Transactional Analysis
Transactional Analysis
When dealing with people, remember you are not dealing with creatures of logic, but with creatures of emotion.
– Dale Carnegie
Introduction
When dealing with other people, one of the most important skills to have is the ability to create win-win situations, which are situations in which both parties have genuinely benefited from the transaction as a result of it.
Almost everyone understands how to ‘win’ by playing games, beating others, and creating a ‘win-lose’ situation, but ensuring that both of you ‘win’ is much more difficult to accomplish.
In order to begin to consider how to accomplish this, we must first discuss a little psychology, and specifically Transactional Analysis. The foundational text is Thomas Harris’s book ‘I’m OK – You’re OK,’ which is written from a clinical perspective and is highly recommended. The reasoning, on the other hand, applies to all transactions.
In the world of human interaction, transactions serve as the everyday currency. When reduced to its most basic form, a transaction is defined as ‘I perform some action on your behalf and you perform an action on mine’, where ‘performing’ may include speaking.
Transactional Analysis is founded on the premise that everyone is composed of three parts: the parent, the adult, and the child.
In the Parent element, you have learned something, and it is basically a collection of unfiltered recordings from your first five years of life. When you think about it, it can be thought of as what your parents taught you at that time, whether intentionally or unconsciously. The information may include safety precautions (“Don’t run across the road!”), religious or “life” systems beliefs, and rules for living.
Child represents the ‘felt experience’ or the remembered responses of the ‘little person’ to the adult world, which occurs again in the first five years of life, as described above. In general, the Child is concerned with emotion and feelings, as these are the predominant responses in young children, according to the author.
The Adult is the thinking or reasoning element that evaluates the information provided by the Parent and Child and determines whether or not it is correct based on reality and experience.
Brief check
A transactional negotiation is one in which two or more parties attempt to find common ground on a deal to trade something of value, whether a tangible item or an idea.
Expertise in Transactional Analysis
The fundamental principle of Transactional Analysis is to determine which of the three parts, namely the Parent, the Adult, or the Child, is involved in the transaction and then to take appropriate action on that information.
What is the procedure for identification?
In situations where the Parent is involved, there are some tell-tale signs in the language used, with common phrases such as “never again,” “never again,” “always,” “should,” and “ought” being used, especially when these are used without considering whether the position is reasonable. There may also be hand gestures such as wagging the index finger and shaking the head.
The Child’s behavior is frequently accompanied by a strong emotional response. The use of childish words and phrases such as ‘I wish’, ‘going to’, ‘don’t want’, and ‘won’t’ are all examples of verbal clues.
The Adult manifests itself through the process of fact-finding. Who, what, why, where, and how are the basic questions that the Adult uses to communicate with others.
With this in mind, you can begin to identify the people who are involved in your day-to-day transactions, and you can also begin to consider how you might be able to make a small difference in the world.
Consider the case of someone who is unhappy with the level of service they have received.
Consider what they might say “I don’t think it’s good enough. It is imperative that something be done!” This is most likely their mother or father speaking, because she or he is clearly upset.
The person on the receiving end of the complaint has a choice as to who will respond to him or her:
“I’m not to blame; I had nothing to do with it,” the child says. It’s not going to help if you tell me.
Parent: Isn’t it a disgrace that this has happened? You should be aware that it is the computer.
Adult: I understand your predicament. What can I do to assist in putting things right?
It is likely that the child’s response will result in more parental criticism and possibly shouting as the complainant attempts to make it clear that they do not care who is to blame and that they simply want something done!
There is little chance that the Parent’s response will be very helpful in terms of getting something done or the complainant leaving the country as quickly as possible. In the best case scenario, the two will come to the conclusion that it is terrible and that something should be done about it immediately, albeit after deliberating for a long time.
However, the Adult response, on the other hand, shifts the complainant into an Adult state of mind. It works quickly to figure out what will solve the problem and bring them back to happiness.
Brief check
The basis of Transactional Analysis is to identify which of the three parts, Parent, Adult or Child, is involved in the transaction, and then take appropriate action.
Positions in One's Life
The identification of life positions is the second step in the Transactional Analysis process.
Harris believes that a child accepts the position that their parents are ‘OK’ from an extremely early age. Parents spend a lot of time telling their children not to do certain things, which is a normal part of the process of guiding them to become civilized and functional adults.
If the ‘Adult’ in a child believes that he or she is not “OK,” the child is considered to be “Not OK.”
Consequently, for most people, their basic position from childhood is ‘You’re fine – I’m not fine.’ Harris emphasizes that this is not a question of whether or not you had a happy or unhappy childhood; rather, this is a life position that everyone eventually achieves. It encourages the child to do things in order to please the ‘OK’ people in order to receive praise and rewards and feel better about themselves as a result.
Many people never progress beyond this fundamental life situation. They will continue to seek rewards and praise from those who are larger or more important than themselves for the rest of their lives in order to validate themselves and feel more ‘OK.’ Their fundamental position, on the other hand, remains unchanged: they continue to believe that they are ‘Not OK.’
Using the Adult, Harris believes that it is possible to choose a new position, i.e. to ‘I’m OK – You’re OK’, and that this decision can be made with confidence. This is a decision that can only be made and maintained by the Adult. This means that if your Child or Parent becomes ‘hooked’ by something, you may find yourself in the familiar position of ‘I’m not OK,’ and you will need to consciously engage your Adult in order to get yourself out of it.
Create Win-Win Situations with the Help of Transactional Analysis.
I trust that it has become clear that if you want to create true ‘win-win’ situations, where both parties gain something meaningful from the transaction, you must begin from the position of ‘I’m OK – you’re OK.’ If you’re starting from the position of ‘I’m not OK,’ you’ll probably want to do one of the following:
Make other people lose so that you win and they lose and you feel more “OK,” or lose yourself so that you can confirm your “Not OK” position by scoring points off of them.
This is an area where Transactional Analysis can be extremely beneficial in the real world. As long as you can determine whether your own or someone else’s child or parent has been involved, you can engage the Adult instead, returning to the “I’m OK – You’re OK” position once more.
Using the previous example, if the person dealing with the complaint had responded to and reassured the Child, the complainant could have responded as an Adult and said something like ‘I understand that it’s not your fault [responding to and reassuring the Child], but is there anything that you can do to help me?’ The other is then invited to respond with something like ‘Yes, I can give you a discount on a future purchase,’ or “What would you like me to do?” “I’m afraid not, I have no discretion over this, but I can arrange for someone more senior to speak with you if that would be more appropriate.”
In each instance, the Adult requests an Adult response from the recipient after the Child has been reassured that they have been heard and understood.
The Transactional Analysis method can be a useful tool for thinking about interactions in a slightly different way, regardless of whether you choose to adopt the “I’m OK – You’re OK” life philosophy or not. When it is introduced to a whole team, group, or family, it can also serve as a common language, which in and of itself can aid in the facilitation of relationships. It also contains some practical suggestions for dealing with difficult situations and interpersonal relationships.
Brief check
Most negotiations are less efficient and less successful than they could be because people tend to dispute over positions rather than interests while negotiating.
The parties in a negotiation take a stance once they have committed to it, and they believe that altering their position is equivalent to failure. The authors recommend that the parties in a negotiation instead concentrate on their own interests. Is there anything we can gain from the negotiation that will help us advancing our objectives? If you want to achieve mutual gain in a negotiation, you should ask yourself this question first.
| Positional Bargaining: Soft | Positional Bargaining: Hard | Interest Bargaining |
| Participants want to be friends | Participants are adversaries | Participants are problem solvers |
| The goal is agreement | The goal is victory | The goal is an outcome that will satisfy the interests of the participants |
| Participants trust each other | Participants distrust each other | Participants treat trust and distrust as irrelevant |
| Participants are soft on the people and the problem | Participants are hard on the people and the problem | Participants are soft on the people, hard on the problem |
| Participants change positions readily | Participants stick to a position | Participants focus on interests, not positions |
| Participants state their bottom line | Participants conceal their bottom line | Participants don’t have a bottom line |
| Participants make concessions | Participants demand concessions | Participants invent options for mutual gain |
| Participants search for one solution | Participants demand one solution | Participants develop multiple options |
Concerning the Mutual Advantage
In order for the mutual gain strategy to be successful, it is essential to concentrate on interests rather than positions. Creating a respectful and orderly environment in the schools is a goal shared by both sides. So, what options do they have to ensure that their desires are satisfied? Perhaps a compromise is the best course of action in this case. Uniforms are desired by one political party, but not by another. For the first time, a school district wants to institute uniforms in order to avoid a situation where every kid dresses in their own clothes and – perhaps – bullying can occur when one person or group acts with hatred against another who dresses in their own unique style.
Although originality should be promoted, it can have negative consequences when it results in a disproportionate amount of variation. While not having a mandatory uniform – in which everyone wears the same clothes – is one possible solution, this has its own difficulties, including making kids easily visible to outsiders and potentially generating problems for parents who are on a limited budget. Alternatives to uniforms include the implementation of a dress code, which mandates students to wear in a specific manner while not necessarily everyone clothing in the same manner. Although a dress code can specify that students dress in a modest and appropriate manner, it does not have to require that they all look exactly same. In this way, both parties are able to obtain something of what they desire without each party having to make significant concessions.
Developing Solution that Benefits Both Parties
Some actions that are not normally connected with talks, such as the following, are required in order to arrive at a mutual gain solution.
- Brainstorming in order to “extend the pie” by generating a variety of choices, it is possible to change the scope of a negotiation by making it larger or smaller.
- It is also possible to identify issues that can be put aside for future talks.
- Identifying common values can aid in the creation of options that will fulfill the interests of both sides.
Brief check
During negotiations, one of the difficulties that can occur is that parties may feel that their abilities and opportunities are being limited in terms of what they can do and what they are entitled to receive. As a result of their continued disagreement, they may believe that negotiations are moving at a snail's pace, if at all.
Rather than focusing on what divides them rather than what brings them into conflict with one another, the parties might work to create a mind-set in which there is a chance for compromise. When there are situations in a negotiation where both parties have a philosophical WAP that is significantly different from the other, the challenge occurs. ZOPA is not applicable here, and no matter how many negotiations take place, there will always be a sticking point in the middle. In order to create a situation where there is room for agreement to emerge, it is necessary to remove the sticking point from the equation, even only momentarily. The danger of “ignoring the elephant in the room” is that the elephant will not go away simply because it is not acknowledged and addressed. It will still be there, and while it may be easy to look at things from a “blue sky” perspective and ignore the clouds building above you, doing so may result in you saving up difficulties for the later phases of talks. Alternatively, you may consider delegating some responsibility for finding a compromise solution away from the negotiation table and then bringing it back to the table when it appears to be more acceptable to both sides.
Do You Know What You’re Looking For?
Determine what you individually want to achieve from the negotiation process before you begin. Make an effort to say this in a good manner.
Examples include:
• I want a fair share of all new clients;
• I want a better working connection with my management; and
• I want adjustments to the workday routine.
Using your personal needs statement, you can construct two different versions of it: an ideal version and a realistic version.
Alternately, if the negotiation is complicated, you could divide your message into numerous steps. It’s also a good idea to divide down your statement into desires and requirements. In particular, if your statement is ambiguous, this is beneficial. For example, consider the line “I would like to see some alterations to the schedule.”
| Want | Need |
| More input into the scheduling process | To work less than 30 hours per week |
| A more regular schedule | More notice for schedule changes |
As a result, you will have more bargaining room during the negotiation process, which will help ensure that you get what you need out of the final agreement. In the preceding example, you may be willing to give up a more regular schedule if you are given more notice of schedule changes in exchange for more notice.
What Is It That They Desire?
Next, determine what it is that the person with whom you are having a disagreement desires. Make an effort to frame this in a positive light. Examine all of your options in order to maximize your chances of achieving mutual success. These framing questions will assist you in the beginning stages of the process.
- What information does my adversary require?
- What is it that my adversary desires?
- What do they consider to be the most important thing?
- What do they consider to be the least important?
What Exactly Do We Want?
As soon as you’ve determined the desires and requirements of both parties, look for areas where they overlap. These will serve as the starting points for establishing a common ground of understanding.
Practical Application
Here is an example of want and need in the negotiation process. Joe and George are in conflict over the current schedule. As the most senior members of the assembly line team, they both alternate their regular duties with that of foreman. Although taking on the responsibility gives the foreman an extra $250 per shift, the foreman also has to work an extra hour per shift, and has additional safety responsibilities.
Joe and George both work Monday to Friday. As a regular assembly line team member, their shifts are from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. As foreman, they are expected to work from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
| Joe | George | |
| Wants | To have at least two foreman shifts per week. | To have at least two foreman shifts per week.
To leave by 4:30 p.m. on Fridays. |
| Needs | To leave by 4:30 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays to pick up his children.
To ensure that the foreman position is covered by someone from Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. |
Not to have more than three foreman shifts per week, as it will require him to pay extra taxes.
To ensure that the foreman position is covered by someone from Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. |
According to this straightforward chart, Joe and George share a common objective: to ensure that someone covers the foreman position during regular working hours. As a result, rather than being an emotional conflict, this is a logistical one. We can also see from the chart that there appears to be some solid ground for a solution to be developed. When working through the wants and needs of both parties, it is important not to jump to conclusions too quickly. Instead, keep an eye out for the underlying problem. Frequently, the problem is not what it appears to be.
