The Parent of Miscommunication
There
is a rapidly growing belief, with good reason, that Transactional Analysis can
play a vital role in developing employees within Human Factors training. This
body of knowledge born initially in the fields of psychotherapy and counselling,
and now embedded both educationally and organisationally, offers an intriguing
insight into the behaviours of, and between humans. Added to this and perhaps more
importantly some of the simple reasons human communication breaks down while conversely, some communication flows naturally. With only a basic understanding
of TA theory many serious and minor workplace conflicts could be avoided, the
secondary gain by virtue of osmosis is a reduction in human related accidents.
Within
this blog I will explore two specific elements of TA. Firstly, the Parent,
Adult and Child (PAC) model, where I will attempt to explain TA in its most
colloquial form. Secondly the role that life positions can play in the
workplace, and the subtle situations familiarly linked with each life position.
Dr
Eric Berne principally developed TA in the 1950’s until his death in 1971. Dr
Berne, while treating World War II veterans, noticed they exhibited distinct and
separate ‘Ego States’ when observed closely. These individual Ego States form
the basis of our personality, more importantly how choosing an appropriate ego
state can improve the successfulness of communication.
While in our Parent ego state we
are replaying thoughts, feelings and behaviours copied from our parents or
parental figures during childhood development. The Adult ego state is known as
logical and rational, responding to the here and now situation with processed
thought - often likened to a computer. Finally the Child ego state which is a
little boy or girl, carried within, comprising of thoughts, feelings, language
and responses relating to specific certain ages during the persons childhood
development. It is worth pointing out at this juncture that the Child ego state
is not ‘immature’ or ‘childish’ which are both Parent descriptions of behaviour.
Within
this model of communication Berne describes transactions that occur between
people, some transactions are complimentary and can run indefinitely.
Communication is broken when we experience a crossed transaction, this occurs
when the response you’re expecting does not come from the appropriate ‘ego
state’ expected. Often played out in the workplace crossed transactions form
the basis for miscommunication and misunderstanding – over prolonged periods
suspicion and mistrust can manifest into unproductive or potentially dangerous
situations.
Consider
for a moment that I continually attempt to communicate Adult to Adult with my
supervisor; she however returns my here and now rational questions with an unnecessary
Critical Parent response. Communication soon becomes untenable, which leads me
to a conscious choice not to engage with her unless absolutely essential to
complete my work. Politely we can both
opt for the easy option to ignore each other, however there is a deeper issue
at hand where in she feels professionally threatened, without cause, by my
career trajectory – causing her to unconsciously select her Critical Parent ego
state when in communication with me. It is also worth pointing out that there
are two levels of communication, the first being the ‘social’ level which are
the actual words used, more importantly however is the ‘psychological’ level
which is the true meaning – not represented by actual words but by subtle tones,
looks and expressions. Berne estimated that as much as 70% of all communication
takes place at the psychological level. The behaviour exhibited by my manager
is also driven by her life position, which can be one of four options.
1.
I’m OK – You’re OK / the position of win-win and
productivity.
2.
I’m not OK – You’re OK / the position of the
depressive.
3.
I’m OK – You’re not OK / the position of the
bully.
4.
I’m not OK – You’re not OK / the position of the
despairing.
Firstly
the most important question is, what is not being said?
From
her oppressive behaviour we can assume for the purpose of this blog she lives
her life from the I’m OK – You’re not OK position, or bully. Trusting others is
difficult for her because she sets her stall out early to manage subordinates with
aggression and oppression. Opting for the ‘stick’ does not endear her easily to
colleagues, although she will probably explain the lack of warmth shown to her
by jealousy of her self-perceived career progression. This contaminates her
model of the world and she will continually seek evidence to prove her distorted
view point by playing work based psychological games that add weight to her
theory that subordinates can not be trusted - meaning she must manage strictly
to ensure both job standard and timely completion. Potentially she has a strong
‘be perfect (or be a failure) driver’ behaviour inherited from an early age
from her mother and/or father, who both did not suffer fools gladly and enjoyed
a good game of ‘now I’ve got you, you son of a bitch’ regularly.
Outside
of her conscious awareness she may even actively set colleagues up to fail,
something taught to her by her over bearing parents, which will allow her to
take over and snatch projects from the impending disaster (while quiet
appropriately flying of the handle at her victim). From this position she can claim
two victories, the first being acknowledgment from superiors on her magnificent
situational rescue (again), more importantly, and subtly, it manoeuvres her
subordinate into a one down psychological position savoured by bullies from
every level of society. The selection of her opponent to join her in this game
is also vital; as to follow the game through to conclusion will require unequivocal
failure from her opponent at some point. Once in the one down position rarely
will the bully allow the person an opportunity to recover - periodically
reminding them of their failings, unless off course, subconsciously they
surrender completely and superficially join forces in entrapping other,
stronger willed colleagues. In this arrangement we can move to the I’m OK,
You’re OK, They’re Not OK position often used by bullies for shallow alliances.
Most interestingly we both know at an unconscious level that this shallow
alliance is both superficial and not without further clauses, which never requires
verbalising or reviewing but can be brought to bear at any moment.
This
scenario is played out throughout every office in every profession known to
man, throughout time; the real question is what can be done? Evidently it is
important honest and productive lines of communication are restored, especially
when working within safety critical industries when poor communication can, and
have, led to massive disasters with huge loss of life. With TA coaching,
communication can be examined, not by content but by process. Much of what is
happening is happening outside of the conscious awareness of everyone; perhaps all
that is within immediate awareness is the familiar bad feelings that are the
result of game playing and broken communication. The goal is to bring my supervisor
to the I’m OK – You’re OK quadrant, which will allow her to start trusting her
subordinates, at the same time I can develop my knowledge and understanding of
the PAC model allowing me invite her Adult into our transactions at every
opportunity. Continuing both of our education and development allows us to
become ‘game free’ in the workplace, replacing unnecessary traps with improved
productivity.
Transactional
Analysis offers the knowledge to coach colleagues to improve their
interpersonal relationships within the work place, which, in turn leads to more
productivity, reduced miscommunication, and subsequently a huge reduction in
accidents in the work place. Communication is important in all industries,
however in safety critical industries the cost of miscommunication can lead to
potentially fatal accidents.
