Process Communication Model (PCM): Thinker

Transactional Analysis

Do you have around yourself people that speak data and facts? That connects the dots all the time, since things need to make sense for them? That kind of people that are concrete, to the point and doesn’t what to waste time on meaningless discussions and rather focus on things that matter?

That’s the Thinker.

The second out of six personality types in Process Communication Model. We’ve started the story about PCM HERE and then we’ve described Persister, as the first stop on our journey to know them all better.

Why is it important to characterize all of them?

Because thanks to that you’ll know the whole spectrum of the types, so when you talk to somebody, you can make a strong hypothesis about their personality Base to tailor your communication. And because we communicate with others all the time, it’s crucial to have the maximum number of useful tools and practices so we don’t waste time on insufficient communication.

At least that’s what the Thinker will say haha.

How do we recognize Thinker?

Thinker is a person who experience the world through the lens of data, facts and logic. Their perception is thoughts since they use their rational part of themselves the most frequently. They always look for logic in what is happening in their life, when they get a task, project or want to decide on something. The things around them need to have structure, and they want a lot of things to make a structure around them as well. So, things have their own place, they plan their time: privately and professionally.

How to recognize a Thinker 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 Thinker it will be: “I think…”, “The data says…”, “The logic says…”, “The logical choice will be…”, “The most accurate solution in this case is…”, “The chart shows that…”, “The data in the report give us…”.

They say all of that because for them what’s rational and backed up with data, is valuable. If something has some gaps, there is not enough information, numbers or facts, the Thinker won’t do it. They will look for more evidence, gather more knowledge, examples or cases and then, when they have it all, they are comfortable with making a former decision.

The recognition of Thinker is also easier when we look on their non-verbal communication: most of the time their face is “flat”, there’s not a lot of mimics on it. Their voice is rather monotonous, stable, as well as their body. They don’t overspend the energy on moving their bodies or use unnecessary gestures.

If you see and hear it, that’s a strong indicator that there’s a Thinker 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 Thinker need in communication?

The Thinker needs communication process where they have a chance to express their thoughts. Extremely important for them as well is to have a space, where they can think, connect the dots, create logical solutions to the problems that occur.
To be efficient in communication with Thinker, we need to use requestive channel of communication (as we did with the Persister). The difference is that we ask Persister “what do you believe…” and we ask Thinker “what do you think…”. That means that we need to ask questions about their thoughts on a certain subject. Using the same example that we got in the Persister’s case: when we want to delegate a task, so a chosen employee covers it, the great approach will be telling them about it and then ask about their thoughts on it. “Okay, here is a task X… What do you think we need to do to complete it efficiently?” Asking that kind of question is something that we can do to get in contact with the Thinker. Once they are on board, we can talk about the details (scope, deadline, support, required learning etc.).
They value Democratic interaction style. It means that they are good in exchanging thoughts, ideas, solutions. They want to be asked on what they think. They like discussions, brainstorming sessions, but only when they are concrete and not too long. One of the worst things that we can do while getting in contact with Thinker is to use directive communication channel, but they also don’t really like the emotive (too much energy) and comforting (they don’t need all those emotions). But especially telling them what to do without even asking is something that they hate. When they have an autocratic person on the other side of the conversation, they go into aggressive behaviors. By being in that zone there is a huge possibility that they’re going to attack other people. So democratic interaction style and requestive communication channel is a key to success in getting on the same page with that person.
Thinker seek to answer the existential question: am I competent? It’s good to feed that question, especially when we see that Thinker is under some kind of stress or pressure. For them the following equation is the only truth.

I’m competent = I’m valuable as a person

Motivational needs attached to this PCM type are recognition of efficient work and time structure. It’s important to know it, since when those needs are not met, Thinker goes into distress and loses access to their skills, abilities to think clearly. Recognition of efficient work means that we are seen as people for what we deliver at work and this delivery is with an exact (or better) outcome that we agreed on. Time structure means that we need to put things in order: when we plan our day, and something comes up, we don’t take it easily (especially then the thing that came up is an additional task that we get, outside of the agenda). We can feed the need of efficient work by recognizing the outcomes the person did and time structure can be fed i.e. for being on time on the meeting or respect the workday plan of a person, without giving them extra tasks when we know that their agenda is fully packed.

When do we know that Thinker 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 a Thinker?

Driver: I need to be perfect for you (meaning: I’m OK only if I’m perfect). On this level, Thinker will focus on details, go into perfectionist mode. They build super long sentences, using big words (going deeply into the expertise mode). They think that they will do what is there to be done the best, without any support of others. When we see that kind of behavior, we can offer recognition of efficient work and give some time structure and communicate by using requestive channel and perception of thoughts. That combination will take Thinker out of the rabbit hole and get them back to OK-OK space.
Attacker Mask. Like Persister, Thinker also wears an attacker mask on the second level of distress. The difference is that Thinker attacks for the lack of logical thinking and doing. “How you can be so stupid?!”, “How you can’t understand that?!”, “It’s so easy, how many times should I explain that to you?!”, as a couple of examples. On this level, they get angry, overcontrol, stop delegating (“idiots, idiots everywhere: I’m the only person who can do this right!”), going more and more into the perfectionist phase.
Cellar: At the end, Thinker is truly convinced that nobody is able to think clearly and logically, so no one is a sparring partner for them to work / live with. In the work setup, repetitive payouts like this can lead to terminating a contract by the Thinker, since in their head it’s not a place for them to use their skills the best possible way.

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 Thinker is a great part of the team. They are sticking to the facts, using logical thinking, gathering and analyzing data to make a proper decision as frequently as they can. When people who gets more emotional or engaged in a certain situation, going to the Thinker to get them out of it, set the facts straight to get back to the rational thinking is one of the best things that we can do.

Of course, being in distress is hard, especially when we are in the situation that requires teaching or mentoring somebody (i.e. a new joiner in the team), or in environments that are messy, without strong processes at place. Lack of structure as a cultural thing can bring Thinker into the dark side where it’s hard for the others to communicate with them in the OK-OK mode. That’s why it’s so important for us to recognize the Thinker and tailor the communication to their needs, so we can use their brains to the fullest.

That’s why they are there for us: to give us the capacity of their brains.

Udostępnij

Komentarze

0 0 votes

Article Rating

0 komentarzy

Oldest

Newest Most Voted

Inline Feedbacks

View all comments

Czytaj także

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

Leadership

Mastering Tough Conversations: A Tech Leader’s Guide to 1:1s (That Nobody Really Wants to Lead)

As a tech leader, you’re no stranger to challenges—tight deadlines, complex projects, and ever-evolving technology are part of the job. But one of the most delicate challenges you’ll face doesn’t involve code or systems; it involves people. Leading tough conversations with employees is an essential skill that separates good leaders from great ones. Whether it’s addressing underperformance, delivering hard feedback, or navigating team conflicts, these moments can define your leadership. This guide equips you with actionable tools to lead tough conversations effectively, using a structured approach that combines contracting, Communication Intelligence (CQ), including the Process Communication Model (PCM). Let’s dive in. When Tough Conversations Are Necessary: Scenarios You’ll Encounter Before we get into the how, let’s identify the when. Here are common situations where a tough conversation might arise: Underperformance: An employee is consistently missing deadlines or delivering work in a quality we agreed on. Behavioral issues: A team member exhibits disruptive behavior, such as frequent conflicts with peers or unprofessional communication. Career Development: You need to inform an employee that they didn’t receive a promotion or that their role is changing. Restructuring: Delivering news about layoffs or departmental changes. Personal Concerns: Addressing sensitive issues like burnout, mental health, or personal struggles impacting performance. Each of these scenarios requires a thoughtful approach to ensure the conversation is productive and respectful. And none of those are easy: there’s no one-size-fits-all approach so it might sound like a hell to a tech leader. But we have some algorytms that you can use to run the meeting with success. The Framework: Contracting, CQ, and PCM To handle these conversations effectively, use three elements to have a success no matter what kind of situation you are facing. Contracting: Establish clear agreements on three levels—administrative, professional, and psychological. You have more about the contracting itself, the levels and what to do to make sure the contract is fully covered in this article. Communication Intelligence (CQ) muscle: Flex your communication style to meet the employee where they are emotionally and mentally. Managing reactions that are always emotional (you like it or not) is our job as leaders: we need to know what triggers which behavior and what to do to overcome or address it when it appears. Process Communication Model (PCM) Framework: Tailor your approach to the employee’s personality base for maximum impact. Match the language and way of communication they need, not your favorite ones. That’s crucial for the conversation to be successful: you’re leading it for them, not for yourself. Part 1: Contracting—Setting the Stage for Success Contracting involves creating clarity and mutual understanding before diving into the conversation. What are the essentials of 3 levels that are inside? – Administrative Contracting: Define the logistics. Where will the meeting take place? How long will it last? What’s the agenda? Example: “Let’s meet in my office at 2 PM for 30 minutes to discuss your recent project performance.” Take care of this during and after as well. “What is the deadline to implement what we’re talking about?” – Professional Contracting: Clarify roles and expectations. Emphasize that this is a professional discussion and its goal is to find solutions, not to blame anybody for anything. Example: “My role is to provide feedback and support you in improving; I would like for your role to share your perspective and be engaged in the next steps we are going to create together during this meeting.” – Psychological Contracting: Set the emotional tone by creating a space for a person. Acknowledge that the conversation might be difficult but make sure you are focused on the positive outcome. Example: “I know this might be uncomfortable, but I want you to know this is coming from a place of support and wanting to help you succeed.” Part 2: Flex Your CQ Muscle Communication Intelligence (CQ) is your ability to adapt your communication style based on the situation and the other person’s needs and preferences. In tough conversations, this means balancing focus with accountability. What are the easiest 3 things that you can do as a leader to make sure you’re using your CQ muscle? – Listen Actively: Truly hear what the employee is saying without interrupting or jumping to conclusions. Make notes. Paraphrase, check if you understand as your employee intended you to. Don’t assume, ask. – Acknowledge Emotions: If the employee feels upset, angry or defensive, name the emotion without judgment. Example: “I can see this feedback is frustrating for you.” or “I understand that situation is infuriating.” Don’t underestimate the state, let it be, check what kind of information is hidden below this emotion. Use it in the solution creation phase. – Stay Calm and Focused: Keep your tone steady and avoid escalating tension, even if emotions run high. I know that’s one of the hardest things to do: most of the time we go angry when the other person is angry. We mirror each other, that’s how our brain is wired. But by being conscious of that, we can stop the automatic pattern and break it by being more mindful and goal-oriented. When you observe something like that, say to yourself: “What is the goal of this conversation? What I want to achieve here?” That kind of reminder is going to take you back to the OK-OK state and continue with more clear view of mind. Part 3: Tailor Your Approach with PCM—Speak Their Language The Process Communication Model (PCM) identifies six personality types, each with unique communication preferences and stress patterns. Understanding these types allows you to tailor your message effectively. Here’s a quick breakdown: Thinker: Logical, organized, values data and structure. – Approach: Be clear, factual, and provide detailed explanations. – Stress Behavior: May become overly critical or perfectionistic, attack others for lack of thinking or logical approach. Persister: Principled, dedicated, values integrity and commitment. – Approach: Appeal to their sense of purpose and principles. – Stress Behavior: May become judgmental or

Czytaj dalej

8 February 2025 No Comments

Leadership

What Are Most Common Beliefs That Hold Tech Leaders Back?

As a Tech Leader, you’re tasked with guiding innovation, meeting deadlines, and managing diverse teams—all while navigating the complexities of human dynamics. It’s no small challenge. But what if I told you that some of the beliefs you hold about leadership might actually be holding you back from creating an environment where people want to stay and thrive? Let’s take a closer look at three of the most common beliefs that I encounter when working with Tech Leaders and explore actionable solutions to shift your mindset and approach. Belief 1: “If I’m not the expert in the room, I’ll lose respect.” Many Tech Leaders feel immense pressure to always have the answers. After all, you’ve likely climbed the ranks because of your technical expertise. But leadership isn’t about being the smartest person in the room—it’s about enabling others to shine (it hurts, I know). The problem is that when you focus on showcasing your expertise, you risk micromanaging or overshadowing your team’s contributions. This can stifle creativity and lead to disengagement: your people think won’t have enough space to try out new solutions, make mistakes and learn from them to build their own expertise. Solution? Shift from being the “expert” to being the “facilitator.” Ask open-ended questions like, “What do you think we should do here?” or “How can we approach this differently?” Empower your team to take ownership of their ideas and solutions. Remember, respect is earned not by knowing everything but by fostering trust and collaboration. Belief 2: “Feedback will demotivate my team.” I often hear leaders say they avoid giving constructive feedback because they fear it will hurt morale. While it’s true that poorly delivered feedback can cause friction, avoiding it altogether is far more damaging in the long run. The problem is that without feedback, your team doesn’t know where they stand or how they can improve. This ambiguity can lead to frustration, disengagement, and even turnover: all those things are not the ideal situation for you, as a leader, and for your team as well. There are very costly: losing one employee is a cost of 8-12 monthly salaries of this person (in average). Solution? Reframe feedback as an opportunity for growth rather than criticism. Use a structured approach, even the most common ones like “Start-Stop-Continue” will be a huge help (and easy to implement): – Start: What new behaviors or actions could help them grow? – Stop: What habits or approaches might be holding them back? – Continue: What are they already doing well that they should keep up? Deliver feedback with using Communication Intelligence (CQ) muscle, tailor the communication to your employee’s needs, be specific, and always tie it back to their potential and goals. Belief 3: “People leave because of better opportunities, not because of me.” It’s easy to blame external factors when someone leaves your team—higher salaries, exciting projects elsewhere, or personal reasons. While those factors do play a role, research consistently shows that people leave managers, not companies. The problem is that assuming turnover is out of your control absolves you of responsibility for creating a supportive environment. This mindset prevents you from addressing underlying issues within your team dynamic. Solution? Conduct regular one-on-one check-ins where you ask questions like: – “What’s one thing I could do to support you better?” – “Do you think that you’re challenged and fulfilled enough in your role? If not, what can we do to move a needle here?” – “What’s your long-term vision, and how can I help you get there?” By showing genuine interest in your team’s well-being and career aspirations, you’ll build loyalty and reduce turnover. It’s not so obvious to have a leader that actually care and think about their employees’ in more holistic approach. The bottom line Leadership is as much about unlearning as it is about learning. By challenging these common beliefs and adopting a more people-centric mindset, you’ll not only become a stronger leader but also create a work environment where people feel valued and inspired to stay. Remember: great leaders don’t just manage tasks—they cultivate trust, growth, and connection. That’s the kind of environment people don’t want to leave. Ready to challenge more leadership beliefs? Go and listen to the latest episode of Leman Tech Leadership Podcast!

Czytaj dalej

1 February 2025 No Comments