Response to Scenario 1
In the first situation, an employee comes to work late, and the supervisor reminds them that it was the fifth time this situation has happened and expresses disappointment. The worker’s reaction is to point out that other colleagues break the same guidelines, but never receive criticism. According to Transactional Analysis, the supervisor is playing a parent role while the employee exhibits a child’s behavior (Dr. Paras, 2018). The former state typically shows authority and emphasizes the rules, which is illustrated in the manager’s decision to remand the worker about him not following the guidelines. The child role is normally emotional and selfish, demonstrated in the current scenario through the employee’s desire to be the offended victim of the circumstances. The worker’s behavior is not rational and dictated by subjectively unfair treatment by the manager without taking any responsibility for being late. The focus of the employee’s response is on the feeling of tiredness. Neither the supervisor nor the worker wants to listen to each other and resolve the problem. Instead, they choose to state their points of view as the only correct ones, which is likely to lead to further conflict development.
Response to Scenario 2
In the second situation, a supervisor provides an employee with a constructive review of their performance. The worker responds with thankfulness and asks for advice to improve their results in the future. Based on the Transactional Analysis, both people play adult roles (Dr. Paras, 2018). The supervisor chose to write about the successes of the employee as well as the areas of their performance which can become more productive. The overall goal of the evaluation is to make the work as effective as it can be. The employee, in their turn, receives the praise and criticism without personal or emotional judgment and asks how the results can become better next time. Both people choose not to use the emotional child state or the authoritative adult one. The rational behavior on the two sides leads to the complementary transaction and constructive discussion, which works well in the professional business sphere.
Response to Scenario 3
The third situation describes a leadership development coach asking the company employees to write about the blind spot of their supervisor and later reads the answers to everyone present. This causes a conflict situation and hurts the feelings of the participants of the training. Following the Johari Window model, the coach moved the supervisor’s blind spot characteristics into the arena, or, known to others, window (Communication Coach, 2020). Since their personal qualities which subordinated did not like now became the center of the conversation, the activity resulted in a confrontation and a hostile atmosphere in the firm.
A leadership development coach should know about the distance and tension that may occur in business companies between the supervisor and their subordinates. Open public criticism of either side may lead to a conflict as it has happened in the third scenario. To avoid this, the coach should have discussed the blind spots separately and anonymously. Another useful instrument is introducing possible issues and how they may be resolved before the survey happens. Working in small groups, individual interviews, suggesting a choice of words, explaining the potential reasons behind the typical conflicts in the firm – all the variants mentioned could have prepared the people for a less emotional reaction to the exercise. The emphasis for effective coaching sessions should be on mutual benefit and conflict resolution, not finding a person to blame for the workers’ dissatisfaction.
References
Communication Coach Alex Lyon. (2020). Johari Window [Video]. Web.
Dr. Paras. (2018). Transactional analysis [Video]. Web.