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

Work Drama Triangle (and How to Escape It)

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

Czytaj dalej

16 March 2025 No Comments

Leadership

Mastering Problem Solving: How to Save Time and Adapt

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

Czytaj dalej

28 February 2025 No Comments

Leadership

3 Leadership Lessons I Learned from Bad Recruitment Processes

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

Czytaj dalej

16 February 2025 No Comments