Process Communication Model (PCM): Imaginer

Transactional Analysis

Do you know a person or two who most of the time are staying in silence, observing the world that is around them? During the meetings, a family dinner or other friends gathering they are not the kings or queens of the party, but you can tell that they are processing in their heads what they hear?

That’s the Imaginer.

The last (but not least) of six personality types in Process Communication Model. We’ve started the story about PCM HERE, then we’ve described the other 5: Persister, Thinker, Promoter, Rebel and Harmonizer.

Today we’re adding the missing piece to our PCM puzzle, so we understand different people once we meet them, have them as team members or stakeholders in different circumstances (professional and private). For those of us who has little Imaginer energy (like myself), they might be the hardest to communicate with since they don’t say a lot of things out loud and their processes (i.e. decision making) are longer than in the rest of the types. Why is that? Let’s take a look!

How do we recognize Imaginer?

Imaginer is a person who experience the world through the lens of reflections (or inactions). Most of the time, they use their reflective mode: they have a lot of processes inside of their heads, so they see many different things in their brains. Sometimes it’s called inactions, since they don’t take action on what they reflect on until somebody says them so.

How to recognize an Imaginer in the Base of personality? Again, the easiest way to make a strong hypothesis is to look for the key words that the person uses the most.

For Imaginer it will be: “I imagine…”, “As I reflect on that…”, “In my head I can see…”, “I see it that way…”, “I picture…”.

They say all that because they operate the best in their internal world. It doesn’t mean that they are antisocial (in a clinical way). I’m sure that you’ve experienced not once, not twice a person who doesn’t say anything, but you see their eyes moving or looking out through the window in intense internal process. That’s because there is a tough reflective sequence that’s happening in the head of that person. They have a lot of things inside them, a lot of options or scenarios they create in a certain situation.

The recognition of Imaginer is also easier when we look on their non-verbal communication: like in the Thinker’s case, it’s a flat, computer face, with almost no mimics on it. Their voice is linear, monotonous, static. Their body is still, they don’t use movement to not waste the energy that they can invest in more internal reflective process. They don’t say much, but when they do, that’s what we can observe externally.

If you see and hear it, that’s a strong indicator that there’s a Imaginer in the Base on the other side of the communication process. How to use it to get along with that kind of person?

What does Imaginer need in communication?

The Imaginer needs communication process where they have a chance to reflect on things. Once they do it, here’s a time to directly tell them to share what they have in their heads with us. Extremely important for them as well is to have a space, where they can be alone to reflect, and then they are ready to talk to us.
To be efficient in communication with Imaginer, we need to use directive channel of communication. It’s the same story we had in the Promoter’s description: Imaginer needs to know exactly what to do and say to us. It means that asking them questions is not going to work, since they are not responsive to the requestive channel. How to do it right? Using the same example as before: when we want to delegate a task, so a chosen employee covers it, the great approach will be opening the conversation with a direct statement. “Hi Mike, I want you to take a task X. (Now we describe briefly what the task is about). Please tell me what showed in your head when I was describing it to you.” And we give them a moment to reflect. Pushing or rushing them is not going to work well, what can be hard, especially for Promoters and Rebels.
They value Autocratic interaction style. It means that they are the most efficient when the other person just tells them what is there to be done and leave them alone, so they can go and focus on the delivery. Straight to the point, sometimes (especially for the people that are not so big fans of a directive communication channel) might look a little harsh or cold. It’s the same situation that we had in Promoter’s case, but the root cause is different. Promoter just needs to get the job done, and Imaginer needs to have direct communication, so they have a one communication and then they are left alone. Also, it helps them so they are not lost in the fog or the infinity of their imagination.
Imaginer seeks to answer the existential question: will they come for me? Yes, they prefer to be alone, so they have a space and time to be in their reflective world. But they don’t want to be lonely: they need to have space to say out loud what they imagined. For them this sentence is the truth:

Somebody will come for me = I’m valuable as a person

A motivational need attached to this PCM type is It’s important to know it that sometimes for Imaginer the best way to help them is to leave them alone. It can be extremely difficult for Harmonizers, Rebels and Promoters, since their energy and need of contact is on higher level. They don’t understand how it is possible that a person can be so long on their own, sometimes even not leaving the house. Again: it’s not antisocial, it’s their way to gather energy, recuperate, rest, be OK-OK.

When do we know that Imaginer is in distress?

Just a reminder: distress is negative stress, that costs us (and our environment) something. We are in distress when our motivational needs are frustrated and to cover them (in a really bizarre way), we into the distress sequence. How does is look like for an Imaginer?

1/ Driver: I need to be strong (meaning: I’m OK only if I am strong). On this level, Imaginer often shuts down, doesn’t say anything about the emotions or needs, hesitates. They are also indecisive in communication, you can notice a lot of unfinished sentences, with a “…” at the end. When we see that kind of behavior, we can offer them space and time. We can say something like: “You know what? I can tell that you could use some time and space to reflect on that. Go and please come back to me in 1 hour”. That kind of reaction will take Imaginer out of the rabbit hole and get them back to OK-OK space.

2/ Drooper Mask. Imagine wears a drooper mask on the second level of distress, like Harmonizer. But there is a different set of behaviors in compared to the Harmonizer. Imaginer passively waits, getting distanced to the world that is around them. They often use phrases like: “it’s too much…” or “it’s so overwhelming…”. The visible behaviors that can be surprising at the same time is that they start getting sick (the base is psychosomatic) so they can “justify” them stay home. It’s their negative (body and mind, yet unconscious) way to cover the need of solitude.

3/ Cellar: At the end, Imaginer is going into the mode: “Noone tells me what to do. I’ll withdraw to my internal world, at least there I’m safe”.

As you can see, being in distress is an algorithmic body and brain response to not having covered the motivational needs. This sequence is repetitive, happens every time that a person is triggered in any way. The whole sequence can last 30 seconds (literally) or can be longer. The more frequently we go through the whole path (3 steps), the more “coupons” we collect to pay them out.

That’s why it’s so important to stop the vicious cycle as soon as we realize that it starts: the sooner, the easier it will be. And remember that we can cover the needs on our own, but also, we can ask the people around us for support. We can make a little contract with people in our environment (private and work) that stands: “if you see that X and Y behavior is starting within myself, please react with a proper needs’ coverage. That way I will come back to myself faster, and nobody gets hurt”. It’s especially important on the Mask level, since when we are there, often we don’t think clearly, so it’s super hard for us to cover our own needs properly.

The bottom line

The brain of the Imaginer is a magnificent thing. They can create visions, plans, options or ways to resolve a problem or challenge like no one else. When we want to create something extraordinary, completely out of the box, we definitely need an Imaginer in the team. There is no other personality base that will bring so much value to the table.

Of course, under distress the contact with them will be difficult. They withdraw, often stop talking at all so collecting any information is super hard. But the silver lining is that the solitude is always a good solution: leaving the person alone with a clear contract when we are going to pick up the conversation. So simple, yet not easy for all of us to implement.

I would like to invite us all to be more mindful on those people. They can get lost in the world of constant noise.

Udostępnij

Komentarze

5 1 vote

Article Rating

0 komentarzy

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Czytaj także

Leadership

Work Drama Triangle (and How to Escape It)

The Drama Triangle is a psychological and social model of human interaction that highlights dysfunctional dynamics often seen in relationships, workplaces, and personal lives. Created by Stephen Karpman in 1968, this model identifies three primary roles people unconsciously adopt: the Victim, the Persecutor, and the Rescuer. While these roles may feel familiar and even comforting in the moment, they often lead to unproductive behaviors and strained relationships. By understanding the Drama Triangle and replacing it with healthier patterns like the Winning Triangle, we can transform our interactions and create more positive outcomes. And strengthen our muscle of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Let’s dig deeper into the subject today so you can understand better your behavior patterns with a practical solutions on how to get out of it. The Story of the Drama Triangle Stephen Karpman, a student of transactional analysis, developed the Drama Triangle to illustrate how people can become trapped in unhealthy relational patterns. These roles are not fixed, and individuals may shift between them during a single interaction. The triangle often begins with one person adopting a role, which triggers complementary roles in others, creating a cycle of blame, helplessness, and over-involvement. Let’s explore these roles in detail: The Victim The Victim feels powerless, overwhelmed, and unable to take responsibility for their situation. This role is characterized by self-pity and an underlying belief that “I can’t do it” or “Life is unfair.” Behaviors: Avoidance of responsibility, learned helplessness, seeking sympathy. Typical Sentences: – “Why does this always happen to me?” – “I can’t handle this.” – “No one understands how hard this is for me.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Victim operates from an “I’m not OK, you’re OK” position, perceiving themselves as inferior or incapable compared to others. The Persecutor The Persecutor blames and criticizes others to maintain control or assert dominance. They often feel justified in their actions but lack empathy for others. Behaviors: Aggression, fault-finding, micromanaging. Typical Sentences: – “This is all your fault.” – “You never do anything right.” – “If you had just listened to me, we wouldn’t be in this mess.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Persecutor operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position, seeing themselves as superior while devaluing others. The Rescuer The Rescuer intervenes excessively to “save” others, often neglecting their own needs. While their actions may appear helpful, they can enable Victims to remain passive and dependent. Behaviors: Overhelping, unsolicited advice-giving, neglecting self-care. Typical Sentences: – “Let me fix this for you.” – “You can’t do this without me.” – “Don’t worry; I’ll handle everything.” Position in the OK-OK Matrix: The Rescuer operates from an “I’m OK, you’re not OK” position but masks it with seemingly altruistic behavior. What Is the Cost of the Drama Triangle at Work? When workplace interactions are led by the Drama Triangle, several negative outcomes emerge: – Decreased Productivity: Time and energy are wasted on blame-shifting or rescuing instead of solving problems collaboratively. – Eroded Trust: Dysfunctional dynamics create resentment and reduce psychological safety among team members. – Stagnation: Victims avoid growth opportunities, Persecutors stifle creativity through criticism, and Rescuers prevent others from developing autonomy. – Burnout: Rescuers often overextend themselves, while Victims feel perpetually overwhelmed and Persecutors experience frustration from unmet expectations. In essence, the Drama Triangle traps individuals in cycles of conflict and inefficiency, undermining both individual well-being and organizational success. The Winning Triangle: A Healthier Alternative To break free from the Drama Triangle, Acey Choy introduced the Winning Triangle as a model for healthier interactions. This framework replaces the dysfunctional roles of Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer with three constructive counterparts: Vulnerable, Assertive, and Caring/Coaching. These roles empower individuals to take responsibility for themselves while keeping respect and collaboration with others. And to operate from OK-OK position that gives us a chance to use all of our skills and growth mindset. Vulnerable (Replacing the Victim) Vulnerability involves acknowledging one’s feelings and needs without going into the realm of helplessness. It requires self-awareness and a willingness to seek support constructively. What can you do? – Admit when you’re struggling but frame it as an opportunity for growth. – Ask for help without expecting others to solve everything for you. – Use “I” statements to express your needs clearly. How can you say it? – “I’m feeling overwhelmed; can we brainstorm solutions together?” – “I need some support with this task—could you guide me through it?” Vulnerability fosters authenticity and encourages open communication. It creates an environment where challenges are addressed collaboratively rather than avoided. It’s healthier, creating a space to grow, make mistakes and learn from them, as well as using the experience and wisdom of others’. Assertive (Replacing the Persecutor) Assertiveness involves expressing one’s thoughts and boundaries respectfully while considering others’ perspectives. It balances confidence with empathy. What can you do? – Provide constructive feedback rather than criticism. – Set boundaries clearly but kindly. – Focus on solutions instead of assigning blame. How can you say it? – “I noticed an issue with this report; let’s discuss how we can improve it.” – “I value your input, but I need some time to focus on my own tasks right now.” Assertiveness promotes accountability and problem-solving without alienating others. It helps create a culture of respect and mutual understanding, without treating people like worse or stupid. It’s creating a chance for everybody to take their own responsibility for what they do at work. Caring (Replacing the Rescuer) Caring involves offering support without overstepping boundaries or fostering dependency. It respects others’ autonomy while providing encouragement. What can you do? – Offer help only when it’s needed or requested. – Encourage others to take ownership of their responsibilities. – Practice active listening without immediately jumping in with solutions. How can you say it? – “How can I support you in resolving this issue?” – “You’ve got this—I’m here if you need guidance.” Caring builds trust and empowers

Czytaj dalej

16 March 2025 No Comments

Leadership

Mastering Problem Solving: How to Save Time and Adapt

As a leader, you’re no stranger to problem-solving. It’s the bread and butter of leadership, the skill that keeps the wheels turning and the team moving forward. But here’s the thing: not all problems are created equal, and neither are the people solving them. One-size-fits-all solutions? They’re a myth. To truly master problem-solving, you need to understand your team, their preferences, and how to flex your approach. Let’s dive into how tailoring problem-solving strategies can transform your leadership game and strengthen your Communication Intelligence (CQ) muscle. The PCM Lens: Why Preferences Matter in Problem Solving? The Process Communication Model (PCM) teaches us that people have different personality base types, and those types influence how they prefer to face challenges. Some thrive in solitude, needing quiet time to think through problems on their own. Others prefer the intimacy of a 1:1 discussion, where they can bounce ideas off one person. Then there are those who light up in group settings, energized by collaboration and collective brainstorming. Add in the variables of virtual versus in-person environments, and you’ve got a spectrum of preferences that can make or break your problem-solving efforts. As a leader, recognizing these differences isn’t just nice-to-have—it’s essential. For example, forcing an Imaginer into a high-energy group brainstorming session might literally kill them, and they remain silenced, while expecting a Rebel to solve a problem alone at their desk could leave them disengaged. Understanding these nuances is part of building your CQ muscle—the ability to adapt your communication style and approach based on the needs of others. The High Stakes of Ignoring Problems Before we explore tools and strategies, let’s talk about what happens when leaders don’t address problems effectively—or worse, when they ignore them altogether. Unresolved problems rarely solve themselves; instead, they keep getting bigger and bigger. Small issues snowball into larger ones, creating inefficiencies, damaging trust, and eroding team morale. The costs? Missed deadlines, killed relationships, lost revenue, and even high level of voluntary turnover. No to mention toxic atmosphere, people not talking to each other, not exchanging ideas or sharing knowledge. Sounds like a long list of different cost that’s not going to be easy to rebuild. On the flip side, a proactive and tailored approach to problem-solving not only resolves immediate issues but also builds a culture of trust and collaboration. When your team sees that you’re invested in solving problems in ways that work for them, they’re more likely to engage fully and bring their best selves to the table. Problem Solving as a CQ Superpower Problem-solving is more than just a technical skill; it’s a core component of Communication Intelligence (CQ). Leaders with high CQ don’t just focus on what needs to be solved—they think about how to solve it in ways that resonate with their team. This means asking questions like: – Who needs to be involved in this process? – What environment will help us tackle this effectively? Which tools and approaches will be the worst? – How can I adapt my approach to fit the preferences of my team members? What can I do to involve them in the process? By flexing your CQ muscle, you’re not just solving problems—you’re strengthening relationships, building trust, and create a culture where everyone feels heard. Tailoring Your Problem-Solving Approach So how do you put this into practice? Here are some tools and strategies for addressing problems in different setups: Solo Problem Solving For team members who prefer working alone, give them space and time to process independently. It’s not about them being weirdos, it’s just their preference. Provide clear instructions and context, then let them take ownership of the task. Tools like project management software (i.e. Trello or Asana) can help track progress without micromanaging. You can create an online wall (i.e. on MIRO) so people can work together asynchronously in their own time and space. Set some deadlines and time for check ins. 1:1 Problem Solving Some people thrive in 1:1 settings where they can discuss ideas openly without the pressure of a group. Use this time to ask open-ended questions and actively listen to their perspective. If their preference is for you to be more direct, set the sentences straight, clear and transparent so there’s no time wasted in the middle of the process to guess what you aim here for. You can also use tools like 5 (or 7) Why, Problem Framing, Ishikawa Diagram or any other Lean tools or techniques. Make sure that you’re solving the real problem that is a root cause of your current situation. Group Problem Solving Group settings work well for those who feed off collaboration and collective energy. Facilitate brainstorming sessions or workshops where everyone can contribute ideas. Tools like whiteboards (physical or digital) or platforms like MIRO can help visualize ideas in real time. You can also use the group problem-solving methods, like Action Learning to be as effective and efficient as possible. Action Learning is a method where the group of 4-8 people sit together (online or onsite) for 1,5-hour session where one person brings a problem to solve. The group is responsible for asking questions, share their insights and create potential solutions for the problem presenter. It’s a very intense yet extremely productive session where the group is completely focused on the process of solving the issue, without distractions or doing something else in the same time. The power of this method is that people are all involved in the process, they are learning on the way and support each other. So the pros and more than just problem solved; there’s also a positive influence on knowledge sharing practices, relationship building, trust, psychological safety, reliability within a group or organization, using the variety of points of views, experiences, perspectives and talents. Action Learning is one of the best group methods to solve problems that I know and practice. Groups that I work with within this method are

Czytaj dalej

28 February 2025 No Comments

Leadership

3 Leadership Lessons I Learned from Bad Recruitment Processes

Recruitment is often described as both an art and a science—a delicate balance of intuition, data, and strategy. But sometimes, even with the best intentions, things can go awry. I’ve learned this the hard way. Over the years, my experience in leadership have taught me that recruitment mistakes are not just costly in terms of money but also in terms of time, energy, and efficiency. Today, I want to share with you three of my biggest lessons from bad recruitment decisions that I hope will help you to not repeat those in your leadership practice. #1 The Rush: When Speed Wins With Strategy There was a time when I was desperate to fill a position on my team. Aren’t we really in constant situations like that? I remember that we had a critical project coming up, I was drowning under the amount of tasks I had on my list and I convinced myself that having “someone”—anyone—on board quickly was better than waiting for the better fit. I rushed through the process, skipping some of the deeper evaluations and settling for a candidate who seemed “good enough.” The result? It ended up costing me more than I ever anticipated. The person lacked the skills and mindset needed for the role, and within six months, we had to part ways. Not only did this mean starting the recruitment process all over again, but it also disrupted my work, again. According to research by the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), the average cost per hire is around $4,700. However, if you make a bad hire, the costs skyrocket. Studies estimate that replacing an employee can cost anywhere from 8 to 12 months of their salary. For example, if you hire someone with an annual salary of $50,000, replacing them could cost you between $33,000 and $50,000. And that’s just the financial side—what about the lost productivity and influence on yourself? On the team? This experience taught me a crucial lesson: rushing to fill a position is like building a house on quicksand. It may seem like you’re saving time in the short term, but in reality, you’re setting yourself up for long-term instability. #2 The Bias Trap: Judging by Brands, Not Skills Another mistake I’ve made is being overly impressed by the organizations listed on a candidate’s CV. When someone came from a big-name company or a well-known brand, I found myself assuming they must be ready to do the job. After all, if they worked at such prestigious places, they must be highly capable, right? Wrong. One candidate I hired had an impressive resume filled with experience at top-tier organizations. I was so dazzled by their background that I overlooked some red flags during the interview process—things like their lack of enthusiasm for the role or their vague answers about past achievements. It turned out that their success in previous roles was largely due to the systems and teams already in place at those organizations. In my smaller, more dynamic team, they struggled to adapt and contribute effectively. This mistake taught me to focus on the specific person, not just their past affiliations. A brand name on a CV doesn’t guarantee a cultural, personality-based or skill set fit for your organization. Now, I dig deeper during interviews, asking specific questions about their contributions and how they handle challenges in different environments. #3 Ignoring the Personality Match As someone deeply invested in Communication Intelligence (CQ) and the Process Communication Model (PCM), I know how critical personality dynamics are in any working relationship. Yet, there have been times when I ignored this knowledge during recruitment—and paid the price for it. I once hired someone who looked perfect on paper: they had the right skills, experience, and even glowing references. But what I failed to assess was how well we would work together on a personal level. Our communication styles clashed almost immediately. Where I value directness and proactive problem-solving, they preferred a more passive approach and avoided conflict at all costs. Data vs emotions. Logic vs relationship care. Nothing wrong about that, don’t get me wrong! But it comes with a cost, especially when you work in a small setup. This mismatch didn’t just affect our one-on-one interactions; it also impacted the overall efficiency. When there isn’t alignment between a leader and their team members, it creates friction that slows down decision-making and execution. According to Gallup research, disengaged employees can cost organizations up to 18% of their annual salary in lost productivity. Imagine what happens when that disengagement spreads across an entire team! Now, I make personality assessments a non-negotiable part of my recruitment process. Tools like PCM are there to use: I’m not saying that you do a questionnaire for every single candidate since it’ll cost a lot (if you can afford it, go for it!). It’s about using the framework in practice. Listen, observe, connect the dots. Everything is there, you just need to know what you’re looking for. Moving Forward: How to Avoid These Pitfalls Here’s what I’ve learned to do differently: Prioritize Fit Over Speed: Take the time to find someone who aligns with your team’s needs and culture—even if it means extending your search timeline. Remember that fast recruitment can cost you so much more time in the future. Dig Deeper Into Experience: Don’t be swayed by big names on a CV; focus on understanding what the candidate actually contributed in their previous roles. Assess Personality Compatibility: Use tools like PCM or other personality assessments or knowledge from the framework to ensure alignment between you and your potential hire. Recruitment is never going to be an exact science, but by learning from past mistakes and implementing more thoughtful strategies, you can significantly improve your chances of finding the right person for your team—and avoiding costly missteps along the way. Final Thoughts As leaders, we often feel immense pressure to make quick decisions and keep

Czytaj dalej

16 February 2025 No Comments