call her Jill.

When Jill has witnessed one of these incidents and recognised the sexism, it may well be that she is a little concerned, wondering if whether it the sort of workplace she wants work in. It may be that it takes a few such incidents for her to be concerned. Whenever it occurs, she will probably think about her options. Jill could start looking for another job, or hand in her notice immediately. This latter course of action can sometimes be followed when the situation has a severe impact on the person and possibly brings about a deterioration in their health. Both of these responses would be examples of Withdrawal – as Jill is taking herself away from the situation.

Alternatively, it may well be that she decides that whilst she doesn’t like it, she’s going to tolerate it as she has a lot of friends at the company – and whilst she will tolerate it, she also doesn’t want to rock the boat. So Jill may witness such an incident and one of her male (or female) colleagues might say something like, “You’re okay with this banter, aren’t you – you know we’re not sexist?”. Whilst Jill is uncomfortable with this sort of workplace behaviour, she could replied, “Sexist? Don’t be daft, of course you’re not – it’s a good laugh”. Here Jill would be diffusing the situation, and therefore providing us with a good example of how someone Acquiesces.

Jill’s final possible position on our continuum is that of Resistance. People can resist, or confront, in two ways – through the use of either Negotiation or Power. If Jill chose to give feedback to those involved by explaining what they were doing and how it was impacting on her, she would be confronting the issue through Negotiation. To do this successfully she would be having an Adult (TA) conversation with the other individual(s). It has the potential to be a win-win situation – as the behaviour will cease, Jill will be happier, her colleagues will learn and they will probably be stronger as a team. If you want to build a mature team or organisation, this is the approach that needs to be used – hence why there is such a push for mediation to be used in the workplace.

Jill could also address the matter through the use of Power – either immediately, or perhaps if a Negotiated approach has been unsuccessful. Examples of the use of Power can be taking a person to an Employment Tribunal, or, perhaps specific to this type of workplace, releasing audio or audio visual recordings of the incidents to the wider media, knowing or believing that they would be picked up and broadcast more widely (Perhaps this is what happened in the actual scenario that led to Andy Gray and Richard Keys leaving Sky Sports?). How does this differ from the Negotiated approach? Well, Jill would probably be addressing this from her Parent ego state (TA) – particularly if she went straight for this course of action before trying to address it in any other way – and there is likely to be a win-lose result.

We have to remember – and this is very important – that all positions on the continuum can be appropriate. People need to use the method that is most useful for them at a particular time. If Jill had financial constraints, giving up her job might cause more stress than carrying on in an uncomfortable environment, so Acquiescence would be right for her at that time. And what might be right for the development of the organisation is not necessarily right for the individual.

In my next post, I’ll describe a model that really helps people address conflict successfully – in other words, a model to support the approach of Negotiation.

Paul

It’s OK to Allow yourself to – it really is!

Wednesday, January 19th, 2011

Ever wished you could react more effectively in certain pressure or uncomfortable situations? This post really could be the key to you achieving that.

Within my last post on indecision, I mentioned the Transactional Analysis (TA) concept of ‘Drivers’ – and in particular the “Be perfect” Driver.  This has generated a couple of emails and a discussion with a  colleague – which has prompted me to write a little more about these things called Drivers.

I am surprised that so little is spoken or written about these Drivers as they can have such an impact on a person’s life. Perhaps one or more is having an unhelpful impact on yours?

The theory was developed by Taibi Kahler in the 1970s and there are 5 accepted Drivers – (1) Please Others, (2) Be Perfect, (3) Be Strong, (4) Try Hard, and (5) Hurry Up. They are the same whatever your sex, culture or race.  There is possibly a sixth – Be Careful – although this is in dispute.  

As I explained in the previous post, we can be programmed with these Drivers in our early childhood, and then when we come to adult life they can be quite a hindrance.  It is not known exactly how we take them on, although it is accepted that it is in early childhood, as with many aspects of TA.  One of the suggestions or theories is that they are part of the ‘Script’ we write for ourselves in order to survive in our early months and years, and another is that they are the words we hear from our parents when toilet training.

Kahler detailed specific words, phrases, tones and body language that are associated with each of the Drivers.  It is a real skill to be able to identify when others are affected by one of the Drivers as they can occur for only a second or two – and not generally for longer than 20 seconds or so at a time. It is a little easier to identify your own Drivers through studying the behaviour associated with each and reflecting on how you have behaved in certain situations.

We use them to response to perceived threats where we probably feel threatened. And when we feel threatened – as you may well have experienced in all sorts of situations at work or away from work – we generally think, feel, react and behave in a particular way. This is because we know, somehow, that this series of thoughts, feelings and behaviours have assisted and protected us – and therefore enabled us to survive – on many previous occasions. Unfortunately, these previous occasions were a long, long time ago and since then we have developed a far greater understanding of the world and far more coping mechanisms which are probably of more use in the present day.  We can be trapped by our Drivers.

Does that make sense? Can you think of times recently when you may have used one or more of the Drivers? And if so, how useful were they?

But I have good news for you! For each of the Drivers there is an ‘Allower’.

Driver – Allower

  • Please Others  – It’s OK to consider, respect and please yourself
  • Be Perfect  – It’s okay to be yourself – you’re good enough as you are
  • Be Strong  – It’s OK to be open and express your wants or needs
  • Try Hard  – It’s OK to do it
  • Hurry Up  – It’s OK to take your time

Try an Allower for yourself – they are there for all of us to use. The next time you tell yourself to Hurry Up in a pressurised situation, tell yourself you can take your time. When you feel yourself telling yourself to Be Perfect, accept that you’re good enough and you don’t need to be perfect. It will possibly be uncomfortable – after all, you’ve been living with these Drivers for how many years? So take your time – give yourself time. Because you’re worth it!

If you want to read more about each of the Drivers (and the words, feelings, actions, etc., associated with each), Allowers, Scripts and other TA theories, I would recommend a great book by Ian Stewart and Vann Joines – TA Today.

Paul

Customer Service – is it really that difficult?

Thursday, December 30th, 2010

I’m guessing that the time after Christmas is when more goods are returned as faulty or not wanted than at any other time of the year? Perhaps this is linked to a post I recently saw on a forum from a trainer asking about what they should train in relation to dealing with customers who complain – in short, should an apology be given or not.

My first thought was that this appears to highlight one of the key signs of an immature organisation when it comes to defining the training need. This question should be decided by the business – the operational management – not the trainer. It is a fundamental business decision as to how to respond to customer complaints. And it shouldn’t be too difficult.  But it appears that it is based on interactions I have had over the past couple of months.

My first experience related to going to buy – or trying to buy – a rail ticket at our local railway station. Knowing the ticket office closed at 7pm, I arrived at 6.45pm. As I walked towards the ticket office, I could see the person was serving another customer. As he saw me, he turned his sign around to read ‘Closed’. I wasn’t impressed. I went to see the Station Master to express my frustration. He said I must be wrong, and so went over to the ticket office. The man behind the counter said he was now closed, and the Station Master shrugged his shoulders at me and walked off.  Was he really the ‘Station Master’? Sir Topham Hat (aka The Fat Controller) wouldn’t have allowed such happenings on the island of Sodor.

I emailed Northern Rail with my concerns. The response explained that the Ticket Office, “ … is open until 1900 however because advance purchase tickets can be quite involved and can take anywhere from 10 to 20 minutes per transaction we try and ask customers to come in before 18.45 if you are purchasing advance purchase tickets”. The respondent added their, “… sincere apologies for the inconvenience caused”.

20 minutes to buy a rail ticket! I’ve bought a few in my time, but they have never taken that long. Red rag to a bull.

I responded asking (1) where they publicise how they ask customers to come in before 18.45 and (2) their evidence for suggesting the average length of a ticket purchasing transaction.

The response I received was from the Customer Service Duty Manager this time – it had been an Officer on the first occasion. They didn’t answer either question directly, but said that they had to open to their advertised times and that on the day I visited the Ticket Officer was dealing with a particularly complicated ticket purchase to Swansea (a wonderful level of detail – remember to allow extra time the next time you buy a rail ticket to Swansea – or perhaps it could be anywhere in Wales … perhaps I should have clarified further, but I didn’t). I was also offered £30 for my inconvenience. Was the £30 for the inconvenience of my initial attempted purchase or for the inconvenience of highlighting the blatantly false information in the initial email?

My second experience relates to my son’s electric under-blanket. He is rather fond of this piece of electrical equipment. Only his iphone rates more highly, I suspect. When the under-blanket’s switch broke in late November (when it was particularly cold) he wasn’t too happy. Particularly as it was less than two years old (and with a three year guarantee). I emailed Morphy Richards explaining the issue, the fact it was within the guarantee period and asking what I needed to do to get a replacement switch.

The automated reply explained, “Your enquiry has been forwarded to a member of our Consumer Care Team. We are currently experiencing an extremely high volume of email enquiries and therefore the time taken for us to respond to your enquiry will be longer than usual”.

I didn’t receive any further word from them, and so I emailed them again 21 days later (perhaps they could reduce by 50% the amount of emails they receive by responding to the first email?). The content of the email was the same as the first, with one addition – I explained I would start proceedings in the Small Claims Court if I didn’t hear from them within the next seven days.

Two days later I received an email and a phone call.  Within the five-paragraph email, three were devoted to explaining the robustness of their engineering processes and apologising for the malfunction.  There was no reference to having ignored my first email. The purpose of the phone call was to tell me that a new blanket was being put in the post that day.

During the phone call I explained to my Customer Engagement Officer (CEO) that I accepted things unexpectedly break and that I didn’t have an issue with that. I thought it would have been more relevant to offer an apology for not responding to my initial email.   

And my third encounter was yesterday in Asda. I did a ‘quick shop’ for a few bits and pieces, and as I was leaving the store did a quick check of my till receipt. When I was a youngster, when my mum got back from doing the weekly shop at Fine Fare, she would check every item against the receipt – I don’t go to those lengths, but I do undertake quick checks!  Anyway, I noticed that I had been charged for six bags of clementines rather than the two I actually bought. I went to Customer Services, the person did a quick check of what I was claiming, gave me a refund, apologised for the mistake and then gave me a gift card loaded with £2 “for the inconvenience caused”.  

Customer Service should be an organisation’s strongest link as opposed to its weakest link. This is where reputations are built or broken. And it’s not that difficult, is it?   

So, Northen Rail, Morphy Richards or Asda – who reacted most positively and who underperformed? Who would you vote off?  

Paul

Nothing is real

Friday, December 10th, 2010

Reality. What is it? What is real? As the late John Lennon (and I can remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I heard of his death 30 years ago this week) once said, “Reality leaves a lot to the imagination”. So it does, because nothing is real – he also said that, too, but that was when he was taking us through his dream of Strawberry Fields, and I mean when we have all our faculties about us.

What I think of and describe as being ‘real’ will be my reality. The person at the same concert, walking down the road with me, or watching the same film will have their own experience or perception of what they see as being real – and it will be different to mine.

This then perhaps explains Walkers’ Crisps view of what is real. I was looking at a packet of their Thai Sweet Chilli flavoured Sensations crisps this week, and it proudly states on the front, “Made with real ingredients”. Isn’t everything made from real ingredients? I checked out the ingredients and they include Fructose, Hydrolysed Soya Protein and Colour. I suppose they are real, but I still think it’s a strange line to put on the packet. What do they think people will interpret as meaning ‘real’?

Which brings me to my third reality check – the one called Reality TV. I’m a Celebrity has just finished and The Apprentice is nearing its conclusion – as is the X Factor, although some people will not see this as Reality TV. I have to admit I enjoy these programmes. The reason I enjoy them is because we see ‘real’ people – or, more accurately, people in their ‘real’ states.

When we are young children, we are at our most real, I would suggest. Then, as we grow up we are told how to behave in different situations, and then we go to work and have rules, cultures and procedures to conform with. How real are we by this point?

With I’m a Celebrity, we have people who have been in the public eye to some degree (I would stop short of calling them celebrities) and who have experience of how they should appear or what they should say – but this has to slip ‘in the jungle’. We see more of their real sides – particularly with the increased pressures of tasks, lack of food and living so closely to other strangers.

And with The Apprentice, we have unknown people who are put in pressure situations – leading to them saying things they probably regret when they see them again. But these are closer to their real personalities interacting with each other than the facades they may wish to show.

And so these two shows give great examples for training sessions – they are a rich seem of television for using to help people understand management, dealing with conflict, presenting, listening, communicating, building rapport and so many more skills. So much better than the DVDs we can buy – because the TV examples are so close to reality. Watch them with that in mind – you will be surprised at how many good examples (good examples for learning, often bad examples of the skills!) you will find.

Paul

Sell your crunch, not your apples

Saturday, December 4th, 2010

Where does the L & D function fit within your organisation? The importance of this cultural fit cannot be underestimated when leading a L & D function. In my experience, too many L & D functions have existed to deliver training – that is what they have been seen to do, and that is what they have done – and this approach gives them little credence with operational managers.

I once had concerns about the impressions that my unit was giving to the remainder of the business. At a managers’ meeting I took the opportunity to ask a few (what I thought to be) fundamental questions to see whether they were espousing my stated aims for the unit. They all managed trainers, so firstly I asked what they saw to be the overall role of the trainer. The first answer was, “To deliver training”. This was closely followed by answers indicating that they needed to be able to write lesson plans and that they should be able to explain points clearly to delegates. Two more responses followed in a similar vein. The sixth response was, “They need to get the delegates to be more effective”. That’s what I was looking for – a link to improving performance.

After a few other responses, I then asked, “What are trainer shoes for?” The first response was, “to help people run faster”. Other verbal offerings built on this performance related theme.

I then asked what they thought was the overall role of a horse trainer. The first respondent indicated that her view was that they were there to enable horses to win races. A second added that perhaps it was to enable both horse and rider to win races.

“So”, I asked, in a John Humphreys sort of way, “Why is it that you view trainer shoes and horse trainers as being there to improve performance, yet you see that the primary purpose of our trainers is to deliver training?”. This was followed by a silence.

This short exchange had confirmed my concerns and highlighted a fundamental issue in leading a successful Learning and Development Unit. If its own staff see the focus as being delivering training, this will be apparent to others in everything they do – most of all to the already potentially sceptical operational managers.

I personally would consider changing the job title of “Trainer” to “Performance Improver”, however, – at least initially – I think this would cause problems for others to understand what the role is about. It is fundamental, however, that the trainer views their role in this way. They should not see themselves as people with training skills who use these skills to improve performance; they need to see themselves as performance improvers who achieve this by using sound training skills. This may appear to be a play on words, but I don’t believe this to be the case – it is a way of the person constantly being reminded of the primary purpose of their role.

When I used to train trainers, we engaged in some lengthy discussions which felt very important and fundamental to the role – in retrospect, I am now disappointed to admit that they were akin to navel gazing – they were all about the minutiae of training delivery which, on reflection, had little impact on delivering greater operational performance.

It is only be demonstrating this focus on improving performance that you will earn a credible and respect place around the table when the all important annual budget is being allocated – and then the more improvements you can show to have been involved in, the better your chance will be of improving your share of the budget.

All this can be achieved by a number of key activities. These include:

  • Engaging your internal customers in deciding learning priorities
  • Explicitly linking all learning to business objectives
  • Explicitly linking all learning to improving performance
  • Measuring your team’s performance in terms of operational performance improvements rather than / in addition to the quality of the training delivered
  • Clearly communicating your successes to the business
  • Where appropriate, measuring your impact by undertaking Return on Investment (ROI) evaluation activity to demonstrate the financial return for the business’s investment.

The overall culture of a unit is probably the most difficult aspect to change – but ultimately the most fundamental and rewarding. By implementing these processes, we can start to change the mindset of our team. We find out who wants to make the journey with us, and who perhaps does not.

Paul

Complementary, Crossed and Hooked

Sunday, November 28th, 2010

In my last two posts, I have started to explain Eric Berne’s theory of Transactional Analysis (TA). In this post, I will outline how it can be used in conversation management. Berne calls a conversation between two or more people “a transaction”, hence the name for his theory.

An example of a transaction between two people where both are in the Adult ego-state would be Jo: “What time is it, Sam?” Sam: “Eleven o’clock”. They are in the Adult ego-state because Jo is asking an objective question and she receives an objective answer.

It is possible to depict this theory as a model. Use the ‘dice’ picture on the left. Write ‘Jo’ above the three circles on the left, and Sam above the three on the right. Then label the top two circles as ‘Parent’, the middle two as ‘Adult and the bottom two as ‘Child’.

Complementary Transactions 

The first example I gave, about asking the time, is an example of a ‘Complementary transaction’ where each party gets the type of reaction that they are expecting. Jo’s Adult ego-state was seeking to engage Sam’s Adult ego-state, which they did. So, if you drew this theory as a model, you could have an arrow from Jo’s Adult (left middle circle) to Sam’s Adult (right middle circle), and an arrow in the opposite direction for Sam’s response. The two arrows would be parallel with each other, hence why this is called a ‘Complementary Transaction’ (and sometimes a ‘Parallel Transaction’).   

Crossed Transactions

Later in the day they have a further conversation, after Jo has received feedback on a report saying that it is not to the standard they require. Jo: “I’d like you to explain what you want me to do differently”. Sam responds curtly: “I haven’t got time, go away”.

So, Jo’s Adult ego-state is seeking to engage Sam’s Adult – but this doesn’t happen. Sam responds from her Critical Parent ego-state (because what she says is from her values, not an objective explanation as to why there is insufficient time, and due to the tone of delivery). The use of the Critical Parent ego-state in this manner is attempting to engage with Jo’s Adapted Child – because Sam doesn’t want Jo to continue the interaction. Jo is supposed to feel negative, and therefore less likely to respond.

If you were to draw this on our diagram, you would have the same arrow for Jo’s transaction, however, for Sam you would have an arrow from the top right circle down to the bottom left circle. The lines cross – hence we have a “Crossed Transaction”. Such transactions lead to ineffective communication and often to conflict.

Hooking

The skill in using this theory in managing conversations is to ‘hook’ the other person into their required ego state.

If Jo continued this second conversation, Jo might well respond by saying, “I don’t want to be a pest, and I don’t want to waste your time, but how specifically does the report need amending?”

By responding in this way, the first two parts of the sentence are from the Adapted Child ego-state (‘feeding’ Sam’s Parent ego-state), and the last part (asking for specific information as to how to amend the report) is from the Adult ego state – thus attempting to ‘hook’ Sam’s Adult.  

Hooking is a very powerful skill and one which many people use to great effect – both in the workplace and in their leisure time.

Paul

How to tell an ego-state

Tuesday, November 23rd, 2010

My last blog post introduced Transactional Analysis (TA). Here is a little more detail on the ego states themselves.

The Parent ego-state:

This contains patterns of behaviour from significant authority figures (primarily parents or carers) including morals and values, their idea of right and wrong, good and bad.

The Parent state has two sides to it:

1. The Critical Parent (CP) – typified by statements such as, “You shouldn’t”, “How dare you”.

2. The Nurturing Parent (NP) – with “I’ll take care of you”, or “You did really well”, being statements that could be driven by a person being in the NP ego-state.

A typical tone of voice could be stern, condescending (CP) or caring, sympathetic (NP). Gestures might include frowning, crossed arms, finger pointing/wagging (CP) or supportiveness by arm on shoulder or pat on back (NP).

Often these characteristics are the same as or similar to the influential people from a person’s early life.

The Adult ego-state:

This is the clear thinking, rational, analytical way of dealing with the reality of the present.

In the Adult ego state (A) the individual is commonly problem solving or dealing with information in some logical way.

Characteristics are typically the calm and even tone of voice, asking open questions, seeking and evaluating options and proposing alternative courses of action.

The Child ego-state:

This does not mean behaving childishly but is concerned with behaviour and feelings as they were experienced in childhood.

The Child state has two sides to it:

1. The Free Child (FC) is spontaneous, fun loving, uninhibited.

 2. The Adapted Child (AC) – Typical characteristics of the Adapted Child are, “please”, “sorry”, “I’ll try harder”; whining voice or mumbling, perhaps taunting or manipulative; polite; spiteful; looking away or down.

 As the constraints of dealing with others (particularly authority figures, either through their positions or their behavioural characteristics) take effect, the Adapted Child (AC) emerges.

 Summary of drivers

 Put very simply, the ego-states are driven by the following drivers:

  • Parent driver = beliefs
  •  Adult driver = thoughts
  • Child driver = feelings

None of the ego-states is intrinsically better than any of the others, but each is appropriate in different situations and will have a different effect on those with whom we communicate.

And I’ll explain more about its use in managing communication and conversations in my next post.

Paul