• Home
  • Blog
    • All
    • Julie's Ideas Series
    • Occasional Series
  • Back To JulieHay.org

Julie’s Ideas Blog 34: Animal Magic

28/6/2018

0 Comments

 
In 1995 I attended a TA conference in India and whilst I was there, I ran some workshops in Bangalore, Delhi, Bombay, Madras, Pune and Cochin (as they were then called), across groups as varied as the CEO’s from a group of engineering companies, the Federal Bank, the National Institute of Personnel Management, Kerala Management Association, Pune Rotary Club, a residential home for schizophrenics, and 80 counsellors who wanted to know more about NLP.
​​
During one of those workshops, I asked the participant managers to explore the impact of change on their companies by having them imagine their organisation were an animal.  They described the characteristics of the animal they choose and thought about what strengths it had that would be relevant.  They also discussed the potential weaknesses.    As I wrote afterwards (Hay, 1995a, 1995b):
​
This activity was a lot of fun and enlightening at the same time.
​
One organisation was an elephant - elephants often have to be poked with a stick and shouted at to get them moving.  They then move very slowly but are powerful and difficult to stop.  They have no predators to fear and perform a very useful function for society.  Unfortunately they cannot see what is going at their own rear.  Occasionally some turn into rogue elephants.

Another company was described as being like a horse.  Horses like to run but may gallop around at random unless they have a competent rider.  They also baulk at jumping obstacles unless the rider knows how to maintain direction.  They may go too fast for comfort or even throw their rider off.  This group of managers had an interesting exchange of opinions about who the rider of their particular horse was.
​
Another example was the snake.  This organisation had the benefits of moving stealthily and having a very effective sting.  It could also shed its skin and appear different.  However, its very stealth was a potential problem as it could be stepped on (by the elephant?) or driven over without anyone being aware it was there in the grass.  Also, its reputation made people wary of it when it was noticed, so that it had few friends.

​Later, I extended that when I wrote a competence development workbook on strategic thinking and leadership (unpublished):
​
Choose a metaphor, such as pretending that your organization is an animal, a book, a movie, etc.  Then write the scenario that will result from that – for example, if your organization were to be a giraffe (or a group of giraffes), you might imagine a scenario in which:
  • your employees are all operating at a higher level than those in other organizations
  • your organization’s high vantage point means that it excels at seeing a way across or around obstacles
  • you can easily spot when you are being threatened and you can move away from such threats
  • you are able to utilize resources that are too highly placed (difficult to access, or highly priced?) for most other organizations to use
  • your organizational image is one of sleek appearance, with graceful movements
  • you can cover a lot of ground quite quickly
​BUT
  • you rely on movement rather than facing an enemy, so if you encounter competitors who are like tigers it will be risky to try and confront them - so you may need to adjust your organization to incorporate or co-operate with tigers who will protect you from other tigers
  • you may miss important signals at levels of operating that are below your field of vision – so again you may need to incorporate or co-operate with others who will take care of these aspects
You might also produce different scenarios for different trends, and for different levels of impact. For example, if you think that a political change will affect your organization, write an account of life within the organization after that change has occurred.  Then write an amended version that assumes the change is less severe, and another version that assumes it is even more severe than you imagined.

Produce yet more versions of the scenario, incorporating other trends as well.  For instance, a scenario that assumes the political change, plus the need to introduce some form of new technology, together with social changes that alter the demographics of your workforce.
​
When you have produced several scenarios, consider the following:
  • which is most likely to happen in reality?
  • do you want this to happen – and if so, how can you plan to make it happen?
  • what is the worst case scenario – and are you prepared?
  • what else in any of the scenarios should you prepare contingency plans for?
  • who do you need to communicate with about the future?
  • when should you repeat the scenario writing activity to ensure you keep up-to-date with trends?

​References

Hay, Julie (1995a) The 4 C's of Working with Difference: Change, Culture, Conflict and Creativity Rapport No 29 Autumn 11-13
​
Hay, Julie (1995b) TA and NLP INTAD Newsletter 3:2 4-8
​
© 2018 Julie Hay​
 
​Julie is a fan of open access publishing so feel free to reproduce any of these blogs as long as you still attribute it to her.
​
If you’re interested in learning more TA, Julie runs regular workshops and webinars –  we currently have an offer of a free place on one of our webinars. You can use these toward your CPD and as credit hours in pursuing professional TA qualification
0 Comments

Julie’s Blog 33: Motivation Location

21/6/2018

0 Comments

 
In 1995 I combined transactional analysis (TA) with neurolinguistic programming (NLP) in an article which I had headed ‘Motivation Location’ but which appeared with the heading of ‘How NLP locations work’ (Hay, 1995).

I began by pointing out that I had recently completed my TA training and taken my “final, final exams” – little did I know that having obtained my TSTA Organisational I would keep going over the next 20 years also to get even more TA qualifications.  I also wrote that I was “half-way through” and NLP Master Practitioner course – again not realising at the time that I would continue to become a Licensed NLP Trainer.  What I was concentrating on was how the NLP was giving me lots of ideas for integrating the two approaches.
​
I was writing the article because I had worked out a way to combine the NLP technique for changing beliefs through changing their location with the TA concepts of strokes and life positions. I explained in the article that “stroke is TA shorthand for units of recognition, meaning the ways in which other humans let us know they recognise our existence.  Life positions are our windows on the world, through which we sometimes distort our view of what is actually going on.” (p.30).
​
Belief Locations
​

Within NLP there is a pre-supposition (among others) that we have specific locations in which we store our beliefs.  If we think about what we believe, we can become aware of imaginary physical positions for different beliefs.  (Try it  -  it really does work, much to my initial surprise.)  Our location filing system is quite specific, so that we generally have separate locations for beliefs that we hold strongly, beliefs that we are not sure about, and beliefs relating to things other people believe but which we disbelieve.

If we want to change a belief, we can do so by changing the location for it.  This can be very useful for dealing with those beliefs we all have that are out of line with current reality.  These include what TA would label injunctions and attributions  -  qualities and characteristics that we accept as our own only because the grown-ups somehow convinced us when we were little.  Examples would be a belief that we are clumsy or stupid, that we will always fail (at work, at maths, at relationships . . . .), or that we are destined to follow in the footsteps of a particular relative (“You’ll come to a sticky end just like XYZ.”)
​
The belief changing process works as follows:
​
1. identify the location of the belief you want to change.  This will be Belief A.

​(note:  this assumes that you have first checked the benefits as well as the drawbacks of this belief and have made sure that changing the belief is ecologically sound for you  i.e.  that changing it will not lead to unforeseen problems.  If it still does, you can of course reverse the process and put the belief back!)

2. identify the location of a doubt that you have - something you believe may or may not be true.  This is Belief B.

3. identify the new belief that you would like to have in place of A.  Label this Belief C.

4. move beliefs around as follows:
​
a. shift A to the location for B.
​
b. shift C also to the location for B for a moment and then move it on to the location for A and allow it to stabilise.​

​You may need to add more detail as part of stabilising the new belief.  If so, check the modalities (how you imagine seeing it, hearing it, feeling it) of the unwanted belief and apply these to the new belief.  Match modalities in terms of aspects such as brightness, colour, tone, volume, internal and external sensations, and any other ways that you recognise are significant within your personal filing system.
​
Stroke Locations

We all need strokes to survive and develop.  The orphans in Romania are tragic examples of what happens if strokes are not available in childhood; solitary confinement is known to have a similar traumatic effect on the way people function.  Positive, growth encouraging strokes are best but we will settle for negative strokes if that is all we can get - any attention is better than being constantly ignored.  Small children learn early that negative strokes are often easier to stimulate than positives; grown-ups notice as soon as you are naughty but not always when you are good.

Our stroke pattern is an analysis of the ways in which we tend to give and receive strokes.  If we identify the five or six people we have most contact with at work, for instance, we can then consider what types of strokes we exchange with them, how often, what about, how intense, and so on.  We can prepare patterns also for our social and family situations.

When we do this, we become aware that there are strokes that we accept and strokes that we reject.  It’s as if we let some strokes in but keep others out.  We may even tell the person that we are rejecting the stroke, as when we say someone else deserves the credit or the blame, or that we were just doing our job.  We will of course still remember the strokes that were offered.  It is as if we have a separate place outside ourselves where we can keep the strokes without feeling the impact within us.

Using the idea of locations, we can now identify where we store our strokes.   We probably have different places for positives and negatives, for strokes about appearance versus strokes about performance, for strokes we ‘earn’ and those given to us unconditionally.  We can explore our own patterns in terms of the territory it occupies for us.  Having explored, we can decide to accept positive strokes that we previously rejected and to reject negative strokes that we previously accepted even though they were not justified.

To accept more positive strokes:

​1. identify the location of the strokes you have been rejecting in the past and in future want to accept.  This will be A.

2. identify a location for strokes you receive that you have doubts about -  strokes that you believe may or may not be true.  This is B.

3. identify where you have been putting the positive strokes that you now want to accept.  Label this C.

4. move strokes around as follows:
​
​a. shift A to the location for B.

b. shift C also to the location for B for a moment and then move it on to the location for A and allow it to stabilise.
​
Again, you may need to add more detail to stabilise the new sensation of being stroked.  Check and adjust the modalities as you imagine receiving and accepting the desired strokes. 
​
Then continue to enjoy the sensation as real people give you the same strokes in future.  Repeat the process for strokes that you give out if you want to have even more of a positive impact on your interactions with other people.
​​

References
​
Hay, Julie (1995) How NLP locations work Management Development Review 8:4 30-31
​

​​© 2018 Julie Hay​
 
​Julie is a fan of open access publishing so feel free to reproduce any of these blogs as long as you still attribute it to her.
​
​If you’re interested in learning more TA, Julie runs regular workshops and webinars –  we currently have an offer of a free place on one of our webinars. You can use these toward your CPD and as credit hours in pursuing professional TA qualification

0 Comments

Julie’s Blog 32:  TA, Prejudice and Anti-Discriminatory Practice - Part 4

14/6/2018

0 Comments

 
In this blog I will reproduce for you the last section of my article in 1993. In the previous 3 blogs, I have included what I wrote then about how TA was often perceived as irrelevant for people who were not Caucasian Westerners; how we could use the internal ego states model to understand how prejudice occurs, and how we can use the behavioural ego states model to understand even more about what happens. In the 4th and final blog on this topic, I am going to describe how anti-discriminatory practice can seem to be a psychological game.
​
ADP as Prejudice

Sometimes the action taken under the auspices of anti-discriminatory practice seems to become a form of prejudice in its own right.  This occurs when confrontation is used in a way that seems to create two new classes of people – the ‘politically correct’ and the ‘unwitting discriminators’.
​
The TA concept of psychological games helps us understand this dynamic.  A psychological game is a repetitive sequence of behaviours that leads to a predictable negative outcome for those involved, and that is played outside the awareness of those involved, who believe they are having a normal social interaction.

Within a game, the participants take roles as Persecutor, Rescuer or Victim.  The negative payoff is preceded by a switch in these roles.  For example, a would-be Rescuer is suddenly ‘persecuted’ by the very person they were trying to help, or the Rescuer loses patience and switches to Persecutor themselves.

The moves in the game of ‘Politically Correct’ (PC) are as follows:

A – makes a big show of working to combat discrimination – sets self-up as a Rescuer (note: this is not the same as dealing effectively with oppression – PC players do not have a positive impact)

B – is sure they do not discriminate, yet lacks awareness and therefore behaves in a way that appears discriminatory – sets self-up as a Victim by not admitting ignorance and requesting advice

A – then persecutes B for discriminatory behaviour – instead of constructively working with B to overcome their lack of awareness
​
​An added twist to this game can occur if B switches again; in which case:   
​
B – switches from Victim to Persecutor and attacks A for being so dogmatic and persecutory

A – moves to Victim and bewails the fact that no-one takes discrimination seriously
​
An alternative game around discrimination is ‘Let’s you and them fight.’  This often takes place on training programmes, as follows:
​
A – the trainer overhears a course participant saying something discriminatory about a group of which their co-trainer is a member

Under the guise of Rescuer, A goes to the co-trainer and reports what they have heard, with the expectation that the co-trainer will tackle the participant

B – takes on role of Persecutor and goes off to ‘fight’ with the participant

C – the participant, now feeling like a Victim, opts instead to switch to Persecutor too and insists the comment was justified (or denies it and attacks B for listening to gossip from A)

B – may hang on to being Persecutor for a while before switching to Victim

C+B – can continue swapping Persecutor and Victim roles for some time

A – meanwhile, watches the fight, may remain as Rescuer and sympathise with B if C comes out as top Persecutor - or may join B as a Persecutor in denigrating course members if B has managed to force C into the Victim role
​
​Using game analysis allows us to separate these repetitive, unhelpful sequences from genuine attempts to combat discrimination. Real anti-discrimination practice relates to a clear objective and it is possible to see how the ‘offender’ is being expected to change.  Game manoeuvres, on the other hand, have their focus on feelings of one-up or one-down and do not lead to constructive results.  Indeed, a game is more likely to reinforce the unwanted behaviour as people become mutinous or despairing.
​

Extract from: Hay, Julie (1993) TA and ADP – What can Transactional Analysis contribute to Anti-Discriminatory Practice?  INTAD Newsletter 2:1 4-8


This is the end of what I wrote in 1993. I wrote then, and still hope, that my aim was to start a dialogue so that we can share the potential TA contributions to anti-discriminatory practice.  So let me know what you think, especially about your own day-to-day experiences.
​
References

Hay, Julie (1993) TA and ADP – What can Transactional Analysis contribute to Anti-Discriminatory Practice?  INTAD Newsletter 2:1 4-8

In 1993 there was not so much attention being paid to referencing. An additional reference that applies for this blog is:
​

Berne, Eric (1964) Games People Play, New York: Grove Press 
​
​© 2018 Julie Hay​
 
​Julie is a fan of open access publishing so feel free to reproduce any of these blogs as long as you still attribute it to her.
​
If you’re interested in learning more TA, Julie runs regular workshops and webinars –  we currently have an offer of a free place on one of our webinars. You can use these toward your CPD and as credit hours in pursuing professional TA qualification
0 Comments

Julie’s Blog 31:  TA, Prejudice and Anti-Discriminatory Practice: Part 3

7/6/2018

0 Comments

 
In Part 1 of this blog I set the scene in my article (Hay, 1993) and in Part 2 reproduced for you what I wrote about prejudice and internal ego states. Now I reproduce the part of the article that was about behavioural ego states and channels of communication.

I begin with an updated version of the diagram I presented in 1993 – the only change is that nowadays I refer to Functional Adult to bypass the confusion in terms of behaving like a computer versus being in the here and now.
​
TA Diagram of Behavioural ego States
Behavioural ego states (Hay, 1992, p.62)
ADP as Prejudice

To deal with such prejudice, we need to take into account:


  • the absence of Internal Adult reality-testing: people need information, but they also need to be helped to think for themselves.  It is not easy to do this if you have been punished for it when you were young.  It is also difficult to recognise cultural differences if you lack knowledge – a case of not knowing what you don’t know!
  • the strong feelings of pain and scare in Internal Child: we need reassurance and support.  Assertive confrontation is not always the most effective approach because it frightens people even more, causing them to rubberband more deeply.
  • the powerful messages that replay in Internal Parent: for this, confrontation may be appropriate provided it is done in a way that reassures us that there is a more potent ‘parent’ around who can be used to replace our existing recordings.

An alternative version of the ego state model is used to analyse behaviour, as shown above.  Each of us has 5 options:
​
  • a Controlling Parent, which is firm but may also be autocratic and bossy
  • a Nurturing Parent, which is caring but when overdone becomes smothering
  • an Adult, which shows as rational, problem solving behaviour but appears cold and inhuman if used too much
  • an Adapted Child, which is polite and fits in but may be too submissive or overcompensate with rebellion
  • a Natural Child, which displays genuine emotions but may seem to be immature if overdone

This framework allows us to consider what happens when people interact.   The channels of communication that have the best chance of success are: matching Parent states, matching Child states, Adult to Adult, or Parent to Child.  Adult and Child do not connect; neither do Parent and Adult.  The Parent-Child interaction is also limited: Controlling Parent complements Adapted Child while Nurturing Parent connects with Natural Child (assuming in all cases that the positive aspects of the ego states are being exhibited).

Taking the earlier example of who speaks first, we can see that a problem arose because the Adapted child behaviour patterns were out of line.  Normally Adapted child ego states connect because they exhibit identical, culturally acceptable ways of behaving.  A useful alternative in this case would have been Natural Child as this would have conveyed genuine friendliness.  However, many cultures incorporate taboos on grown-ups being that open until they have satisfied the expectations of society by conducting specific greeting rituals.

This mismatch of cultural expectations is repeated many times a day whenever people from different backgrounds meet.  There are minor differences even between families of the same racial background, and major ones if we have grown up in a different environment.

We also vary in what we regard as acceptable degrees of behaviour.  A common stereotype is for men using Controlling Parent to be seen as firm whilst women doing the same are accused of being aggressive.  In the UK we have only to think of the jokes about female traffic wardens to illustrate this.  Similarly, men using Nurturing Parent may be labelled as weak and women using Adult behaviour as unfeeling.

The interactions between people also reflect this stereotyping.  Men may be expected to take charge in Controlling Parent while women obey in Adapted Child.  Women may be expected to look after people in Nurturing Parent while men respond as small boys in Natural Child.  Caucasian people may assume they will be the Controlling Parent ego state when dealing with non-caucasian people, who they believe to be less developed.  This opinion may be the result of childhood events, may be due to ignorance, or may be generated as a response to an accent or a mode of dress.

These dynamics have existed for many years as part of the British class system.  Hearing English spoken in a different way to our own may lead us to mistakenly assume lack of intelligence.  If someone is less fluent than us we may unconsciously think of them as a child still learning to talk.  Clothing from another culture may similarly be misinterpreted as a sign that the person is not grown-up enough to dress like we do.

Non-caucasian people may become so frustrated at being talked down to that they over-compensate and use far too much Controlling Parent.  Alternatively, they may opt for the rebellious version of Adapted Child and feel compelled to be disobedient.  (Note: this is not the same as making a rational decision, using Internal Adult, to engage in civil disobedience as a way of bringing about change – Rebellious Child has a compulsive quality.)

Awareness of the five ego states available to us can be used to extend our options.  In each interaction we have a positive alternative from each of the five channels.  Practice will enable us to extend our range, so we can readily select the most appropriate behaviour pattern on each occasion.  In this way, we can actively dismantle our automatic and discriminatory responses.

Extract from: Hay, Julie (1993) TA and ADP – What can Transactional Analysis contribute to Anti-Discriminatory Practice?  INTAD Newsletter 2:1 4-8

Up to now in this series of blogs, I have a reproduced what I wrote in 1993 about how TA was often perceived as irrelevant for people who were not Caucasian Westerners; how we could use the internal ego states model to understand how prejudice occurs, and how we can use the behavioural ego states model to understand even more about what happens. In the 4th and final blog on this topic, I will finish the series by describing how anti-discriminatory practice can seem to be a psychological game.

​References

Hay, Julie (1993) TA and ADP – What can Transactional Analysis contribute to Anti-Discriminatory Practice?  INTAD Newsletter 2:1 4-8

In 1993 there was not so much attention being paid to referencing. An additional reference that applies for this blog is:

Behavioural ego states – Hay, Julie (1992) Transactional Analysis for Trainers Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill (currently published as 2nd edition, 2009, Hertford: Sherwood Publishing

© 2018 Julie Hay​
 
​Julie is a fan of open access publishing so feel free to reproduce any of these blogs as long as you still attribute it to her.
​
If you’re interested in learning more TA, Julie runs regular workshops and webinars –  we currently have an offer of a free place on one of our webinars. You can use these toward your CPD and as credit hours in pursuing professional TA qualification
0 Comments
    Picture
    Picture

    Categories

    All
    Announcements
    Book Reviews
    Ideas Series
    Occasional Series

    Archives

    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    January 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017


    RSS Feed


    Creative Commons License
    This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

​Click here if you want to
arrange ​an appointment
to talk to Julie
Julie Hay
​+44 (0) 7836 375 188
​Contact Form

​Privacy Policy

​Cookie Notice

​​© 2018 Julie Hay

  • Home
  • Blog
    • All
    • Julie's Ideas Series
    • Occasional Series
  • Back To JulieHay.org