Lemanskills.com

Search
Close this search box.

Artykuły

Transactional Analysis

Process Communication Model (PCM): Harmonizer

Some people are focused on data, some on exchanging opinions. Some wants to have fun, and some want to stop talking and start doing. And some are speaking emotions and take care of others. Do you know one or two people who are strong in that are? That’s the Harmonizer. The fifth out of six personality types in Process Communication Model. We’ve started the story about PCM HERE, then we’ve described Persister, Thinker, Promoter and Rebel. Today we’re adding another 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 Harmonizer energy, this one can appear like an extremely emotional person who can’t think logically. Why? Let’s unpack it today!   How do we recognize Harmonizer?    Harmonizer is a person who experience the world through the lens of emotions. Most of the time, they use their empathetic state: they have a very good and fast access to their emotional states, and they use this skill to map and understand it with others. How to recognize a Harmonizer 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 Harmonizer it will be: “I feel”, “In my heart…”, “I love…”, “I am sad”, “I feel frustrated…”. They’ll use the whole spectrum of wording that describes emotional states. They say all that because they want to connect with others, but differently than a Rebel who wants to connect with as many people as possible, to share reactions. Harmonizer wants to have meaningful relations, that are important for them: privately and at work as well. They take care of others, about the atmosphere in the team. When they see a micro conflict or even a symptom that one can appear, they do everything in their power to stop it. They remember about birthdays, taking charge of organizing gifts, birthday cards and all types of evidence that we care about each other. The recognition of Harmonizer is also easier when we look on their non-verbal communication: most of the time their face is warm, with a lot of sighs of emotions on it. Their voice is soft, soothing, comforting. They lean heir body towards the other person while taking with them, using a moderate number of gestures to emphasize the support and care that emanates from their bodies. If you see and hear it, that’s a strong indicator that there’s a Harmonizer 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 Harmonizer need in communication?   The Harmonizer needs communication process where they have a chance to express their emotions. Extremely important for them as well is to have a space, where they can go into contact with others to build meaningful relations and to matter to people. To be efficient in communication with Harmonizer, we need to use nurturative channel of communication. It means that we need to reach to the comforting and caring level of our energy to open a conversation. That means that asking questions or directly saying what’s there to be done won’t work in Harmonizer’s case. How to do it? 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 care first. “Hi Kate, thank you for finding out the time for us to talk. I know that lately it’s been hard, so I am grateful that we made it together. I’m going to take some things out of your plate and in exchange, I have a task that I feel will be a good fit for you.” Once they FEEL cared of, we have them on board to discuss the details (scope, deadline, support, required learning etc.). They value Benevolent interaction style. It means that they need care, meaningful relations within they feel that they belong, are needed and important part of a team or community. One of the worst things that we can do while getting in contact with Harmonizer is to be too directive, asking questions, in a high speed won’t work very well too. Yes, they need structure and clear contract on what’s there to be done and for when, but they need to be in comfort to work around it. They value relations over goals, so it’s crucial to remember about it while building an environment for them. Harmonizer seeks to answer the existential question: am I loved? It’s not always about the romantic love. It’s more about the feeling that we are important, needed, valued as people. That we matter for others. For them the following equation is the only truth.   I’m loved by others = I’m valuable as a person   Two motivational needs attached to this PCM type are recognition of person and sensory. It’s important to know it, since when those needs are not met, Harmonizer goes into distress and loses access to their skills, abilities to think clearly. Recognition of person means that we are seen as people. Not for what we do, but who we are. It’s different than the recognition of work that we’ve seen in case of a Thinker or Persister. Instead of “good job” we say: “it’s good to have you here”. The sensory means that this person is experiencing the world by using their senses. The environment should be nice, pleasant, they like colorful clothes, comfortable, warm and soft. Listening music or other sounds that have a good impact on their mind and body. Experiencing the nature, having plants in the room. Each Harmonizer can need something a little different, but the key thing is that they feed their senses. That kind of environment will cover what’s the most important for Harmonizer so they can

Read More »
Leadership

Do I Even Want to Be a Leader?

Why people accept being leaders? Is this something we dream about as kids? When we get the question: “Who you would like to be when you grow up?”, do we answer: “A middle manager in the huge, global organization”? Is it a matter of a “natural talent” we have and show as children to lead or maybe a set of skills that every person can learn and then use quite successfully? Why is that some people are great leaders for their teams and the others (statistically bigger representation) are making people miserable and in consequence: quitting? Let’s unpack this subject today.   The Story of One Tech Leader…   I work a lot with First Time Managers. Those are people who are fresh in leadership positions, statistically up to 3 years in the role. Most of the time there were great SMEs (Subject Matter Experts) and a natural move for them to grow was to be offered with a Team Leader role of the team there work in. I remember very well one story that relate to a Tech Leader I worked with in the mentoring process a couple years back. He was a very skilled expert in one of the leading technologies that was used in the core product of the company. He started as a junior, but learned very quickly, constantly participating in trainings, conferences and projects, working on different implementations and most of the time building functionalities from scratch. When he grew to the expert position, he also got the task of teaching others, onboarding new team members and acting as a technical mentor to them. He was doing great. Then, as an obvious offer for the organization he got a proposition to become a Team Lead of the team: the same one that he was an expert within. He took the job: the money wasn’t extremely bigger, but potentially more organizational and strategic impact was an argument that he was sold to. He thought: “I know everything about the scope of the team’s work, what else can there possibly be?” A few weeks later in the role showed him otherwise. He started to be a completely different person: like he had some hidden personality that was there, waiting to be awaken for so long. He started to be mean to team members, getting angry and mad very quickly when he saw any mistakes or imperfections in what the team delivered. He even got constructive feedback, by name on team daily meetings: what was unacceptable and never happened before. The team engagement started to drop; first people made decisions about leaving the area that they loved working within. That was the moment when he was redirected to me, so I support him in this situation.   Why People Accepting Leadership Roles?   This story shows us a few aspects of why we accept those roles connected to People Management when they are on the table. What I see from working with different cases and circumstances, there are 5 reasons that are the most common: I would say they cover 80% of all decision about choosing this career path: 1. The only way to grow. Sometimes people don’t see other options. They think that accepting leadership position is the only way they can be promoted or have possibilities to learn. Either is their strong belief that can have a root even in childhood (if it was a home conviction, being expressed loudly so we picked it up as children and we took it for life) or an experience from different organizations from the past. Sometimes it is true that organizations offer more, i.e. trainings, workshops, mentorship opportunities for leaders. It shouldn’t take place, so if you see if, I would advise to reach out your supervisor or HR person to take a closer look on that. 2. Fancy position name. Team Lead, Manager, Director, Head: the higher in the structure, the fancier it sounds. And the better it looks on LinkedIn or the resume. Potentially of course. The question is: do you want to grow in the leadership space in your current and different organizations on the market in the future? If yes, ok: the name of the positions matters, since recruitment process is marketing process (for both sides). If not: it doesn’t really matter. So, first: go and answer this question. 3. More potential influence / power. Sometimes we take leadership positions because we believe that’s the only way to make a real change. To get a seat at the table, to have opportunities to say things out loud, to be an advocate of what we say as a team. To have more positive influence or power to reshape a work environment, even if it’s just a small piece of it. The question is: is it a really a truth that by changing the role to be a leader, you will have this influence, more than you have as an expert? 4. Better visibility. I hear this one a lot. And it’s connected with the more influence and power element described above, sometimes treated as one thing. “If I’m a leader, I’ll be more visible = I’ll have more credibility to make a real change.” It also comes with the visibility on the market or in the specific part of the industry: when I’m a leader, I will be more reliable, my LinkedIn will blow out and I will have countless invites as an expert / speaker / podcast guest etc. Is it really a truth? Can’t you be all of these as a real expert in your area? 5. More money. Here comes a catch. The money part most of the time comes at the very beginning of the list of reasons on why to accept the leader role. And you know what? It’s not always the case. I saw multiple examples of extremely skilled, well-known experts that earned way more money than their supervisors. Because their skillset was super niched out, and there were

Read More »
Transactional Analysis

Process Communication Model (PCM): Rebel

“Wooooooow, it’s soooo aweeeesome!!!”, “I like this idea, and this one sucks.”, “It’s plastic bombastic!” Do you know a person or two who speak that way? And yes, I mean an adult, not a kid or a teenager. The person that reacts really vividly to what’s happening, that says openly whether they like or dislike ideas, clothes or food? That’s the Rebel. The fourth out of six personality types in Process Communication Model. We’ve started the story about PCM HERE and then we’ve described Persister, Thinker and Promoter. Today we’re adding another 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 Rebel energy, this one can appear like a crazy person. Why? Let’s unpack it today!   How do we recognize Rebel?   Rebel is a person who experience the world through the lens of reactions. Most of the time, they react right away with a strong “like / dislike” statement. They either go for it or leave it and never start doing something. They have this free child energy that allows them to feel joy, excitement, experience the world with the enthusiasm that we often loose along the way. How to recognize a Rebel 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 Rebel it will be: “Wow!”, “Awesome!”, “I like / dislike this!”, “Cool!”, “Amazing!”, “Oh, how disgusting!” They will use slogan words quite often as well. They say all that because they want to invite us to express our own reactions. It’s because they need to be in authentic contact with others, that’s how they feel that they belong and are accepted. They are extremely creative, thanks to their open-minded heads. A Rebel can be a great member of a team (or project team) at the very beginning of the initiative, when we brainstorm. They can figure out a big number of ideas, sometimes super weird or that seem impossible to implement. Those ideas that i.e. Thinkers or Persisters would never come up with. The recognition of Rebel r is also easier when we look on their non-verbal communication: most of the time their face is extremely emotive, with a lot of mimics on it. Their voice is changing, modulating to express the proper emotion and reaction they aim for. They move their body a lot, using a lot of gestures to emphasize what they want to express. If you see and hear it, that’s a strong indicator that there’s a Rebel 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 Rebel need in communication?   The Rebel needs communication process where they have a chance to express their reactions. Extremely important for them as well is to have a space, where they can go into contact with others, by exchanging those reactions. To be efficient in communication with Rebel, we need to use emotive channel of communication. It means that we need to reach to those higher levels of energy we have (for some of us it can be pretty demanding) to get into the positive exchange as a start of a conversation. That means that asking questions or directly saying what’s there to be done won’t work in Rebel’s case. How to do it? Using the same example as before: when we want to delegate a task, so a chosen employee covers it, the great approach will be energizing the conversation first. “Hi Bob, it’s dope to see you! Did you see this game on Saturday? OMG it was nuts! (you talk for a while so the Rebel can give their reactions too). And by the way, I have this task, it’s pretty awesome, you up for a mission?” For them it needs to be fun, even if for us it seems ridiculous. Once they are on board, we can talk about the details (scope, deadline, support, required learning etc.). They value Laissez-faire interaction style. It means that they need freedom, autonomy and space to be creative and deliver things. One of the worst things that we can do while getting in contact with Rebel is to be too directive, asking questions, especially a lot of them won’t work very well too. Yes, they need structure and clear contract on what’s there to be done and for when but too much of a control or asking them in detail what they do will bring us the opposite results. Rebel seek to answer the existential question: am I accepted? It’s good to feed that question, especially when we see that Rebel is under some kind of stress or pressure. For them the following equation is the only truth.   I’m accepted by others = I’m valuable as a person   One motivational need attached to this PCM type is contact. It’s important to know it, since when those needs are not met, Rebel goes into distress and loses access to their skills, abilities to think clearly. Contact means that we are going actively in positive interaction with other people. We are seen as important part of the conversation, exchange of ideas, and sometimes just a person who can change the temperature in the room for the better. We can feed the need of contact by getting into the conversation or positive exchange, even when we don’t feel like it at the moment or it doesn’t seem logical.   When do we know that Rebel 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 Rebel?

Read More »
Leadership

Team Conflict: Is It Always a Bad Thing?

When we hear “conflict”, we think “trouble”. When we hear “conflict”, we think “dysfunctional team”, where communication doesn’t work, and people have personal issues. Or when we hear “conflict”, we think that leader doesn’t know how to lead his/her team successfully. Is that really true? Why are we so scared of a conflict? What is the worst thing that can happen when there is a conflict in the team? What kind of experiences we have with the conflict that make us think and behave in a certain way when one appears? Why do we avoid conflict? The real question should be: why do we avoid doing things in overall? In the area of conflicts, it’s extremely visible: we avoid it, because we burned ourselves once or twice. Based on that we make this strategy to not get involved in any kind of “risky” situation: so, we sit quiet and just focus on living through another day. Is it really the best option we can get? When a lack of conflict is dysfunctional, not the other way around? One of the biggest experts of team development and leadership, Patrick Lencioni, years ago wrote a book “5 Disfunctions of a Team”. It is a really short story (doesn’t even look like a personal/professional development book), yet it’s very powerful. And there is one part that stopped me when I first read it: Lencioni says that one of the dysfunctions of a team is a fear of conflict. What? (On the chart on the left-hand side there are definitions of all disfunctions and on the right-hand side there are solutions, that answer the questions: what is the best thing we can do here for our teams?) If we stick to our old believe that a conflict is something negative and destructive – that it ruins the trust and good atmosphere in the team, how is it possible that it’s actually the other way around? When we avoid conflict, not speaking up and be open about what do we really think, feel, or observe in the workplace, there is a huge risk of not being as effective and efficient as possible. It’s also short sided: if we are not sharing it now, it’s going to backfire in the future. So, at the end of the day, it will bring worse result than we imagine now. What’s even worse, people probably will talk behind other colleagues’ or leader’s backs, and not saying anything out loud. We can imagine that it will bring even worse outcomes, like really ruining the atmosphere, creating space for psychological games and in a consequence: lack of trust. The fear of conflict can be one of the biggest barriers that will stop people from growth, thrive and being the best versions of themselves in a workplace. What can we do to change this mindset? How can we use conflict that nourishes our team? The key thing to understand is that a certain kind conflict is something that we can use. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn’t, it really depends on what we are dealing with. There are 2 categories of conflicts, I call them functional and dysfunctional. What can we do with the dysfunctional conflicts? First and foremost: we need to map and name correctly which conflict is the real one in the situation we are dealing with. Without that, even the most beautiful strategy is not going to work, because we are going to answer to the wrong need. We’ll get frustrated and use all our energy badly. Focus on investigating will bring the best results, since then the solutions will be to the point: it’s more than certain that it’s worth investing time in this process. The bottom line The conflict is a huge, hairy, and scary thing that we often have very strong convictions about. We avoid it, by staying low, don’t speak up to not get into any confrontation. We do it because we don’t want to get hurt, expose ourselves to bad emotions, stress or feeling that we do not belong. Perfectly natural, there is nothing to be ashamed of. When we make a mindset shift: from fixed (focused on avoiding conflict) to a growth one, where we take into consideration that the conflict can be good for us, nourishing and interesting, we can gain more than we think. With remembering about having a good intention, being in OK-OK zone and with a goal of creating something extraordinary as a consequence of a passionate discussion, we can achieve the outcome that won’t be possible to achieve on our own. It puts old, good conflict in a completely new light. I believe it’s worth trying if it fits.

Read More »
Leadership

TEAMING: Why No One Teaches How to Be a Good Team Member?

Did you ever noticed that we teach leaders in countless growth programs, workshops, or mentoring processes how to be a great leader, and we almost never teach employees how to be great team members? To follow the TEAMING idea? Why is that? Is it more important to have qualified leaders than people who know how to work well together? We know it’s not true. A part of successful leadership is to have a team that has an ability to cooperate effectively, ideally to like and understand each other as people. During my post-grad studies in Transition Management area, one of the lecturers brought to the class a book named “Teaming: How Organizations Learn, Innovate, and Compete in Knowledge Economy” by Amy C. Edmondson. And while having a conversation about the teaming, people, communication and how it creates great (or not so great) organizations, I’ve started to wonder how all those dots are connected. How one thing influences the other and makes success or failure at the end of the day? How to think about TEAMING: is it even the real thing? What is TEAMING? TEAMING is a mindset. Based on Amy’s book, TEAMING is more about “being” with others in a certain way than “doing” things. Of course, the behavior is an important part of the whole idea, so we can tell that “behaving” is “doing”. But it’s not the point. The point is that TEAMING covers the way of working, behaving, making decisions in work environment where we don’t have a luxury of a stable team structures. Where individuals, teams, departments, and projects need to work together somehow, while the circumstances change all the time. So, TEAMING brings to the table collaboration based on an eagerness to learn, be better every day and communicate as well as possible, despite the constant change that never ends. And it never will, let’s be honest about it. Do we ever think about the qualities of a good team member? We for sure can list very quickly the qualities of a good manager within 30 seconds. But how about team members? Recently, I did this exercise with one group of leaders that I facilitated the workshop for. I asked them to give 2-3 things that they believe are qualities of a great team member. The results came up like this. So, as we can see, there are a lot of things connected with taking responsibility and do the job, but mostly there are things connected to “being” with others. A person who shares knowledge, taking care of other team members, listen, be brave, mentor others etc. Not many “transactional” elements are there as we can see. Interesting, isn’t’ it?   How to lead a TEAMING process? As leaders, we have a lot of influence (more that we think we have) on how the work environment looks like for our people. Pretty often we don’t use this power because we don’t believe that it would work, we don’t know how to do it, or we are afraid that we’ll get different outcome from what we aim for by certain actions. We don’t believe that we can actually change something. Leading in TEAMING means using the mindset that will allow people to be a better team member. It consists of three things: A leader is responsible for creating a workspace for people to thrive. It’s all we need to do. Why don’t we teach people how to be great team members? It’s not very intuitive to start from teaching people about being a good team member. Definitively more classical way is to teach leaders how to be great and lead others successfully. But that way, we put all responsibility on the leader’s shoulders. I’m not saying that leader don’t need to grow, have certain set of skills, behaviors or mindset. But when we think about improving the ability of being a great team member, we divide the responsibility into all people that making a team: manager AND team members. Both parties need to participate in the process of team creation: it influences the level of engagement, being in control and a part of something more than just my own scope. Why don’t we do it more often? Maybe because it requires a mindset and approach shift, a creation of a new one to cover the different perspective. And it can be difficult, sometimes going far away into the stretch zone and recreate the growth options we have for people in the organization. What do we need to make that shift? Wouldn’t it be more efficient, nice, and engaging to have more than one people who takes care of different team building elements? Imagine that we all are taking part in building the environment where people are highly motivated, performing very well, create space to give different ideas and have sparing partners to discuss them? Where we learn from each other, share knowledge and the best ways of working? Sounds pretty cool to me. And for you?

Read More »