Strokes

Human beings need contact with other humans.  Children who lack positive recognition will often misbehave in an unwitting attempt to get attention - something that teachers then tend to provide in the form of punishment. These same naughty children may grow up to be the employees who are always being disciplined (and hence, paid attention to) by the manager.
​
Berne coined the term stroking for the process of giving human recognition. A stroke is a unit of recognition, which is anything we do that lets another person know that we recognise their existence.  Strokes vary in intensity, from a simple glance through a conversation and up to physical contact.  They may also be positive, or life and growth encouraging, and negative, which are life and growth discouraging. Many of us will settle for negatives if we cannot get enough positives, as if we know at some deep level that we must get a minimal amount to maintain human functioning.

The strokes associated with learning have a significant impact. Those of us who enjoy learning have usually been accustomed to a pattern of positive stroking at school.  Teachers will have shown a genuine interest in us, will have encouraged us to see mistakes as opportunities for learning, and will have let us know how pleased they were when we learned.  Unfortunately, many people were not so fortunate and will have come to associate school with a diet of negative strokes.

Don’t get trapped in regression

When we enter a training situation in the present, most of us regress to schooldays, albeit momentarily. If, as so often happens, the trainer has also regressed and is now behaving just like a teacher from their own past, the stage is set for potential problems.  The best case scenario is of a confident student with a caring teacher . The worst case scenario is a belligerent student with a punitive teacher, so that the whole thing becomes a battle for control.

Trainers can avoid becoming trapped in regression by paying attention to their own stroking needs and their approach to training.  They need a good pattern of positive strokes from other people, such as colleagues and friends, so they are not tempted to rely on students to meet their recognition needs.

Trainers also need a variety of role models, so they can select the most effective training styles to suit the student and the circumstances.   They will then be able to offer appropriate strokes to students, across a range that encompasses and balances praise, encouragement, reassurance, challenge, constructive criticism and facilitation of self-directed learning.  Trainers will tend to succeed at this to the extent that they are able to stay in the here-and-now and choose how to behave rather than automatically modelling themselves on their recollections of teachers past.

Check your own stroking pattern

Check the health of your personal stroking pattern by making a chart with a column for each of your colleagues, plus leave a spare column and add in whatever training group(s) you are currently working with.  Add rows so you have space to respond to the following questions for each column:

• what is a typical stroke you receive from them?
• how intense is it? (use your own rating scale so you can make comparisons)
• how often do you receive such strokes?
• does it invite you to feel OK about yourself and others – or does it prompt you to feel one-up or one-down?
• what could you change to create a healthier stroking pattern for yourself?

​

​
​Questions and Answers

Didn’t TA disappear back in the sixties?

When TA was first developed, it spread rapidly and an international association was set up that reached 14000 members around the world.  However, it then became virtually a pop psychology for many years, whilst serious TA practitioners continued their work and the development of the theories in a low profile way.  Over the years, a European association was set up – and became bigger than the international association.  Between them, they have recently combined their examination processes and created the Transactional Analysis Certification and Training Council.  There are now TA associations in over 60 countries.

Isn’t TA really about psychotherapy?

Originally developed by Dr Eric Berne as a psychotherapy, it is now also used extensively in organisational and educational settings – with suitable amendments to the theoretical models and the style of application. Most of these concepts are just as useful for developmental TA as they are for psychotherapeutic TA – they just need adjusting so the focus is development rather than cure. It has been possible for some time to obtain international accreditation in 4 different fields of application – psychotherapy, organisational, educational and counselling.  There are an increasing number of practitioners and trainers in these developmental TA fields.

Can I teach TA without being qualified?
​
Anyone can teach TA  - and the models are simple yet robust enough that people will often understand and benefit from them even if the trainer does not know TA that well.  On the other hand, unqualified trainers may limit their own impact if they have not practised using TA to understand their own issues and the impact of these on their work.  There are now several developmental TA trainers around the UK; options include introductory courses run to an international syllabus, skill building workshops, international accreditation and postgraduate certificate, diploma and MSc programmes.

Transactional Analysis (TA) is an approach to understanding what makes people tick, a collection of interlocking theories, and a philosophy that incorporates a belief that people want to grow and develop. The original TA (now called TA proper) consisted of the analysis of transactions, or interactions between people, using the notion of ego states. However, many more concepts were developed so that the term ‘transactional analysis’ is now used to refer to the whole collection.  In addition to teaching this range of concepts to participants, we can use most of them to analyse our own behaviours and interactions in the classroom

Ego States​

Eric Berne, who developed the TA version of ego states, declared that we have Parent, Adult and Child ego states systems of thinking, feeling and behaving. If we consider only the behaviours (because we can see these but cannot truly know what someone is thinking and feeling) we can work with a personal styles model (Hay 1992, 1995). 

​There are five personal styles with which we interact with others – each has positive and negative aspects.

Controlling Parent

firm, sets clear boundaries
domineering, opinionated

Nurturing Parent

caring, helps others develop
smothering, invites dependency

Functional Adult

logical, problem solving, reasoning
may be cold, unfeeling, analyses jokes

Adapted Child

courteous, fits in with others
over-compliant, sulky, rebellious

Natural Child

friendly, curious, spontaneous
selfish, over-emotional, immature

Trainer Styles

There is a risk that trainers automatically adopt a Controlling or Nurturing Parent style, while participants unconsciously expect to operate from Adapted or Natural Child.  If this happens, the training/learning process will not be very effective.

The best trainers are skilled at using all five personal styles.  In this way, they encourage the learner to do the same.  This also helps the learner to take responsibility for their own development, through:
​

• Controlling Parent when they should be firm with themselves, or have different experiences and opinions to the trainer
• Nurturing Parent to encourage themselves when the trainer is not around
• Functional Adult to engage in joint problem solving with the trainer and other participants, and also to think through problems on their own
• Adapted Child when it is appropriate to do as the trainer says, and to practice enough
• Natural Child in order to display curiosity, to be willing to admit mistakes and be keen to learn

The Three-Cornered Contract

Contracting is a key element of transactional analysis, and refers to the process of creating a clear agreement around expected outcomes and responsibilities. Contracts may or may not be written down.  A verbal contract is still a contract.  The main point is that we discuss and agree why we are interacting when we plan to use TA to help someone grow.

When used effectively within the training process, a good contract will mean that ‘problem participants’ cease to exist!  This is because contracting ensures that the requirements of the organisation are both clear and realistic, that the trainer has the relevant competencies, and that the participants understand the link between the training and the work performance.

Trainers in organisations are usually involved in contracts between at least three parties – the trainer, the organisation (or a representative of it) and the participants.

​References

Hay, Julie (1992) Transactional Analysis for Trainers Maidenhead:  McGraw-Hill, (republished 1996) Watford: Sherwood Publishing 2nd edition published 2009

Hay, Julie (1995) Donkey Bridges for Developmental TA Watford: Sherwood Publishing 2nd edition published 2009

Hay, Julie (2003) Transactional Analysis in the Classroom Train the Trainer, Issue 1
​

Probably the most widely known theory about expressing appreciation and motivating others is the concept of stroking.  This idea was developed during the sixties by Dr Eric Berne and the term is now used throughout the world.

A stroke is a ‘unit of recognition’, or an interaction between people.  It is anything we do that demonstrates in some way to another person that we recognize their existence.  This may be something as simple as glancing at someone or as intense as hugging them - with talking to them coming somewhere in between in terms of intensity of the stroking.  Strokes may also be positive or negative.

Dr Berne pointed out that strokes are a biological necessity.  Human beings experience great difficulty in living without them.  Babies do not develop properly if they are not given strokes, as has unfortunately been demonstrated in recent years in orphanages where children have been neglected.  People kept in solitary confinement also experience high levels of stress due to the lack of human contact - this is probably why we use this as a punishment.

Only a few of us can manage to become hermits.  Most of us need human contact - and some of us need a great deal of it.  We still do not know for certain whether this is due to nature or nurture.  However, we do know that individuals vary in their need for strokes.  The more we can match the individual need in a positive way, the better the person will be able to function.

Positive and Negative Strokes

In order to stroke people effectively, it helps if we understand the different types of strokes that we can give.  The most significant distinction is whether the stroke is a positive or negative one.  Please note that this is not the same as saying that the stroke is something that sounds nice or something that sounds unpleasant. 

A positive stroke may be a compliment but it can be many other things too, such as:  a routine greeting (this would be a low intensity stroke); asking a question to find out about the other person or their views; sharing something about yourself with them; or inviting them to join you for coffee. 

A positive stroke is, in fact, any form of interaction that invites the recipient to feel OK about themself and about others.  A negative stroke is an interaction that invites the recipient to believe that someone is not OK - this may be them, another person, or both. 

These definitions are important.  They mean that constructive criticism is a positive stroke.  We are not saying, therefore, that you should never criticize someone.  Obviously, this may well be necessary if their performance is not satisfactory.  However, there is no need to give destructive criticism.  Instead, your remarks can be phrased in a way that concentrates on what they need to do to perform better.  This format of constructive criticism lets the person know that you believe they are competent and that they can improve.  You might like to think about how you feel when someone gives you feedback in this way, compared to how you feel when they make purely negative comments about what is wrong with what you have done.

The positive and negative definitions also mean that praising someone by comparing them to someone else will generally be a negative stroke.  This is because that kind of comment usually invites the recipient to feel that they are somehow better than the other person. This is psychologically unhealthy for them.  So, comments like “You do that so much better than your colleagues can ever hope to do.” or “I wish that Kevin were as good at this as you obviously are.” are only likely to lead to arrogance on the part of the person you are stroking.  This type of stroke may also create bad feelings within their team, especially if it gets repeated to the people who are being described as less effective.

Conditional or Unconditional Strokes

Another classification for strokes is whether they are conditional or unconditional.  Conditional strokes are interactions that occur on condition that someone has done something.  Unconditional strokes are given without any conditions. 

Conditional strokes, therefore, tend to be those strokes which are about things that the person has some control over.  Examples of this are performance, the way they are dressed, whether they are late to work, comments about specific behaviors, and so on.  The key here is that the person is only given the stroke if they have actually done something to deserve it.  Conditional strokes may be positive or negative.
​
Unconditional strokes, on the other hand, are given for something over which the person has no control or simply because the person exists.  Unconditional strokes are much more powerful than conditional strokes as they are about the person.  Some people will find that unconditional strokes are a bit too powerful - they may prefer not to feel quite so close to someone.  You may notice that they only seem comfortable when they are accepting conditional strokes.

Unconditional strokes include examples such as telling someone you enjoy working with them, commenting on aspects of their appearance that they cannot change (like the color of their eyes or their height), asking them questions about themselves as human beings.
 
Stroking Patterns

Because strokes are such an essential part of life, we all establish patterns of interactions so that we can be sure that we will get enough recognition.  What happens is that we tend to establish relationships with a fairly limited number of people who tend to provide the types of strokes that we are used to.  We will, of course, have contact sometimes with other people but it is quite likely that the strokes they give us are rather like a bonus on top of our regular diet. 

We may have several patterns in different areas of our lives.  Most of us, for example, will have a stroking pattern established at work that is based on the colleagues that we have most contact with.  We are likely to have a separate stroking pattern based on our family - although if we are not in regular contact with family members then we will seek to make up the deficit elsewhere.  We may also have several different stroking patterns associated with our friends.  Perhaps we have one set of friends that we play sport with, another that we invite to our home for parties, and maybe others that we do not see very often.  Or we may have no clear boundaries so that all of our friends meet each other, and perhaps they meet our family and work colleagues as well.  All of this will depend on our individual preferences. 

Whatever our personal patterns are, we will seek to have enough people involved in them so that we receive the appropriate quantity and types of strokes.  This is why some people have such a wide circle of friends while others seem to manage with very little contact.  Neither is right or wrong; people are different.

We suggest you  take some time to check out your own stroking patterns within your work team.   Note down who is in the team, when do you stroke them, what format do your strokes take, what are the strokes about?  Do the same in reverse – as well as reviewing the strokes you give, check out the strokes you get.

Who did you include in the pattern?  Did you include only people that you like? Did you include your manager - it is surprising how many people do not think of their own manager as someone they work closely with.  Did you have any difficulty in thinking of enough people to include - perhaps you need to consider how you can widen you circle of contacts. 

When and how often you give strokes to the people in your chart.  Do you give strokes fairly regularly or are there some people where you have trouble remembering the last time you gave them any significant recognition?

How much intensity and impact do you think your strokes are likely to have?  Are you doing little more than ritualized greetings and, if so, what does this do to your relationship?  Or are you giving very powerful strokes - and could these be more intense than the recipient feels comfortable with?

Are the strokes you give positive or negative? Be honest with yourself!  Are you sometimes giving negative strokes, perhaps when you feel stressed or when someone else has been nasty to you?  If your strokes are all positive, check whether any are constructive criticism.

What are your strokes about?  An effective stroking pattern will have variety - the strokes will be targeted to the individual recipients.  If your strokes are all much the same, check that you are not simply giving out the type of strokes you like to receive.  What evidence do you have that you are giving strokes that are appreciated - do people accept your strokes or do they try to push them back at you?

Finally, what prompted you to give the stroke?  Was it something the other person said or did?  Perhaps they offered you a stroke and you responded by giving one back.  This can be okay at times but check that it is not a customary reaction because it can make your strokes seem artificial.  Check also that your stroking pattern is not influenced unduly by your own moods.  We all know people who only praise others when they themselves have been praised  -  and managers who come to work in a bad mood and then find fault with everyone around them!

Improving your pattern

Now that you have analyzed your stroking pattern think how you might improve it:
​

• Do you need to include more people within your general interaction pattern?  Who might they be?  Start with one or two people only and gradually find opportunities to stroke them.  Do not add lots of people to the pattern at once  -  you will not have enough time, you will find it too stressful, and people will begin to wonder what has happened to you!
• Do some people need more strokes than others?   Don’t expect that everyone will respond to exactly the same stroking format.  Notice who are the ones who like many strokes  -  they may also be people who are content with lower intensity strokes given more frequently.  Identify others who may prefer a much higher intensity stroke on an occasional basis.
• Should you change the content?  The content should be important to the recipient.  Check that you are not just talking to them about what matters to you  -  for example, your hobbies or your work.
• What about negative strokes?  Change these to positives!  Inviting someone to feel bad is not a good recipe for a relationship.  Either look for positive things to comment on instead, or change to constructive criticism and let the person know what you want them to do in future rather than what you did not like in the past.

​

Berne (1972) and Steiner (1974) went further and suggested the notion of lifescripts.  Berne refers to our use of fairy stories - people unwittingly become characters such as Little Red Riding Hood, Robin Hood, Prince Charming or Cinderella.  We may instead become one of the other players in such stories, especially if we have decided not to be too important.  Having heard the story that seems to fit our experiences of the world at a young age (before seven), we decide to be that character and then grow up with no conscious awareness of our decision.

‘Cinderella’ may well work hard for many years while her (or his – these are unisex) manager (wicked stepmother) and colleagues (ugly sisters) take all the credit – until one day a mentor (fairy godmother) ensures that Cinders gets to present at the annual conference (ball) and the senior manager (Prince) finally recognises just how good Cinders is and promotes her/him (marries and takes to castle).  Or Robin Hood may adopt a role as official or unofficial staff representative (outlaw) and spend time arguing (fighting) with a manager (Sheriff of Nottingham) on behalf of the workforce (peasants), both overtly through open attacks and covertly by awarding perks that are outside the rules - until one day the Chief Executive (King Richard) makes a visit and sees what has been happening and demotes the manager and promotes Robin.

The modern version of this lifescript process may well be that children choose TV programmes or films instead of fairy stories.  Perhaps we will now have people who live like characters from Star Trek, no longer boldly going but leading through involvement, or being totally empathic, or operating very rationally and without emotions – the programme offers many choices. 

Berne also referred to Campbell (1973) who had identified that there are only a limited number of themes to fairy stories around the world, and that these also fit Greek myths.  Kahler (1979) developed this to identify some characteristic ways of behaving that encapsulate the lifetime themes within single interactions.  Thus, we may unwittingly reinforce patterns that comprise:

• Always – like Arachne weaving her web, we may be condemned to doing the same thing all the time – You’ve made your bed, now lie in it!  So our sentence patterns, and lives, tend to be monotonous.
• After – like Damocles, whenever we are having a good time, we are conscious that there is a sword handing over us – You’ll pay for this in the morning!  So we add caveats onto the end of apparently positive comments, and expect to be criticised after any compliments.
• Until – like Hercules, you must complete all your labours before you can enjoy yourself – but somehow by the time you’ve done the work, it’s too late to have fun.  So we pack a lot of detail into our sentences, and into our work, so it all takes a long time.
• Never – like Tantalus, what you want is just out of your reach – so we get excited about what we’re saying or doing; we try hard but then consistently fail to finish.
• Almost – like Sisyphus rolling the stone up the hill, over and over – we keep almost getting there, almost saying what we mean – but constantly go back to start again, or decide there is now another hill to climb without taking the time to savour our achievements.
• Open Ended – like Baucis and Philemon, we seem to stand for eternity after having done our duty – so we work hard and then retire and wonder what to do now.

Monitoring our Maps

Whether we are functioning as managers, facilitators, mentors, coaches, trainers, etc, it is important that we become aware of our own metaphors and paradigms so that we do not impose these unwittingly on others.  It can also be useful to check out a few of our maps – we may well find some common themes.
The following are some suggestions for the aspects to check once we recognise that we are operating within a metaphor or paradigm:

• What does the map embody – what is the main thrust of the content; what responses does it generate within the body; if it is a story, what happens; what is it about; are there specific steps or stages within it; what might it prompt someone to do?
• What does it encompass – how far does this particular map extend; does it apply only to a specific event, to a person or role, to a period of time; might it define your whole life or that of the organisation; what are the limits or boundaries; where does the metaphor break down; is there a better alternative map?
• What does it entail – is there a sting in the tail; does it have elements that you would prefer were not there; what might happen because of it that would be unhelpful; how ecologically sound is it; what might you be overlooking when you focus on the main theme; do you need to change the map?
• How might, or should, it be enriched – how much is it locked into your own cultural or other set of paradigms; how could you make it richer by being open to other people’s maps of the world; how could you extend it by weaving in metaphors and paradigms from other cultures?
• How does, or could, it, empower – what ‘power’ does the map provide; what positive developmental elements does it contain; what is the impact on you or others of operating within the map; how might you change it so that it becomes more empowering?

​

References

Berne, Eric (1972) What Do You Say After You Say Hello? New York: Grove Press

Campbell, Joseph (1973) The Hero with a Thousand Faces Princeton: Princeton University Press

Hay, Julie (2002) Metaphors and Paradigms – Whose Map of the World? Organisations & People 9:4 2-8

Kahler, Taibi (1979) Process Therapy in Brief Little Rock, AR: Human Development Publications

Steiner, Claude (1974) Scripts People Live New York: Bantam
​

© 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.
​​