Research An Empirical Analysis of Interpersonal Styles ... · PDF fileInternational Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480 iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267

International Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480

iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267 1

http://www.ijars.in

Research Article

An Empirical Analysis of Interpersonal Styles with Special

Reference to Employees in Public Sector Banks

Authors Dr. Arindam Chatterjee

Address for Correspondence:

Asst. Professor, GDGWI (Lancaster University Management School, UK), Gurgaon, India

Abstract:

The study is an attempt from the behavioral

perspective of individuals to understand the

predominant interpersonal style of 116

middle level officers in public sector

banking firms and also to analyze whether

the transactional styles are same or different

for male and female officers. The study

takes into account factors like Transactional

analysis, Ego states and the 12 different

Interpersonal Styles. It deals with assuming

the level of OK styles displayed in the

organization and to develop strategies to

improve the OK styles and reduce the Not-

OK styles so that the interpersonal behavior

is optimized which will lead to

organizational effectiveness. The study

revealed that the operating effectiveness

quotient of the officers could be generalized

to be average. Also there is need for training

in creative child and regulating parent Ego

states. The study also revealed that there is

significant difference between the

transactional styles of male and female

officers.

Keywords: Interpersonal Styles, Ego states,

Transactional Analysis, OK and Not OK

Styles

Introduction:

An organization’s effectiveness and

efficiency mainly depend on the Human

resource and its management. The job of a

manager demands a mixture of many types

of skills, whether he belongs to a business

organization or a non-business organization.

Since organizations are becoming more

complex, widely dispersed, large sized, and

widely decentralized, the central function to

ensure that the organization and its key

managers are on the right track and progress

at the right pace to meet the predetermined

objectives has become a very difficult

proposition. Effectiveness is best seen as

something a manager produces from a

situation by managing it appropriately. Once

the manager has decided that he wants to

become effective, he should initially focus

on how he can contribute more, or

contribute more effectively than what he is

now doing. In general, most successful



http://www.ijars.in

managers achieve the state of effectiveness

by having strong combination of technical,

interpersonal (human), and conceptual skills

(Mintzberg, 1973).

Theoretical Background of Styles:

Studying interpersonal styles is a complex

subject that is often given inadequate

attention by behavioral scientists (Pareek,

2002). Each individual in a group has unique

interpersonal style that has been shaped by

the lifetime of their experience with others.

A consistent Pattern of behavior, with quasi

- constancy and predictability can be called

“Style” (Pareek, 2003). The styles can be

generally or broadly classified into Personal

and Interpersonal styles. Personal Styles

include the leadership styles; motivational

styles etc. and interpersonal styles include

styles of interaction with superiors, peers

and subordinates. Whether as individuals or

in social or organizational roles, we interact

with others. There are three main areas of

interpersonal interactions.

1. We interact in relation to the tasks being

performed or to be performed

2. We interact in relation to the values and

norms, which are or should be followed

or are violated

3. We also interact with emotions: affection,

fear, anger, curiosity etc.

The habitual way of the person’s interaction

with others can be called his/her

interpersonal style. Interpersonal styles help

a person to relate in positive or negative

ways with superiors, subordinates and peers.

This may mean being able to make and keep

friendly relationships as well as being able

to end relationships constructively. A useful

conceptual framework to describe an

individual’s style is Transactional Analysis

(TA). Transactional Analysis concepts

assume the use of two basic concepts to

understand Interactional styles, the Ego

states and the Existential Positions.

Transactional Analysis:

The theory of transactional analysis

originated in the psychotherapeutic practice

and theoretical works of the Canadian

psychiatrist, Eric Bernstein (Berne, 1961,

1963, 1966a, 1966b, 1972) and his

collaborators and followers (for instance,

Steiner, 1974; Dusay, 1972; English, 1971,

1972; Goulding and Goulding, 1976, 1979;

Crossman, 1966; Klein, 1980; Clarkson,

1992; James et. al 1974; Stewart, 1996,

2000). Even if transactional analysis is

mostly about the cure of psychopathological

behavior, its theoretical framework is

suitable for analyzing well-functioning

behavior and communication. Some of its

results have contributed to further

development of the principles of

transactional or interactional styles.

As mentioned earlier the concept of

interpersonal or transactional styles is

structured by the combination of ego states-

model and existential positions of

transactional analysis theory. Ego-state

model of transactional analysis claimed that

through our conscious or preconscious life,

we operate from one of the three different

ego states: the Parent, the Adult and the

Child; and that we continuously switch

between them. The ego states may be

identified by the behavioral, social,

historical and phenomenological modes of

the ego states-diagnosis (Berne, 1961; 66-



http://www.ijars.in

69). An ego state may be described

phenomenologically as a coherent system of

feelings related to a given subject, and

operationally as a set of coherent behavior

patterns; or pragmatically, as a system of

feelings which motivates a related set of

behavior patterns (Berne, 1961; xvii). Figure

1 shows the ego state model proposed by

Eric Berne.

Figure 1: Ego states Model

Source:

http://www.businessballs.com/transactional

analysis.htm

According to Berne (1961), the Child is a set

of feelings, attitudes and behavior patterns

that exist as relics in the adult person. It is

preserved in the exact forms of behavior,

emotional reactions, ways of speaking,

mannerisms etc. that the person used to

express as a child. The healthy Child is said

to be the best part of a person, the source of

enjoying life, being spontaneous, creative,

and sexual. It also motivates the activities of

the Adult so as to receive most of the

pleasure from the successful learning and

adaptation. When healthy, the Adult ego

state is an autonomous set of feelings,

behavior patterns and attitudes adequate for

different aspects of the real, external

environment. Its function is to regulate

learning, adaptation, intelligence skills, and

organization of a person, to provide her with

responsibility, reliability, sincerity and

courage. The Parent is a set of feelings,

behavior patterns and attitudes formed by a

person’s re-playing the corresponding

features of his parents or other authorities.

The function of this ego state is to form

certain automatic, habitual behavior and a

set of rational prohibitive attitudes through

which we save time and psychophysical

energy. It also provides people with the

capacity to help and protect another

individual. (For elaborate ego states-model,

see Berne, 1961, 1966b; Steiner, 1974;

Klein, 1980; Stewart, 2000.)

Each ego state is important. However, the

functional or dysfunctional role of these ego

states depends on the general life position a

person takes. Harris (Pareek, 2002) has

conceptualized four primary existential or

life positions:

1. I’m OK - you’re OK.

2. I’m not OK - you’re OK.

3. I’m OK - you’re not OK.

4. I’m not OK - you’re not OK.

Defining Transactional Styles:

James (Pareek, 2002) has suggested that, in

general, the concepts of OK and not OK can

be used to understand how bosses behave.

Avary (Pareek, 2002) has similarly proposed

OK and not OK dimensions of the six ego

states; and Savorgnan (Pareek, 2002) has

discussed the OK and not OK dimensions of

the two parent ego states. Figure 2 shows the

four life positions in terms of interaction



http://www.ijars.in

styles. The four general interaction styles

can be elaborated by combining them with

the ego states. Two dimensions of the parent

ego state (critical or regulation and

nurturing), three of the child ego state

(adaptive, reactive and free or creative) and

the adult ego state are used. All three-ego

states and the sub-ego states are important

and perform distinct functions. The

transactional style of an individual depends

on the person’s combination of ego states

with life positions. Combining the six ego

states (two parent, one adult and three child)

with the two life positions (OK and not OK),

we obtain 12 styles. These are shown in

Table 1.

Table 1

Interpersonal Styles

Ego States Styles in two life Positions

OK NOT OK

Nurturing parent Supportive Rescuing

Controlling

Parent Normative Prescriptive

Adult

Problem

Solving

Task

Obsessive

Creative Child Innovative Bohemian

Rebellious Child Assertive Aggressive

Adaptive Child Resilient Sulking

Source: Pareek, 2002, Training Instruments

for HRD and OD

1. Supportive style: In this style, support is

provided when needed. James (Pareek,

2002) uses the term supportive coaches

for managers with this style. They

encourage their subordinates and provide

the necessary conditions for continuous

improvement.

2. Sulking style: People with this style keep

their negative feelings to themselves, find it

difficult to share them, and avoid meeting

people if they have not been able to fulfill

their part of the contract.

3. Normative style: These managers are

interested in developing proper norms of

behaviors for their subordinates and in

helping them to understand why some

norms are more important than others.

4. Aggressive style: People with this style

are fighters. They may fight for their

subordinates, clients of participants or for

their ideas and suggestions, hoping that this

will help them achieve desired

results. Their aggressiveness, however,

makes people avoid them and not take them

seriously.

5. Problem-solving style: In this style the

manager is concerned with solving

problems, but does not see them as being

merely confined to the task. For such

persons, problems have various dimensions.

The focus of the manager, consultant trainer

is on dealing with and finding solutions to

problems.

6. Bohemian style: The creative child is

active in this style. The person has lots of

ideas and is impatient with current

practices. The person is less concerned with

how the new ideas work than with the ideas

themselves. Such people are nonconformists

and enjoy experimenting with new

approaches.

7. Resilient style: In this style persons show



http://www.ijars.in

creative adaptability- learning from others,

accepting others’ ideas and changing their

approach when required.

8. Rescuing style: Such a style indicates a

dependency relationship in which the

manager, trainer or consultant

perceives his or her main role as rescuing

the subordinate, participant, trainee

or client, who is seen as being incapable of

taking care of him or herself.

9. Confronting style: In this style the

person is concerned with the exploration of

a problem. Such persons confront the

organization to get things done for their

subordinates or clients.

10. Prescriptive style: People with this style

are critical of the behavior of the others;

they develop rules and regulations and

impose them on others. Managers using this

style make quick judgments and insist

that all subordinates follow certain norms.

11. Innovative style: Innovators are

enthusiastic about new ideas and approaches

and enthuse others, too. Unlike the

bohemian, they pay enough attention to

nurturing their ideas so that they result in

concrete action and become internalized in

the system.

12. Task-obsessive style: People with this

style are more concerned with the task.

Matters not directly related to the task are

ignored; they are not concerned with

feelings and in fact fail to recognize

them since they do not perceive them as

related to the task.

Objective of the study:

To study the various transactional styles

exhibited by the officers and to find out

whether the transactional styles are identical

between male officers and female officers.

For the same purpose following hypotheses

were proposed that were subsequently put to

test.

Proposed Hypothesis:

H1- The difference in the mean values of the

respective styles for male and female

officers is significant.

H0- The difference in the mean values of the


officers is not significant.

The alternate hypothesis in general is taken

as the difference in the mean values of the


officers is significant. Thus, if the calculated

level of significance is less than the

acceptable level of significance, the null

hypothesis is rejected and if the calculated

value is more than the acceptable level, the

null hypothesis is accepted.

Methods

Participants: A sample of one hundred and

thirty two middle level officers working in

the public sector in the banking industry

participated in the study. The sample

includes both male and female participants.

Majority of the respondents fell between the

age group of thirty to forty five. Around 132

questionnaires were distributed to the

working professionals. A final usable

sample size of 116 was obtained indicating a

response rate of 87% approximately. The

sample comprised of 42% female and 58%

male respondents. Majority of them were



http://www.ijars.in

well qualified, graduates and postgraduates

having professional qualification in their

respective field.

Measures of Data Collection:

The instrument used for the data collection

in this study is “Transactional Styles

Inventory – Managers (TSI - M)”.

Transactional Styles Inventory (TSI) has

been created to help the respondents

examine their interaction and transactional

styles, and develop strategies to enhance

their interpersonal effectiveness (Pareek,

2002). A respondent can examine the

operating effectiveness scores for each of

his ego states; if he feels concerned about

the low scores; he can prepare a plan for

behavioral changes, based on the related

items by reducing Not-Ok behavior and

increasing OK behavior. The retest

reliability coefficient (with an interval of

four weeks) for TSI-M with several groups

have found to range between 0.51 and 0.74

for the different styles. The validity of the

instrument was tested by correlating TSI-M

scores with egogram scores. On the whole,

the correlation data provides evidence of the

validity of the instrument for training

purposes.

Analysis of the data:

The TSI-M was administered to all the 132

respondents and the scoring was done. The

mean value of the different styles as per

their responses referring to TSI-M key

(general) was found out. This is given in

Table 2. In the next step the obtained scores

were compared to Operating Effectiveness

norm score (OEQ) as mentioned in table no.

3

Table 2 Mean value of the different styles as per the responses and TSI-M Key

(General)

Style Total of values Mean value Approximated

as

OK, Nurturing Parent Supportive 1677 12.705 13

Not-OK, Nurturing Parent Rescuing 1570 11.894 12

OK, Normative parent Normative 1399 10.598 11

Not-OK, Normative parent Prescriptive 1417 10.735 11

OK, Adult Problem solving 1609 12.189 12

Not-OK, Adult Task obsessive 1375 10.417 10

OK, Creative Child Innovative 1583 11.992 12

Not-OK, Creative Child Bohemian 1403 10.629 11

OK, Reactive Child Assertive 1399 10.598 11

Not-OK, Reactive Child Aggressive 1235 9.356 9

OK, Adaptive Child Resilient 1552 11.758 12

Not-OK, Adaptive Child Sulking 1084 8.212 8



http://www.ijars.in

Table 3 Operating Effectiveness Quotient (OEQ)

Not OK Scores

OK Scores

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

3 0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

4 0 50 67 75 80 83 85 87 89 90 91 92 92

5 0 33 50 60 67 71 75 78 80 82 83 85 86

6 0 25 40 50 57 62 67 70 73 75 77 78 80

7 0 20 33 43 50 55 60 64 67 69 71 73 75

8 0 17 28 37 44 50 54 58 61 64 67 69 70

9 0 14 25 33 40 45 50 54 57 60 62 65 67

10 0 12 22 30 36 42 46 50 53 56 59 61 63

11 0 11 20 28 33 38 43 47 50 53 55 58 60

12 0 10 18 25 31 36 40 44 47 50 53 55 57

13 0 9 17 23 28 33 37 41 44 47 50 52 54

14 0 8 15 21 27 31 35 39 42 45 48 50 52

15 0 8 14 20 25 29 33 37 40 43 45 48 50

Table 4 OEQ Norms

Functions Mean SD Very Low Low Average High Very High

Nurturing 50 10 Below 36 36-45 46-55 56-65 Above 65 Regulating 50 10 Below 36 36-45 46-55 56-65 Above 65

Task 55 10 Below 41 41-50 51-60 61-70 Above 70 Creative 65 10 Below 51 51-60 61-70 71-80 Above 80 Reactive 60 10 Below 46 46-55 56-65 66-75 Above 75

Adaptive 65 10 Below 51 51-60 61-70 71-80

Above 80

Finding out operating effectiveness

quotient from the mean values:

1. Supporting and rescuing: (Nurturing

parent): The mean value for supporting is

taken as 13 and that for rescuing is taken as

12 from the Table No. 4. The operating

effectiveness quotient is found out from the

OEQ table (Table.No.3.) Corresponding to

the OK score 13 and Not-Ok score 12, the

OEQ is obtained as 53. This is considered as

an Average effectiveness in this Ego state.

This was found out referring to the OEQ

Norms, which is given in Table 4.

2. Normative and Prescriptive

(Regulating parent): The mean value of

normative style is 11 and the value for

prescriptive style is also 11. The

corresponding OEQ value is 50. This is

considered as an Average effectiveness in

this Ego state referring OEQ norms.



http://www.ijars.in

3. Problem solving and Task-obsessive

(Adult): The mean value of problem solving

style is 12 and the value for task-obsessive

style is 10. The corresponding OEQ value is

56. This is considered as high effectiveness

in this Ego state referring OEQ norms

4. Innovative and Bohemian (Creative

Child): The mean value of Innovative style

is 12 and the value for bohemian style is

also 11. The corresponding OEQ value is

53. This is considered as a low effectiveness

in this Ego state referring OEQ norms.

5. Assertive and Aggressive (Reactive

child): The mean value of Assertive style is

11 and the value for Aggressive style is also

9. The corresponding OEQ value is 57. This

is considered as an Average effectiveness in


6. Resilient and Sulking (Adaptive child):

The mean value of resilient style is 12 and

the value for sulking style is also 8. The

corresponding OEQ value is 64. This is

considered as an Average effectiveness in


Hypothesis Testing:

For testing the hypothesis, independent

sample test is used to check whether there is

a direct relation between each of the

corresponding transactional styles of male

officers and female officers and to analyze if

there are similarities in the interpersonal

styles of both the groups. Table No: 5 and 6

show the mean values and level of

significance of the OK and Not-OK Styles

of the two groups – male and female

officers. (Equal variance is not assumed

since there is large difference in the number

of respondents of male and female groups;

accepted level of significance is taken as 5%

or 0.05).

Table no. 5

Descriptive group statistics of male and female officers

Styles Gender N Mean Std.

Deviation

Std. Error

Mean

Supportive male

female

67

49

12.7881

12.0000

1.2530

1.0377

.1154

.2774

Rescuing male

female

67

49

12.0000

11.0000

1.8397

2.0755

.1694

.5547

Normative male

female

67

49

10.3729

12.5000

1.3256

1.5566

.1220

.4160

Prescriptive male

female

67

49

10.5847

12.0000

1.9185

.0000

.1766

.0000

Problem Solving male

female

67

49

12.2712

11.5000

1.8613

1.5566

.1713

.4160



http://www.ijars.in

Task Obsessive male

female

67

49

10.5254

9.5000

1.8979

2.5944

.1747

.6934

Innovative male

female

67

49

11.9915

12.0000

1.5050

2.0755

.1385

.5547

Bohemian male

female

67

49

10.5847

11.0000

2.0437

4.1510

.1881

1.1094

Assertive male

female

67

49

10.7881

9.0000

2.5008

1.0377

.2302

.2774

Aggressive male

female

67

49

9.5763

7.5000

2.6064

.5189

.2399

.1387

Resilient male

female

67

49

11.8475

11.0000

1.7861

.0000

.1644

.0000

Sulking male

female

67

49

8.1780

8.5000

2.7476

1.5566

.2529

.4160

Table no. 6

Independent sample mean test of male and female officers

Levene's Test

for Equality of

Variances

t-test for Equality of Means

F Sig. t df Sig. (2 -

tailed)

Mean

Difference

Std. Error

Difference

95% Confidence

Interval of Mean

Lower Upper

1 Supportive

Equal

variance

assumed

0.205 0.651 2.261 130 0.025 0.7881 0.3486 8.49 1.4778

Equal variance

not

assumed

2.624 17.827 0.017 0.7881 0.3004 0.1566 1.4197

2 Rescuing

Equal

variance

assumed

4.118 0.044 1.897 130 0.06 1.00 0.5271 4.28 2.0428

Equal

variance

not

assumed

1.724 15.522 0.105 1.00 0.58 -0.2326 2.2326

3 Normative

Equal

variance

assumed

4.268 0.041 -5.572 130 0.00 -2.1271 0.3817 -2.8823 -1.3719

Equal

variance

not

assumed

-4.906 15.321 0.00 -2.1271 0.4336 -3.0495 -1.2047



http://www.ijars.in

4 Prescriptive

Equal

variance

assumed

21.75 0.00 -2.751 130 0.007 -1.4153 0.5145 -2.4331 -0.3974

Equal

variance

not

assumed

-8.013 117.00 0.00 -1.4153 0.1766 -1.765 -1.0655

5 Problem

Solving

Equal

variance

assumed

0.038 0.846 1.488 130 0.139 0.7712 0.5128 -0.2539 1.7963

Equal

variance

not

assumed

1.714 17.728 0.104 0.7712 0.4499 -0.1751 1.7175

6 Task

Obsessive

Equal

variance

assumed

11.263 0.001 1.833 130 0.069 1.0254 0.5539 8.11 2.1319

Equal

variance

not

assumed

1.434 14.697 0.172 1.0254 0.715 -0.5014 2.5523

7 Innovative

Equal variance

assumed

10.772 0.001 -0.019 130 0.985 0.47 0.4442 -0.8872 0.8703

Equal

variance

not

assumed

-0.015 14.666 0.988 0.47 0.5717 -1.2295 1.2126

8 Bohemian

Equal

variance

assumed

59.461 0.00 -0.627 130 0.531 -0.4153 0.6618 -1.7246 0.8941

Equal

variance

not assumed

-0.369 13.757 0.718 -0.4153 1.1252 -2.8327 2.0021

9 Assertive

Equal variance

assumed

3.864 0.051 2.641 130 0.009 1.7881 0.677 0.4488 3.1275

Equal

variance

not

assumed

4.961 35.227 0.00 1.7881 0.3604 1.0566 2.5197

10 Aggressive

Equal

variance

assumed

11.505 0.001 2.964 130 0.004 2.0763 0.7005 0.6905 3.4621

Equal

variance

not assumed

7.492 103.89 0.00 2.0763 0.2771 1.5267 2.6258

11 Resilient Equal

variance

assumed

25.362 0.00 1.769 130 0.079 0.8457 0.479 -0.1001 1.7951



http://www.ijars.in

Equal

variance

not

assumed

5.154 117.00 0.00 0.8475 0.1644 0.5218 1.1731

12 Sulking

Equal variance

assumed

1.445 0.231 -4.29 130 0.668 -0.322 0.7498 -1.8055 1.1614

Equal

variance

not

assumed

-0.661 24.022 0.515 -0.322 0.4869 -1.3269 0.6828

Supportive style: The accepted level of

significance is taken as 5% and from the

Table.6 it is obtained as 0.017, which is less

than 0.05. This shows that the difference in

the mean values of male (12.79) and female

(12.00) officers is not a chance occurrence

but a sure one.

Rescuing style: The test shows that the

difference in the mean values of male

(12.00) and female (11.00) officers is not so

significant since the two tailed test shows a

significance of 0.105 which is higher than

0.05. The difference is a chance occurrence.

Normative style: From the tables it can be

summarized that there is a valid difference

between the normative styles of male

(10.37) and female (12.50) officers because

of the significance is acceptable and below

0.05. Hence it can be concluded that the

female officers are more normative than the

male officers.

Prescriptive style: The two tailed test

shows that the significance can be accepted

since it is less than 0.05. This describes that

there is definite difference between the male

(10.58) and female (12.00) officers. The test

substantiate that female officers are more

prescriptive than the male counterparts.

Problem solving style: The test describes

that the similarity in the mean values of

male officers (12.27) and female officers

(11.50) is not so significant and is just a

chance occurrence as the significance

(0.104) is more than 0.05.

Task obsessive style: There is a difference

between the mean value of the task

obsessive style of the male (10.53) and

female (9.50) officers. But the test states that

the difference is just a chance occurrence

since the level of significance is more than

0.05.

Innovative style: The mean values of the

innovative styles of male (11.99) and female

(12.00) officers are similar. But the test of

significance tells that this is a chance

occurrence and hence cannot be concluded

thus.

Bohemian style: There is similarity in the

values of bohemian style of the two groups,

but the significance level is not acceptable

and hence this is just a possibility

occurrence and not a sure one.

Assertive style: The mean values of the

assertive style of male (10.79) and female



http://www.ijars.in

(9.00) officers are different and the level of

significance substantiates that the

occurrence is not by chance but definite.

Hence it can be concluded that male officers

are more assertive than their female counter

parts.

Aggressive style: The mean value tells that

male officers are more aggressive than the

female officers since there is a difference in

their scores (male– 9.58 and female -7.50).

The test of significance validates that the

difference is not a chance event but a

specific one. Hence it can be concluded that

male officers are more aggressive than their

female counterparts.

Resilient style: The two-tail test implies that

the difference of mean values of the resilient

styles is a definite one and not a chance

incident. Hence it can be summarized that

male officers are more resilient than female

officers.

Sulking style: The significance test

describes that the difference in the mean

values of sulking style of male officers and

female officers is just a chance event and

hence it cannot be concluded to be true

always

.

Conclusion:

The study reveals that there is a significant

difference between transactional styles of

males and females officers. How managers

can be more effective is a core issue to the

field of HRD. This study was intended to

address a gap existing in the literature today

in providing a more informed link between

the theory and practice of the differences in

transactional styles of males and females

officers. This is one study however, and

others would need to be completed to see if

this premise holds true in other

organizations.

References

1. Berne, Eric (1961), Transactional

Analysis in Psychotherapy, New York,

Grove Press

2. Berne, Eric (1963), The Structure and

Dynamics of Organizations and Groups,

Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott

3. Berne, Eric (1966a), Games People

Play, London, Andre Deutsch (first

published 1964, by New York, Grove

Press)

4. Berne, Eric (1966b), Principles of Group

Treatment, New York, Oxford

University Press

5. Berne, Eric (1972), What Do You Say

After You Say Hello?, New York, Grove

Press

6. Clarkson, Petruska (1992),

Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy:

an Integrated Approach, London,

Routledge

7. Crossman, Patricia (1966), “Permission

and Protection”, Transactional Analysis

Bulletin, 5 (19), 152-154



http://www.ijars.in

8. Dusay, Jack (1972), “Egograms and the

´Constancy Hypothesis´”, Transactional

Analysis Journal, 2, no.3

9. English, Fanita (1971), “The

Substitution Factor: Rackets and Real

Feelings”, Transactional Analysis

Journal, 1, no. 4, 225-230

10. English, Fanita (1972), “Rackets and

Real Feelings, Part II”, Transactional

Analysis Journal, 2, no.1, 23-25

11. Goulding, Robert and Goulding, Mary

(1976), “Injunctions, Decisions and

Redecisions”, Transactional Analysis

Journal, 6, no. 1, 41-48

12. Goulding, Robert and Goulding, Mary

(1979), Changing Lives Through

Redecision Therapy, New York,

Brunner/Mazel

13. James, Muriel and Contributors (1974),

Techniques in Transactional Analysis for

Psychotherapists and Counselors,

California, London, Amsterdam,

Ontario, Sydney, Addison-Wesley

Publishing Company

14. Klein, Mavis (1980), Lives People Live:

A Textbook of Transactional Analysis,

Chichester, New York, Brisbane,

Toronto, John Willey & Sons

15. Mintzberg, H. 1973. The nature of

managerial work. New York: Harper &

Row

16. Pareek Udai & Rao Venkateswara

(1991) “First hand book of

Psychological and social instrument”

17. Pareek Udai, (2004) “Training

Instruments in HRD and OD”, Second

Edition, Tata

18. McGraw-Hill Publishing Company

Limited, New Delhi, 2002

19. Pareek, James, Avery (1999) Training

Instruments in HRD and OD, Second

Edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing

Company Limited, New Delhi, 2002

20. Steiner, Claude (1974), Scripts People

Live: Transactional Analysis of Life

Scripts, New York, Grove Press

21. Stewart, Ian (1996), Developing

Transactional Analysis Counselling,

London, Sage Publications

22. Stewart, Ian (2000), Transactional

Analysis Counselling in Action (first

published 1989), London, Sage

Publications

Website:

1. http://www.businessballs.com/transactio

nalanalysis.htm

Research An Empirical Analysis of Interpersonal Styles ... · PDF fileInternational Journal of Applied Research & Studies ISSN 2278 – 9480 iJARS/ Vol. I/ Issue III/Dec, 2012/267

Documents