Applied Transactional Analysis

Today (Sunday 19, August 2007) morning over brunch my wife reminded me about an incident that happened in 1995 when we were still newly married. She had learned how to drive and had taken the Maruti 800 that we owned at that time out for a practice drive. She had had a minor accident when she collided with one of the motorized three wheelers that were ubiquitous then. There was extensive damage to the bonnet and sides and I had lost my temper. I made her go with our driver and register the complaint with the police so that the insurance claim could be made. Apparently, this incident had traumatized her and she never picked up courage to drive again. But recently she wanted to do it. The post 1997 new improved version of me (shaped by the constant practice of the seven habits) is more tolerant and friendly and I’ve been telling her to start from where she left off by getting herself a Wagon R or an Alto. But she doesn’t want to do it. And she felt that if it weren’t for me she would be driving well by now.

I recognized this as one of the classic Games of Transactional Analysis. It is actually called If It Weren’t for You (IWFY)! Eric Berne, the founder of the Theory of Transactional Analysis describes this game in his book Games People Play as follows:

“Briefly, a woman marries a domineering man so that he will restrict her activities and thus keep her from getting into situations which frighten her…She takes advantage of the situation to complain about the restrictions, which makes her spouse feel uneasy and gives her all sorts of advantages. “

Once I read this out to my wife from the book, we both realized the futility of the game we were playing and decided not to look backwards. Acts done in the past, right or wrong, cannot be reversed. Nor should they be repeated. The best thing is to talk about the future without any coloring from the past.

In fact a corollary of IWFY is “If Only You Had” (IOYOH). IOYOH needs two players, say A and B who need not necessarily be a married couple. Both must share a series of incidents in the past when there have been “wrongs” committed by A against B as well as by B against A. Thus, every new issue or proposal for common action is looked at or takes color from the past “injuries” of the other. They argue circularly that the other “could have” done something or the other to prevent the current problem or situation. This game is endless and is the stuff out of which family, clan, religious and caste battles are regularly built.

The only solution is to accept that this game is being played, make a clean break from the past and decide to look at unconditional cooperation in future on a clear understanding of a common and mutually beneficial agenda.

The solution I have described is contained in Stephen Covey’s Habit 4 i.e. Think Win/Win! When we bring a high degree of consideration as well as courage to the table, we move towards WIN/WIN. The third alternative which is neither your way nor my way but a better way emerges out of a supportive dialogue and finally we reach the position that the Sixth Habit suggests, we synergize!