Largely inheriting from a psychological frame of reference and a therapeutic approach, T.A. Eric Berne’s bestselling “Games People Play” first published in 1964 has withstood the test of time and guided generations of therapists and human development experts in understanding the darker side of day-to-day human motivations to engage in negative interactions. Games theory of Transactional Analysis fame has provided breakthrough insights as to how humans implement precise, repetitious and predictable negative behavioral processes in their relationships. In the last half of the previous century, T.A. To read this article in German Transactional Analysis Games
Stupid game titlws professional#
In many cases also, a closer look at game theory can provide coaches and their clients with extremely useful and resolutely positive success-oriented personal and professional strategies. In many cases, the flip sides of negative games are actually central coaching techniques. The article below provides a close look at the surprisingly positive dimensions that can be explored by understanding the underlying processes in negative game strategies. In our observation, there is a real danger that coaches could unknowingly slip from participating in a positive strategy into partaking in a manipulative process. It still holds that in a large number of cases, negative games and positive coach strategies may display an uncanny process resemblance. Obviously, the main difference between coaching clients towards success and TA manipulative game playing is that the former aims for win-win relational outcomes, when by definition, manipulation games end with negative lose-lose payoffs. Taking a closer look at Transactional Analysis game theory in general, it turns out that coaches actually strategically use a number of professional relational processes that are dangerously close to what TA defines as manipulation games. According to Transactional Analysis theory, this underdog not knowing position in a relationship could well be perceived as a central characteristic in a game of “Stupid”.
Stupid game titlws how to#
Coaches may even pretend they don’t have any concrete idea on how to help a client out, when in fact they could think of one or two options. Concretely, it underlines that even when coaches think of apparently good options that could be beneficial to solve client issues, they generally refrain from offering them directly. This title is a rather provocative assertion, and it could be quite close to perceived truth. Metasysteme Systemic Coach Certification and ICF v.The Metasysteme Coach Academy Philosophy.Our Systemic Coach-Training Learning Architectures.METACOACH SYSTEMIC TEAM COACHING Coach training.SYSTEMIC COACHING FUNDAMENTALS Coach Training.
Coaching Team Performance, a Case Study.SYSTEMIC ORGANIZATIONAL COACHING, a Case Study and.
0 kommentar(er)
