The following is an activity that was designed during a TA training weekend (Hay, 1999). It is an activity that will energise the group whilst at the same time increasing familiarity with the various forms of time structuring. Note that we do not include psychological games – we chose only to demonstrate positive forms of time structuring. Instead of games, we have added a time structure called ‘supporting’, where the stroking is partway between the level of intensity for activities and intimacy. The activity is best performed to Cajun music – hence the name! Country and Western music would also work. Have the group stand in a circle. The following are the movements used to represent each time structure: Withdrawal: stand with backs to each other, with arms folded – to represent no contact, no stroking occurring. Ritual: turn to face each, make Namasté (for those not familiar with this form of greeting, you press your palms together as you raise your hands in front of your face, whilst looking towards the person(s) you are greeting). Pastiming: hold up your palms, facing towards the others, and rotate your hands (an optional extra here is to split your fingers as in the Vulcan greeting in Star Trek!). Working or Playing (Activity): join by putting right hands into the centre to form a star, then move 8 paces to the right followed by 8 paces to the left (as in country dancing). Supporting: cross arms and hold hands with those on either side of you, then all lean outwards to show you trust each other, and in this position repeat the movements of 8 steps to the right and 8 steps to the left. Closeness (intimacy): all lean in a lot, and drop your hands so that you can hold hands with your neighbours. Withdrawal: to complete the sequence of interaction, return to the position for being alone by stepping back, turning around, hold hands briefly then let go, step out one pace and fold your arms. We had a lot of fun designing this activity. We hope you too will enjoy it as a demonstration of the different time structures. Reference Hay, Julie (1999) Cajun Team Meld INTAND Newsletter 7:4 14-15 © 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.
0 Comments
Great to get gratitude letter from SITA - have enjoyed my past and continuing provision of TA to keen students in St Petersburg. Because of internet connection problems I was unable to present the following online for the St Petersburg TA Association Silver Jubilee Celebration. So, here's a video recording instead: ![]()
In Blog 26 I presented C5P5A5 as a handy donkey bridge (Townsend, 1994) for remembering a list of factors to think about when we are analysing group processes. I traced my development of this from 1993 through to 2012 (Gobes, 1993; Hay, 1993, 2009, 2012). However, I overlooked an alternative I had described in a publication I wrote for Fenman (Hay, 2004). Below, therefore, is a new version based on a combination of the two different versions of C5P5A5. This now has 7 factors for each, and has therefore become C7P7A7. As before, we cannot keep all of these in mind at once so they can be considered roughly chronologically. C7 relates to what is happening as the group starts up. P7 applies once the group has moved into doing its work. A7 is relevant as the group is reaching the end of a task or a meeting. Context – what is the context within which the group is functioning and how might this be influencing the group dynamics? Contact – how well is initial contact being made between the group members; are they taking time to create relationships? Contract – what is the contract, or agreed remit, of the group; are group members clear about this? Content – is the content of the discussion related to the contract; are group members focusing on appropriate content? Creativity – is there evidence of creativity; are new ideas welcomed? Commitment – do all group members seem equally committed to the work of the group; are they all contributing? Contrasts – how are group members using any differences between them (e.g. cultures, styles, etc) rather than these leading to unhelpful conflict? Personal – is the group process respectful; are they listening to each other and communicating effectively? Professional – are the group at the performing stage (Tuckman, 1965); are they working on the issues in line with their professional roles? Psychological – is the process clean, with a lack of hidden messages; are the group avoiding game playing? Power – is there an absence of power plays; are more senior group members encouraging others to play a full part? Paradigms – whose maps of the world are being operated within; are group members being open-minded enough about the perspectives of others? Parallel – is the group functioning in the here-and-now and avoiding any sense of parallel process (Searles, 1955) dynamics outside the group (such as replaying conflicts between their managers)? Performing – has the group reached the performing stage? Attachment – have the group reached the stage where they are close and open with each other? Autonomy – are group members managing to be autonomous and offer their own views rather engaging in groupthink? Authenticity – are group members being genuine about their feelings and opinions rather than holding back? Alternatives – is the group generating alternatives and choosing from a range of options rather than closing down too quickly? Actions – are practical actions being generated or identified, accompanied by enough details about plans for implementation? Accountability – are the group members allocating/accepting responsibilities to specific group members for ensuring actions are implemented? Aims – do the outcomes relate back to the original aims of the group? References Gobes, Landy (1993) C4P4: A Consultation Checklist Transactional Analysis Journal 23:1 42-44 Hay, Julie (1993) C4P5A3: A Donkey Bridge for Group Processes Groupvine Winter 11-12 Hay, Julie (2004) Analyzing Group Behaviour Train the Trainer, Fenman 13 Hay, Julie (2009) Transactional Analysis for Trainers 2nd edition Hertford: Sherwood Publishing Hay, Julie (2012) Donkey Bridges for Developmental TA 2nd edit Hertford: Sherwood Publishing Searles, Harold F. (1955) The Informational Value of the Supervisor’s Emotional Experiences Psychiatry Vol 18 pp. 135-146 (later reproduced in Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects, H. F. Searles, Karnac Books 1965) Townsend, John (1994) Making Messages Memorable Training and Development January Tuckman, Bruce (1965) Developmental sequence in small groups Psychological Bulletin 63 384-399 © 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. In Hay (2004) I produced an issue in Fenman’s Train the Trainer series that was about groups. In that, among other things, I wrote about interaction charts and group imagoes. I also included a warning. A word of warning
Analysing and feeding back group behaviour can leave some people feeling threatened, especially if they are not used to thinking about how they behave and the impact they have on others. Make sure you set up adequate groundrules for the process – think about some of the frameworks in this issue and apply them to the group in terms of its task being to review its own process. Facilitate in a way that provides appropriate stages of group development for the review. Don’t assume that, because the group were effective at their work task, there is enough trust and openness for doing something quite different. Analysing individuals in groups As well as looking at group dynamics, we can usefully analyse individual behaviour within groups. For instance, we could simply note the number of times each participant interacts with each other participant and use this interaction chart to review what is happening – there will almost certainly be patterns emerge that demonstrate clearly when alliances form or arguments develop, who is treated as the group leader and who is not really involved. Or we can add to this by analysing styles of behaviour (e.g. assertive, aggressive, acquiescent), types of interactions (e.g. questions, opinions, ideas), personality indicators (e.g. introvert or extravert, thinking or feeling). Group imagoes
An alternative to Tuckman is the notion of group imagoes proposed by Berne. He suggested that we all have some form of image, or imago, of a group, usually out of our awareness, that this imago goes through recognisable stages, and that this heavily influences our behaviour in groups. If we were to capture our imagoes on paper, they might look like those in Figure 1 (although they might look quite different – this is a very personal thing!) Changing the names of the stages to make them more memorable, we have:
We can analyse group behaviour by inviting group members to sketch out their imagoes at the various stages and then to review these with each other. This can be a powerful way of bringing into consciousness some of the assumptions and prejudices we all carry. Seeing people for who they are rather than what we unwittingly imagine them to be can significantly improve our relationships. And don’t forget that you too, as trainer/facilitator, are running your own imagoes – which may contain slots for that participant who always causes trouble, or asks too many questions, or sulks, or whatever else you regularly find hard to deal with. References Hay, Julie (2004) Analyzing Group Behaviour Train the Trainer, Fenman 13 © 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. In 1997 I provided an article about TA in organisations, in which I explained why it is like a pickaxe. The publishers did not use my title but they did keep the mention of the pickaxe within the article (Hay, 1997), as I show below. They also deleted my sub-headings, which I have put back for this version as it makes it easier to read. And they edited some of my wording and I have chosen here to retain the original words. Transactional analysis was originally developed by Eric Berne as a therapy model - which has been its strength and yet also the source of its problems when too many people saw it as a quick fix and tried to transfer it, unchanged, into organisational settings. Fortunately, there have been many developments over the years, so that we now have variations that have been specifically tailored to the needs of individuals within organisations - and to the organisations too. Why the pickaxe? The robustness is, of course, still there and indeed one way you can see TA is like using a pickaxe to release physis. This refers to an underlying principle of TA: that all human beings have within them physis, which is the basic urge to grow and develop. Regrettably, many of us have our physis buried under a metaphorical layer of concrete, put there by well-meaning grown-ups who pointed out our limitations when we were young. The trainer who comes equipped with a pickaxe can create enough cracks in the concrete for us to behave like plants and grow up through the gaps towards the light! This basic premise is highly relevant to current organisations, where it is essential to capitalise on the innate potential of all employees. It is equally relevant to the employees, who need to grow into new roles and responsibilities. They also need to respond positively to change - and if they are sensible they want continued professional development in order to maintain their ‘market value’. The psychological contract Much has been written recently about the changing nature of the psychological contract between organisations and employees. TA offers an extended model of contracting that helps make this clearer and that also has considerable relevance for trainers. The basic model is of a three-cornered contract, between organisation, trainer and participants. The key is ensuring that all parties have shared expectations. Imagine a triangle with eyes in each corner - each party should have a clear perspective of the contract between the other parties. Often this is not the case. The organisation may have unrealistic expectations of what the trainer can achieve (especially when they only allow half a day!). The participants may be there unwillingly and believe that the trainer will be trying to force them to change. And the trainer may think so too - or may see their role as saviour to the downtrodden participants and agree with them about the shortcomings of management. Awareness of the three-cornered contract allows a trainer to check that the organisation is expecting something feasible; that the participants recognise their own responsibilities for their learning; and that they as trainer are competent to do the training. This will mean that the psychological distances between the parties are balanced - so that the roles of Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim are avoided. TA Principles
TA frameworks There are far too many TA frameworks to give more than an overview in this short article. Some are well known, such as: Ego states and transactional analysis proper - analysing of transactions between people using ego states. Note that various misunderstandings have crept in here because Eric Berne’s original models were misinterpreted by early organisational trainers. When Berne emphasised the use of Adult ego state, he meant any behaviour that was grounded in the here and now. He did not restrict this to logical behaviour but included appropriate nurturing, emotional reactions, and having fun. Trainers may unwittingly adopt a Parent ego state; participants often slide promptly into Child ego state as soon as they enter a classroom because they ‘regress’ to their childhood. Those who were naughty at school may then repeat the pattern; trainers who have shifted to Parent are likely to find themselves wishing they could give detentions! Strokes and life positions - strokes are the ways we let others know that we recognise that they exist; life positions are our existential attitudes. Strokes are a biological necessity - and the ways in which we are motivated (or not) at work. We vary in our stroke preferences; some of us like work-based strokes while others prefer personal strokes. Our life positions determine how we react to strokes: in I’m OK, You’re OK we accept them positively but in not OK positions we distort the strokes so that even positive ones may be perceived as negative. What you stroke is what you get! Trainers who persist in giving negative strokes will often find that the behaviour commented on gets repeated rather than extinguished. Learning and behaviour change are increased when people are given positive strokes that reinforce what is wanted. Psychological games - games people play is probably the best-known TA phrase ever (and was also the title of one of Berne’s bestselling books). Games are those predictable, repetitive interactions that seem to progress inexorably to a negative outcome that comes as no real surprise. Rather like a stage drama, the game players take on roles as Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim - and then switch places for maximum impact. Trainers may start out as if they expect to Rescue participants and finish up feeling like Victims when their efforts are rebuffed. Participants may act like Victims who don’t want to be on the course, and then switch to Persecutor and blame the trainer. Working styles and drivers - these are five identifiable styles that are our strengths, or characteristic working styles, and become our weaknesses, or drivers, when we are under stress. Stress causes us to do more of whatever we were doing already, as when we shout at foreigners as if that will make them understand our language. When this fails, we may become compulsive, or driven, to do even more of the same. Trainers with Hurry Up style get more and more impatient; Be Perfects become increasingly pedantic; Please People become paranoid about displeasing anyone; Try Hards try harder and harder whilst getting nowhere; and Be Strong types become increasingly stoical and monotonous. Competence curve and cycles of development - the curve shows how competence levels go up and down when change occurs. Based on a child development model, it helps people understand why change is often stressful and yet could be a more positive experience. Trainers can use this model to plan training formats that make it easier for people to settle in and gain maximum benefit. The individual and the organisation The concepts above were described from an individual perspective. They can equally be applied to an organisation to identify limitations. Ego states - managers, like trainers, may adopt permanent Parent whilst employees feel obliged to stay in Child. Departments may take on a persona: Accounts may be the organisation’s Parent, making sure no-one spends money; Sales may be the Child, having an exciting time; Engineering may regard themselves as Adult, engaged in logical problem solving. Strokes - you can analyse the organisational stroking pattern by considering questions such as: how are success and failure identified and stroked; do average performers get any strokes (usually not, because they are taken for granted - poor performers get much more management attention); what strokes are there when people join, transfer, leave? Games - the amount of game playing within an organisation is a reflection of the stress levels! Working styles - organisations often have their own styles, which may owe a lot to the style at the top! Examples are newspapers as Hurry Up, creative agencies as Try Hard, accountancy firms as Be Perfect, emergency services as Be Strong, and social services as Please People. Note that in unsuccessful organisations these become drivers, so that the style itself becomes part of the problem. Competence curve - this can be used to analyse and improve the ways in which organisations implement change. It can also be used by managers to check their own contributions to (or shortcomings in) helping employees adjust to new circumstances. Applying TA competently TA is deceptively simple. It is also extremely potent when used effectively. The key is to apply it to yourself before you attempt to apply it to others. TA uses a system of training and supervision which focuses on self-awareness and skill development. Accredited transactional analysts have typically spent at least four years developing their awareness and skills before taking an international exam that involves both a dissertation and a panel that reviews their work. It is said that the best way to learn something is to teach it to others. TA trainees are encouraged to do just that and to bring the results (on audio or video tapes) to a TA supervisor for review. The trainees themselves will analyse the interactions on the tapes with help from the supervisor. Of course not everyone will want to obtain the full qualification. Many trainers use relatively small amounts of TA alongside their other skills. It is still well worth getting some professional coaching. There are now modular TA programmes available that are specifically geared to organisational applications and that allow individuals to opt in for specific sessions. Most are at weekends to suit trainers’ busy diaries. And those who have attended them confirm that the increase in their competence generally is well worth the investment of time and energy. References Hay, Julie (1997) Talking TA Management Skills & Development April 66-67 © 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. In my two previous blogs, I wrote about TA concepts that had appeared in a Fenman publication: ego states, contracting and strokes, each related to the trainer in the classroom. In 1992 and 1997, I wrote about how we might relate working styles to the participants and to the trainers. Below is extracted from my article (Hay, 1997) that appeared in the Training Officer. Have you ever noticed that you work to a pattern - that you seem to have certain strengths in your style but that you also behave sometimes in characteristic ways that limit your effectiveness? Awareness of our own working style, and its advantages and pitfalls, can increase our range of strategies. We can identify ways to be more productive and a little self-analysis can unlock major benefits that we have overlooked. We can also contrast our own styles with those of our participants, and adapt our behaviour appropriately to establish a better connection. TA provides us with a simple model of five major working styles, each with particular strengths and specific weaknesses. The weaknesses often result directly from an overdose of the strengths; we can have too much of a good thing. When this happens we stop choosing to behave in a particular way and start feeling compelled to act that way. We then overdo it and create problems for ourselves. As you read the following descriptions, note how much each resonates for you. Most people recognise elements of each style in themselves - and most of us also realise that we have one or two clear preferences! Hurry Up People with Hurry Up characteristics work quickly, respond well to short deadlines, and get a lot done in a short time. Our motivation is to do things quickly, we feel good if we can complete tasks in the shortest possible time and our energy peaks under pressure. Our major strength is the amount that we can achieve. We spend less time preparing than others do, giving us a chance to design and run more training programmes. However, give us time to spare and we delay starting until the job becomes urgent. We are the trainers who don’t prepare the course handouts until the night before the course begins - and then find that the photocopier is out of order! Our ability to think fast makes us appear impatient. We speak fast and have a habit of interrupting others. We often pack too much into our courses because we expect people to learn faster than they do. We need to plan sufficient time for tasks, especially preparation that we are inclined to skimp. To avoid appearing impatient, we should consciously slow down so that other people have time to absorb the information. We must stop interrupting them and concentrate on listening. It can be very helpful to remember to ask about their needs instead of making assumptions, and to paraphrase back to check our understanding. Be Perfect Be Perfect characteristics involve a quest for perfection - no errors, everything must be exactly right, first time. This working style means we are well organised because we look ahead, plan for potential problems, do our best to make sure everything will run smoothly. We can be relied on to produce detailed course designs and comprehensive handouts. Unfortunately, we cannot be relied on to produce course material on time because we need to check it so carefully for mistakes. We may miss opportunities to collaborate with other trainers because we are reluctant to issue a draft rather than the final version. We are also likely to misjudge the level of detail required, including too much information and overloading or confusing the participants. We may be pedantic, using long words or technical terms that others do not understand. To make sure we meet deadlines, we need to prioritise in several ways. Decide which tasks really need perfection and save it for them. Recognise when a summary handout will do instead of a large volume that will never be read. When presenting, we can use the must know, should know, could know levels to identify key information and stop before we bury people in facts and figures. Please People Please People are like nurturing parents - they care about people and are encouraging and reassuring. We are intuitive and considerate of others' feelings. Our aim is to please other people without asking. We work out what they would like and then provide it. This working style means we are nice to have around because we are tolerant and understanding. We pay attention to the feelings of those around us and ensure that everyone's views are taken into account. A major problem for us is our tendency to be too nice. We may hesitate to insist that participants take the training seriously, or be too accommodating when they avoid the role-plays or the homework. Another danger is our willingness to volunteer to do the other trainers’ work. We may take on so much that we cannot complete it in the time available - and then we get the blame even though we were ‘only trying to help’. It's important that we set our own limits and priorities if we are to be respected by others. We need to have the courage of our convictions when we know we have designed an effective course programme, and insist that participants respect our professionalism. We may also need to curtail our habit of mind reading and stop doing things for others that have not been requested - and are often not appreciated anyway. And we probably need to learn to say no skilfully. Try Hard The Try Hard working style is all about the effort put into the task, so we tackle things enthusiastically. Our energy peaks with something new to do and we like to follow up on all possibilities. This results in a thorough job in the sense of paying attention to all aspects of the task; in this way we get a reputation for showing initiative. People also value our motivation and the way we have of getting things off the ground. We are energetic and enthusiastic trainers who obviously enjoy our subject. However, we may be more committed to trying than to succeeding. Our initial interest may wear off before we finish the task; we may start to design one course only to have our attention drawn to something else, and then to something else. When presenting, we may start to teach one topic but then ‘butterfly’ across to others, leaving our listeners confused. Our attention to so many aspects makes the job impossibly large, and our tendency to dabble in so many areas may mean we fail to become expert in any of them. We need to control our tendency to go off at tangents and concentrate on sticking to the course outline as planned. Like the Be Perfects, we can use the must know, should know, could know as a guide - in our case so that we cover the items on the list in enough detail instead of substituting new topics as we run the course. We also need to control our tendency towards boredom with the later stages of projects and programmes. Sometimes we can find creative ways of making repetitive tasks more exciting but sometimes we simply need to get on with it and run the course again. Be Strong Be Strong people are calm under pressure, good at dealing with stress, great to have around in a crisis. With this working style, we feel energised when we have to cope. We have a strong sense of duty and will work steadily even at the unpleasant tasks. We will also keep on thinking logically when others may be panicking. Because we are so good at staying calm and dealing with all that the job throws at us, we are seen as consistently reliable, steady workers. A problem with this style is that we hate admitting weakness - and we regard any failure to cope as a weakness. We may therefore unconsciously signal to course members that they should hide their own weaknesses, making it difficult for us to then know how to help them. We may also find that participants feel uncomfortable about our lack of emotional support for them in situations such as role-plays where many people feel stressed. It may be difficult for them to get to know us and feel relaxed when we seem to have no feelings. Be Strong is often the hardest working style to identify in ourselves. Our potential weaknesses may be well hidden. We need to accept that there is nothing wrong with asking for help, and learn to encourage and reassure participants who tell us about their weaknesses. We need also to develop our own ability to self disclose, so that we are seen to be human. References Hay, Julie (1992) Hay, Julie (1992) Transactional Analysis for Trainers Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill, (republished 1996) Watford: Sherwood Publishing (2nd edition published 2009) Hay, Julie (1997) Trainer training – doing it to ourselves Training Officer 33:10 300-302 © 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. |
Categories
All
Archives
August 2019
|