Lemanskills.com

Process Communication Model (PCM): Thinker

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?

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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
Subscribe
Notify of
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
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
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
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x