Contact before contract

Transactional Analysis (TA) is a humanistic psychological framework developed by psychiatrist Eric Berne in the 1960s. It is widely applied across psychology, coaching, counselling, education, and organisational development to help people better understand communication, behaviour, and relationships. In an organisational context, TA provides a practical way of understanding how people interact with one another. One of its strengths is its ability to make complex human dynamics visible and understandable. Effective TA work creates a clear picture of what is happening beneath the surface of conversations, relationships, and team dynamics.

As the saying goes, "A picture is worth a thousand words."
When people can visualise patterns of communication and behaviour, they are often better able to understand themselves and others. I think that there is also a strong connection between Transactional Analysis and Gestalt approaches, both of which place significant importance on human connection and awareness. A principle often used in TA is "contact before contract." In other words, before we focus on goals, outcomes, or tasks, we must first establish genuine human connection. For leaders, coaches, and consultants, this principle is particularly relevant. Sustainable change is rarely achieved through process alone. It begins with trust, rapport, and a meaningful relationship. When people feel seen, heard, and understood, they are far more likely to engage, collaborate, and grow.

Quality over quantity

There is something to be said for people who maintain a small circle of trusted relationships. They understand that quality matters more than quantity and that meaningful connection is worth far more than popularity. Their confidence is not dependent on external validation or the approval of others. It comes from a strong sense of self, built through experience, reflection, and an understanding of their own values.

They are comfortable spending time alone, not because they are isolated, but because they are grounded. They are selective with their time, energy, and attention, recognising that these are finite resources. This is not about exclusion; it is about intentionality. They tend to walk away from unnecessary drama, avoid gossip, and protect the peace they have worked hard to create. They do not feel compelled to chase every opportunity, maintain every connection, or seek approval from every audience.

I think that there is a quiet strength in knowing who you are, what matters to you, and where you choose to invest your energy. When you meet someone with a small circle, do not assume loneliness. Sometimes it reflects self-awareness, discipline, and a deep appreciation for the value of genuine relationships.

The growing importance of CX

As the workforce becomes increasingly global and the demand for specialised skills continues to rise, organisations will need leaders who can do more than manage performance. They will need leaders who can navigate complexity across cultures, perspectives, and ways of working. Technical expertise remains important, but it is no longer sufficient on its own.

I think the leaders who create the greatest impact will be those with high levels of cultural intelligence: the ability to understand different viewpoints, build trust across diverse groups, and communicate effectively in a variety of contexts. These leaders are able to translate between perspectives, frame challenges in ways that resonate with different stakeholders, and create alignment around a shared direction. They recognise that leadership is not simply about having the right answers; it is about helping people work together towards meaningful outcomes. In a global environment, cultural intelligence is no longer a nice-to-have. It is becoming a core leadership capability.

Beyond utility

In many societies, people are often socialised to evaluate relationships through the lens of utility. We learn to ask what value something provides, what opportunities it creates, or what status it confers. While this way of thinking can be useful in certain contexts, it can also shape how we relate to one another. In workplaces, this may show up when mentorship gives way to competition and relationships become primarily transactional. In personal relationships, some men are taught that their value lies in what they can provide rather than who they are. Financial success, status, and achievement can become substitutes for emotional connection, vulnerability, and intimacy.

I think this dynamic can also influence friendships. Many men find it easier to connect through shared activities, work, or practical tasks than through conversations about emotions, struggles, or personal experiences. As a result, meaningful connection is sometimes postponed until there is a specific reason to reach out. The challenge is that human beings need more than utility, we need belonging, trust, and genuine connection. The strongest relationships, whether in leadership, friendship, or partnership, are built not only on what we can do for one another, but on our willingness to be seen, understood, and valued as people.

The cost of always being right

Many men grow up receiving messages that competence, strength, and certainty are essential parts of their identity. The challenge is that when self-worth becomes tied to being right, admitting a mistake can feel like a threat rather than an opportunity to learn. In these moments, protecting the ego can become more important than acknowledging the impact of our actions on others. I think leadership, maturity, and personal growth require a different response, it requires the ability to say, "I was wrong," to learn from mistakes, and to take responsibility for repairing trust when it has been damaged.

I often wonder how much stronger our institutions would be if more people, particularly those in positions of power, felt comfortable admitting mistakes and learning from them. How much more trust would exist? How much better would collaboration become? I also wonder what impact this would have on individual wellbeing. Many people carry the burden of believing they must be perfect, strong, or in control at all times. Yet our worth is not determined by perfection, it’s found in our capacity for growth, connection, and authenticity. I think one of the greatest signs of strength is not being right all the time, but being willing to learn when we are wrong. What do you think?

Inviting people into the conversation

Most of us see ourselves as fair-minded people, and in many cases we are. Yet human beings naturally identify more easily with some people than others. I may feel warmth towards you, for example, while unconsciously questioning your competence or credibility. These subtle biases can influence our decisions even when our intentions are positive. It is also important to recognise that not all biases operate in the same way. Individual prejudice exists, and some biases are reinforced by organisational systems, cultural norms, and historical patterns. The distinction matters because the challenge is often larger than any one individual's beliefs or behaviours.

One of the reasons I think there is so much resistance to diversity and inclusion work is that people often feel they are being told they need to be fixed. Most people do not respond positively to that message. Diversity fatigue can emerge when the conversation is framed around blame, correction, or moral judgment rather than shared benefit and collective progress. Instead, I think we need to invite people into the conversation. We need to engage those in majority or dominant groups as active participants rather than positioning them as part of the problem. The evidence is compelling: diverse teams tend to produce stronger innovation, better problem-solving, and more robust decision-making. These outcomes benefit everyone, not just specific groups.

When I encounter resistance, I try to approach it with curiosity. I ask myself: What could I do differently to invite this person into the conversation? And more importantly, what might I be doing that is contributing to their resistance? As the goal is not to win an argument, the goal is to create an environment where more people want to participate, contribute, and be part of the solution. That is how meaningful and sustainable change happens.

It affects us all

Do you place a higher value on familiarity than experience when assessing someone's potential for success?

Human beings naturally gravitate towards people who think, communicate, and behave in ways that feel familiar. That sense of comfort can create an unconscious preference for those who are most like us. What is interesting is how often we rationalise these preferences. We tell ourselves that someone is a "better fit," that they are easier to work with, or that they align more closely with the culture. These explanations may sound logical, but they can sometimes mask an underlying bias towards familiarity.

This has important implications for equality and inclusion because affinity bias is not limited to any one group. Men and women alike can be drawn towards people who feel familiar and can unintentionally overlook talent, potential, and capability in those who are different from themselves. I think the challenge for leaders is to distinguish between what feels comfortable and what creates value as the two are not always the same. Diverse teams often outperform homogeneous ones precisely because they bring different experiences, perspectives, and ways of thinking to the table. The question is not who you naturally click with, the real question is whether you are making decisions based on familiarity or on capability.

Ask for help

I think one of the most effective ways to ask for support is surprisingly simple. Rather than making a demand, ask an open question that allows the other person to choose how they respond. A phrase such as, "I wonder if you can help me?" is often far more powerful than many alternatives. It is respectful, non-threatening, and leaves the other person with the freedom to say yes or no. What makes this approach effective is that it appeals to a person's sense of agency and competence. Most people like to be helpful, and when they are given the opportunity to contribute voluntarily, they are often more willing to engage.

We rarely think about the emotional impact of the language we use. Small changes in phrasing can create very different reactions. A request that feels collaborative and respectful is often received far more positively than one that feels directive or assumes compliance. As leaders, coaches, and professionals, understanding these subtle dynamics can significantly improve how we build relationships, gain support, and influence others.

Refining the structure

One of the things that fascinates me most is cognitive bias and how it shapes the way we solve problems. Human beings are rarely as rational as we like to believe, and we often show strong preferences towards certain types of solutions while overlooking others. Modern societies, for example, tend to favour tangible and visible interventions, for example,  engineering, technology, systems, regulation, and legislation. We are often more comfortable solving problems with “things” because they appear concrete, measurable, and immediate.

What is interesting is how slowly we sometimes turn towards psychological and behavioural solutions, despite the fact that many of our challenges are rooted in human behaviour, perception, motivation, and wellbeing. Questions around happiness, meaning, trust, and human connection are frequently treated as secondary, even though they influence how people live, work, and perform. I also think there is a broader tendency within institutions to rely more heavily on control, regulation, and compulsion than on understanding behaviour and influencing people through trust, persuasion, and culture. For leaders, this matters because sustainable change rarely comes from systems alone. It comes from understanding people.

,

Kaizen workshops

,

Kaizen is a philosophy originating from Japan that focuses on continuous improvement within organisations. At its core is the belief that improvement is everyone’s responsibility, from frontline employees to senior leadership. The word itself combines two concepts: Kai meaning “change” and Zen meaning “for the better.”

What makes Kaizen powerful is not only the focus on efficiency, but the mindset behind it. Sustainable progress is achieved through consistent refinement, collaboration, and attention to detail over time. Here are the five key principles that sit at the centre of Kaizen:

  1. Know your customer
    Understand the needs, expectations, and experiences of the people you serve.

  2. Let it flow
    Create value while reducing unnecessary complexity and waste.

  3. Go to gemba
    Leaders should spend time where the work actually happens to better understand reality on the ground.

  4. Empower people
    Equip teams with the trust, structure, and tools needed to contribute effectively.

  5. Be transparent
    Use real data and visible progress to support accountability and continuous learning.

In my experience, the most effective organisations are rarely those chasing perfection overnight, they are the ones committed to improving consistently, intentionally, and together. What do you think?

It's really simple

We are all competing on innovation, in fact, I cannot think of a single industry where innovation is not a critical competitive advantage. If organisations want the one idea that allows them to grow, adapt, and remain relevant, then they need many ideas in the room because innovation begins with ideas. Ideas are shaped by perspectives. Perspectives are shaped by experiences, and experiences are shaped by people. Therefore, if we want broader thinking, better problem-solving, and stronger innovation, we need a wider range of experiences and perspectives represented in the room. And this is the business case for diversity.

I don’t think diversity is simply a social initiative, it’s about increasing an organisation’s capacity to think differently, challenge assumptions, and compete effectively in a complex global environment.

Tolerance vs. Acceptance

In homogeneous societies like Denmark, there is often an important distinction between tolerance and acceptance. Tolerance means allowing difference to exist, even if it remains at a distance. People may be included formally, yet still feel like outsiders who are expected to adapt to the dominant culture. Acceptance goes further as it involves recognising difference as a natural and valuable part of society and organisational life. People are not simply “allowed” to participate; they are respected, heard, and able to contribute fully without needing to minimise who they are. The shift from tolerance to acceptance is significant because belonging influences trust, collaboration, innovation, and long-term retention.

Quiet compromise

What does quiet compromise look like?

a) Adopting beliefs or positions you don’t actually hold to align with company culture or leadership expectations.

b) You start nodding along to strategies you think are flawed.

c) You stop voicing dissent because you’ve learned that agreement gets rewarded and pushback gets penalised.

Slowly you lose your moral compass, you stop asking yourself what do I actually think? What do I value? And you start asking, “What’s the safe position?”

Check your behaviour

How do we turn the unexpected into the expected?

  1. Visualise different situations regularly
    Reflect on how you might respond in certain moments. How would you react in that meeting? How would you respond to a colleague whose appearance, behaviour, or communication style feels unfamiliar to you? Notice your instinctive reaction and challenge it. Open yourself to alternative interpretations and possibilities.

  2. Examine your behaviour when faced with the unexpected
    When something or someone triggers a reaction in you, pause and reflect. Ask yourself: Would I respond the same way if this person looked like me, sounded like me, or shared my background? Self-awareness is essential in recognising how unconscious bias can influence behaviour.

  3. Intentionally expand your exposure
    Make a conscious effort to expose yourself, your children, your extended family, and your networks to people, cultures, experiences, and perspectives that may currently feel unfamiliar. What feels unexpected today can become normal through meaningful exposure, curiosity, and human connection.

Inclusion is reflected in behaviour

The work of inclusion begins when leaders move beyond assumption and start paying attention to the experiences that are often invisible to them. It is visible in who gets opportunities, who feels psychologically safe to contribute, whose perspectives are valued, and whether people can succeed without suppressing important parts of their identity. Organisations that focus only on diversity metrics without addressing inclusion risk creating environments where representation exists, but belonging does not.

Hall's cultural framework

High-context and low-context cultures are concepts developed by Edward T. Hall to explain differences in communication styles across societies. High-context cultures are often associated with many Asian and African societies, they rely heavily on relationships, shared understanding, and nonverbal cues. Communication is often indirect, with meaning shaped by context and social dynamics. Low-context cultures, common in the United States and much of Northern Europe, favour direct, explicit communication where clarity and individual accountability are prioritised. While no culture fits entirely into one category, understanding these differences can strengthen cross-cultural communication, leadership, and inclusion.

More from Womenomics

When you visit a doctor, they usually follow a three-part process:
1. Examination
2. Diagnosis
3. Prescription

Imagine going to a doctor with stomach pain and they immediately start writing a prescription without examining you or understanding the root cause of the problem. I think most people would question their credibility. Yet in leadership and organisational life, people often jump straight to solutions before taking the time to properly examine or diagnose the issue. Sustainable change rarely happens without first understanding what is really going on beneath the surface.

Another life metaphor

One of the challenges with inclusion is that people who experience it consistently may not notice it at all. In many ways, inclusion operates like privilege. Those who have always felt included rarely have to think about what inclusion means because it has become their normal experience. A useful way to understand this is through the lens of health. Most people do not spend much time talking about being healthy because health is experienced as the default state. We become aware of health when something goes wrong, and the same is true for inclusion. People rarely notice inclusion when it is present, but they immediately recognise exclusion when it appears.

BCCD at Womenomics

Inclusion is often misunderstood because, unlike diversity, it is not always visible. Diversity is about representation, what we can see and measure. Inclusion is about experience, how people feel, whether they are heard, respected, valued, and able to participate fully. I think diversity is often the outcome organisations seek, while inclusion is the behaviour and environment that make those outcomes possible.

Kübler-Ross model

The “five stages of grief” are often used as a framework for understanding how people process significant loss, transition, or major life change. These stages are commonly described as denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance. Denial can involve shock or emotional numbness. Anger may appear as frustration, resentment, or pain. Bargaining often shows up through “what if” thinking, while depression can involve sadness, withdrawal, or emotional heaviness. Acceptance is not about forgetting or eliminating the loss, but about finding a way to move forward.

At the same time, grief is rarely linear, so people do not move through these emotions in a fixed sequence or within a predictable timeframe. I think grief is far more fluid and deeply personal than a checklist of stages. Individuals may revisit emotions multiple times, experience several at once, or process them in entirely different ways depending on context and experience. Understanding this is important because it allows us to approach both ourselves and others with greater patience, empathy, and compassion.