This sort of approach can be useful to a manager when helping subordinate at work to improve. Taking a firm stand against unacceptable actions is more effective if you can come to an agreement that it is counter-productive and agree on a contract for improvement. If necessary, encourage the person to undertake transactional analysis training, or help him yourself.
At the same time, you should recognize that if the employee is in a job which does not suit his talents, the person who put him there is ultimately responsible. If it seems that someone is really not suited to a particular job, find something that is suitable. It will be much faster than trying to overcome personality traits that inhibit his performance.
However, if you feel that the problem is relatively minor or the person is not performing to his capabilities, it might be worth while to make the effort to help the person improve. The employee would be responsible for trying to improve, and you would be responsible for giving him feedback, advice and reinforcing any improvement which is achieved.
This may seem to be very time-consuming and you might feel it is not worth the effort, but one of the best ways for you to improve your effectiveness as a manager is to improve the effectiveness of those under you. Many managers abdicate any responsibility for their subordinates’ performances and are quick to hire and fire, only to have the situation repeat.
High staff turnover has a notoriously bad effect on productivity and morale. When everyone has an eye open for their next job, performance suffers, and it also takes a while for new entrants to come up to speed and remake the mistakes their predecessors made.
Helping people understand their own behaviour and giving them the tools for discussion and improvement is probably the greatest strength of Transactional Analysis. Even just understanding why a particular behaviour is so hard to stop can have a stabilizing effect; the person no longer feels totally out-of-control and at the mercy of unknown forces. “We have met the enemy and he is us”, as Pogo once said in a cartoon series. It means that there is a strong possibility of co-opting the enemy for mutual benefit.
(continued from part I)
