Transactional Analyst’s Story: Contracting

Transactional Analysis

As a huge advocate of Transactional Analysis (TA) as a concept, I am going to start sharing tools or elements from it in an easy and understandable way, since I believe that every person can use it. And you don’t have to necessarily be a psychologist to use it, especially for using contracting, which is a subject of today’s article.

TA as a theory was developed by Eric Berne in 1950s. It was purely a method of psychotherapy back then, but really quickly people realized that it can be used in educational and organizational context as well. I use it for my personal development, but also in the organizations that I support, while I teach mostly managers how to be smarter, understand their people better and to know more about why and when employees react in a certain way.

The first tool that I found particularly useful was contracting. I teach it while I can and to whom I can because I see how much it can change relations, ways of communication or the way we are working within a team, when we are more mindful about the structure of how we talk to each other. It prevents people from guessing, wasting time on finding the right person or the right information and playing psychological games. In this article I’ll give you basics about the tool and I’ll answer on a question WHY you should use it.

Let’s get started then.

What is contracting regarding Eric Berne? Levels of contract

Contracting is a tool. It can have different value for every person that uses it, since all of us have different needs, thinking preferences, personality and environment that we grew in or live and work in right now. A contract is an agreement between two (or more) sides, in which each party agrees to do a specific thing. Pretty similar to a regular definition of a contract, i.e. while we are signing a contract of employment, we agree to do a certain task list and the organization agrees to pay us a certain amount of money in exchange for it.

But contracting regarding Berne is something more than just a transaction. It has more layers, there are more details underneath the surface which will have an influence on a person in the future. Berne says there are 3 basic layers of a good contract: administrative, professional and psychological. All 3 need to be covered if we want to talk about a proper contract.

*Levels of contract regarding Eric Berne*

Let’s use the example of a new employee in the team to make it clearer.

On an administrative level we are going to give new employee a contract of employment, information about payroll cycle, bonus system, benefits, working hours, procedures that are valid in this particular organization. Basically, all details that a new employee should know to start a job.

On a professional level we are going to give this new employee ways of working, scope of responsibilities and decision making that she/he can do on their own on their position. Goals, objectives and KPIs, ways and tools of communication, ways and frequency of reporting, as well as 1:1 and team meetings.

On a psychological level we are going to talk about expectations of both sides, needs, past experiences (good or bad) with a decision what to keep, and what to cut from current cooperation. This is the space where we talk about motivation, values and all the thigs that are important while thinking about comfort and efficiency of work.

First two layers are quite simple, intuitive and most of us cover them, more or less. The last one might seem the most difficult, since we need more insight, coaching skills, we need to listen and be open to other person to do it properly. It can be hard, sometimes people don’t want to talk about it, but it is crucial to take it into consideration. Without that we will be relying on guesses and beliefs, instead of facts and real needs that this new person has.

What are the rules of a good contract?

When we think about contracting, there are few elements that we need to take care of every time.

Both (or more) sides of the contract need to be engaged and agree on what they want to achieve. Before agreeing on something, we need to check with ourselves if we have capacity (i.e. time) for it, to be 100% engaged. If we don’t have enough space, time, money etc. we are going to procrastinate the task, and it’s not fair to the other person and to ourselves as well.
Fair exchange. It doesn’t mean that we agree on 50:50 division of work. Fairness can mean something else to each person, that’s why we need to establish who is going to cover what, when and what we would like to achieve together at the end of the day.
Skills. All sides of the contract need to have skills, abilities to do what they agree on. If they need to upskill to do it that’s fine, but we have to establish it while contracting to have a transparency that’s needed to complete the task.
Compliance. While contracting, we need to take into consideration the law, as well as social or organizational regulations. We also need to think about different perspectives to have a complete context of the situation (i.e. employee and organization – if it is an organizational situation).

If we cover all of those, the contract will be fully transparent, have a good intention and an aim to create a value for engaged parties and/or for somebody else as a result of common work.

Where can I use contracting?

Contracts can be used practically everywhere, that’s the magic of them. This is a really universal tool, and it depends on our individual needs where we want to start trying them out. The areas of usage can be either personal or professional, here are few examples:

a contract with my roommate about cleaning the apartment,
a contract with my partner about taking care of kids,
a contract with a new employee while I am a manager,
a contract with a colleague to achieve a common goal,
a contract with a coach for a coaching process,
a contract with a with a manager while I am an employee for my career path in the organization,
a contract with a manager while I am a HR person for supporting her/him with a team conflict.

As you can see there are many opportunities, in endless contexts where we can use contracting. The essence of it (besides the elements that were already covered) is:

what is the goal (what this contract should bring us at the end),
who are on the sides of contract (2 people or more?),
how we are going to execute the contract and when,
what are the conditions of recontracting (if something change, we should be able to act adaptively and react accordingly, i.e. I can make a contract with a new joiner regarding working hours, but while he/she has a child, the circumstances change, and we should talk about those hours one more time to check if it is still applicable).

This is a tool for us, not we are here for the tool. It should support us with having clear, transparent communication and structure around what we do, how and when.

The bottom line

I don’t like to waste my time. I think that it’s too valuable and I don’t have a luxury to spend it on the things that can be done better, faster, simpler or with less energy. Contracting is a tool that can help us to have better, more clear and transparent communication, prevent us from playing psychological games, privately and professionally. It is here for us to stop guessing and start mindfully talk to each other and set together what needs to be done. It is a life changer. Try it and teach others to do the same. The world is going to be a better place thanks to that.

Do you want to know more about TA? Stay tuned for more articles here, visit my Instagram or check out official TA Association.

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