Mind Games at the Office
Jane arrives at work Monday morning, after a weekend with the other senior leaders at an executive offsite. First thing this morning, a meeting invite from Ed, her boss, showed up in her inbox. There was no agenda, no explanation, just a time and conference room for Monday morning. It’s just the two of them on the guest list. Jane is a few minutes early, and sits alone, nervously wondering what all this is about.
Her only action item from the retreat was to send out an email to the rest of the department announcing a few key decisions that had been made over the weekend. She’d volunteered to do it. She hadn’t explicitly checked it with Ed before she sent it out this morning, but it should be alright. After all, everyone agreed last night that she should do it. What could this last minute meeting with Ed be about?
Five minutes late to the meeting, Ed finally storms into the conference room with a scowl on his face. “What did you do?!”
“What do you mean, Ed,” Jane asks? Now she’s really nervous.
“Jane, you sent the email to the whole department without running it by me first,” Ed practically shouts. Jane is sitting in one of the chairs about midway down the conference table. Ed’s angrily pacing back and forth at the end of the room, not really looking at her. He’s mostly looking at his phone, compulsively scrolling and tapping while he paces.
Jane feels stunned. This seems totally out of the blue. She sends emails to the department all the time. Why is this one such a big deal? She takes a deep breath, and thinks carefully about what to say next.
“You’ve told us that you want us all to take more initiative, Ed, to make more decisions on our own. I thought it would be better to send the email first thing this morning, instead of waiting to ask you to review it. I guess that was the wrong move?”
Unappeased, Ed barks back, “This always happens with you, Jane! Now I have to go and spend my whole day repairing the damage you’ve caused. Thanks a lot!”
Ed storms out of the conference room in a huff, leaving Jane bewildered, frustrated, and understandably a little angry.
What the heck was that all about anyway, Jane wonders? What did he mean, this always happens? This has never happened before. Ed’s behavior feels totally uncalled for. It’s like a setup, like he was just looking to pick a fight with her.
She begins to wonder if her job might be in jeopardy.
Diagnose Your Team’s Health
Want to see how your company stacks up? Try our free diagnostic.
…
At first glance, this story just seems like an unfortunate collision by our protagonist, Jane, into a particularly prickly personality at work, one who happens to be her boss. Upon closer examination, it will become apparent that this type of conflict between colleagues follows a fundamental aspect of human interaction in organizations, one that can be analyzed and understood in order to allow us to avoid such situations in the future.
Before we break down what actually happened here, and give Jane a bit of advice for next time, we need to understand some background information about human interaction patterns, emotional development, and the dynamics of organizations.
The story of Jane and Ed probably sounds familiar. In nearly every organization, interactions like this are occurring all the time. Conflicts, misunderstandings, jumps to the wrong conclusion, hurt feelings, and the like cause an enormous drag on the productivity of organizations, and thus on the economy as a whole. While seemingly trivial in isolation, the aggregate effect of thousands of these stories occurring everyday throughout our workplaces amounts to an epidemic of unproductive and dysfunctional behavior. Wouldn’t it be great if we could find a way to avoid situations like this in the first place? Imagine the impact that would have!
Eric Berne’s widely acclaimed book, “Games People Play”, summarizes his many years of clinical observations as psychiatrist into the dynamics of groups and organizations. Berne’s work is based on a framework he called Transactional Analysis which seeks to explain why humans engage in pathological, destructive, or harmful interactions with one another, often without even being aware that they’re doing so.
Berne’s work provides us with the tools necessary to diffuse many of these dysfunctional interactions at work, and replace them with the more collaborative and mutually respectful relationships that we need in order for our organizations to be successful and thrive.
Recognition Hunger
After basic physiological needs such as food, clothing, and shelter are met, human behavior is driven ultimately by the need to be recognized by others, to feel some kind of connection with our family, friends, and peers, to know (or be reminded) that we are not alone in the world.
From the moment of birth, infants require physical stimulus in the form of affectionate touch in order to thrive. Reams of research exist showing the critical importance of hugs, strokes, and general physical affection by the parents and other caregivers to the development of the infant brain in the earliest days of childhood. Berne called this need “stimulus hunger”.
As we grow to adulthood, the need for physical connection persists and we find it in our private and intimate relationships, but it is now accompanied in social situations by a social proxy for physical stimulus, a “recognition hunger.” In Berne’s psychoanalytic language, to recognize a fellow human, say through a simple greeting of someone passing on the street, is to exchange a “stroke.” A stroke can be any form of recognition, such as a nod, a greeting, a compliment, or a verbal or literal pat on the back. Adult humans, and children too, require acts of recognition from other humans in order to thrive just as urgently as we needed physical stimulus when we were infants. The power of “recognition hunger” for all of us when in social groups cannot be understated.
Imagine walking down the street and seeing a neighbor who you sometimes encounter but don’t know very well. Usually, you greet each other with a simple smile, nod, or brief exchange of hellos. Now, imagine that on this day, you say hello and your neighbor ignores it and keeps walking. Feels weird, right? You have offered a stroke of recognition to this other human being, and not received one in return. In fact, you might even feel a bit cheated.
Most of the time, human social interactions are driven by the need to give and get strokes from one another, but also to maintain a balance, or accounting of strokes that keeps our social positions in check. If ,suddenly, an imbalance occurs, powerful emotions can emerge, and strong reactions can rearrange previously stable social positions.
Further, Berne documented that strokes come in both positive and negative varieties. An attack or criticism still imbues the receiver with some sort of social recognition, however unpleasant, by the person transmitting the negative stroke. We’ve all seen the petulant child acting out just to get attention, even if that attention is only a reprimand from the parents. This is simply a bid for negative strokes. It turns out that many people, children and adults alike, will favor getting any strokes at all over being ignored, even if the only kind they can get at the moment are negative strokes.
Ego States
Berne’s work was inspired by Freud’s, but extended it and added some new features that are much more interesting for our purposes. Key among these is Berne’s study of the three-part structure of the Ego, which he called Ego States.
Berne identified three distinct “ego states,” or clusters of feelings and related behaviors that are distinct from one another, operating in the same human mind. The three are called the Child, Parent, and Adult.
The Child ego state contains feelings and behaviors that you developed as a child, typically things like your sense of joy and creativity. Contemporaries of Berne were also using the concept of an inner child, so you’ve probably encountered that concept before.
The Parent ego state contains feelings and behaviors you inherited from your parents and society, mostly through observation and inference. The Parent ego state might house your sense of morality or duty, and is usually related to what we believe is right or wrong.
Finally, your Adult ego state functions more like a computer; rather than feelings, it contains guidelines and behaviors necessary for you to live your regular, rational life doing things like paying bills and working.
Everyone has all three ego states in their psyche. Any of these may be in control of your thinking patterns at any given time. Most of us remain entirely unaware of them as we go about our lives and work, and can switch seamlessly between Child, Adult, and Parent depending on what is going on around us and how we feel about it. Whichever ego state is currently active will determine how you feel, act, and talk in a given situation.
Things get interesting when we consider that our ego states do not always agree with one another. For instance, we may have a desire originating in our Child ego state, such as a desire to quit our job and become a famous painter or sail around the world. But our Parent ego state prevents us from taking such action. In our Parent ego state we feel that such a move would be foolhardy and irresponsible. Here’s the problem, though. The desire expressed by the Child ego state is an expression of the desire for happiness and joy through creativity and autonomy. The Parent ego state may be trying to keep us safe and stable, but in doing so it can also prevent us from pursuing an avenue of work that might make us more fulfilled.
Berne developed the concept of ego states through his work with thousands of patients, both in private and group settings, and observed that most of the pain they felt that led them to seek therapeutic help was caused by conflict among the ego states. To be more specific, it was often an overdeveloped Parent ego state in control most of the time, which he called the critical Parent, tending to overwhelm and block the needs of the Child ego state, and that created the internal conflict and pain experienced by his clients.
The goal of therapy for Berne was to help his patients identify this overly critical Parent ego state that prevented them from developing into mature, autonomous adults. In many cases, what patients needed was simply permission from the therapist to let go of deeply held beliefs in the Parent that were preventing them from pursuing truly fulfilling lives.
Transactions
In our drive to receive recognition from our fellow humans, we go about our day communicating with other people. This communication may be work related or casual, and consists of some kind of initiation by one party followed by a response from the other party. Such communication can proceed more or less indefinitely provided both parties are receiving some degree of value from the exchange. These exchanges Berne called Transactions, and they are the fundamental unit of social intercourse.
Some transactions serve a utilitarian purpose, such as ordering a coffee, or scheduling an appointment. But many transactions simply provide a way for people to structure time. Berne noted that outside of work or other structured activity with a specific purpose, people will engage in all manner of transactions first as a way to structure idle time, and second as a way to give and receive strokes of recognition to one another.
Transactional Analysis proceeds from the point of view that our exchanges with other people originate from one of our ego states to one of the answering party’s ego states. Straightforward transactions, such as ordering that coffee or scheduling that appointment, serve to complete a necessary task. But even these mundane operations also fulfill the basic human need for recognition. Exchanging pleasantries with the grocer at the store or the clerk at the DMV allows both individuals to recognize one another as human, to exchange strokes, as it were. And we can go about our day satisfied in at least feeling part of a social organism called society.
In cases like these where the two parties are communicating with one another from their Adult ego states, nothing very interesting occurs. However, Berne identified another type of transaction that has a dual nature. There is a social layer, which appears to be a simple Adult-Adult transaction. But there is also a deeper psychological level, an “ulterior” level occurring beneath the surface, which serves a very different purpose altogether. These ulterior transactions emerge when a Parent or Child ego state takes control in what seems like an Adult-Adult transaction.
Suppose a manager asks an employee for the status of a project they have been working on. Instead of simply providing the status, the employee reacts defensively, saying something like “can’t you see I am working on it?! I’ll tell you when it’s done!” The employee’s reaction seems to be overly defensive. The manager may have been asking the question from their Adult ego state, but the employee responded as if they were a child replying to a critical parent’s demands. In fact, for that instant, the employee is operating from their Child ego state.
The manager in this example is probably startled that the employee responded so defensively, and wondering what they did to evoke such a response. The ulterior level of the transaction occurs because the respondent is not operating from their Adult ego state, but instead something has triggered their Child ego state to take control and respond defensively as if they were being attacked.
A set of transactions with another person that regularly results in a ulterior transactional response with a strong emotional tone is in all likelihood what Berne called a game.
Mind Games
Berne's concept of games is not about having fun, but rather about a situation in which people can receive negative strokes to fulfill their recognition hunger. People play these games compulsively to feel justified in expressing negative feelings that they do not feel able to express in any other context. As we said earlier, humans need strokes at a fundamental level, and even negative attention will suffice over no attention at all. A game is a way of structuring idle time that allows for the fulfillment of recognition hunger through provoking negative strokes.
You can think of them more like patterns of compulsive behavior motivated by the drive that people have to re-experience familiar negative feelings from childhood (on a subconscious level of course). In our popular language we sometimes use the term “mind game.” That term originates, at least partially, from Berne’s work on transactions, as well the work of Stephen Karpman, a student of Berne’s, on the drama triangle (as we discussed previously in “Speaking your Truth”). So if it helps, think of these as mind games.
Games are played on a subconscious level. The parties involved do not know they are in a game, even the party initiating it. The antidote for games, in fact, is to become aware that a game is happening and refuse to play. In a word, mindfulness.
For example, one party triggers another party into having an argument so that they can, as a payoff, feel justified in feelings of anger that they are not allowed to express in any other context. People who had, say, a loud angry parent that was always shouting at them, might in adulthood compulsively play games that are designed to hook unsuspecting players into arguing with them so that they can act out the behaviors and emotions that subconsciously remind them of their childhood.
Games have a specific structure consisting of three steps. First, there is a “hook”, a statement or question that initiates an apparently simple transaction with another person. The other person responds in a socially acceptable way to the initiation. Second, there is a “switch up”, whereby the initiator changes the meaning of the transaction into something emotionally fraught. And finally, a “pay off” where the initiator feels empowered to respond in an emotionally charged way that provides a justification for their latent negative feelings.
In our opening example, Ed is the initiator of a game that Berne called, “Now I’ve Got You.” It is designed to give the initiator an opportunity to be angry. The hook is when Ed says to Jane, “what did you do?” Jane of course responds in a reasonable manner, but is unwittingly pulled into Ed’s game. Ed has every intention of taking some anger out on Jane no matter what she says, but Jane is in a captive position and thus tries to genuinely understand his problem.
The switch up is when Ed says, “this always happens.” At this point, it is clear that Ed is headed for an angry outburst, and any attempt by Jane to appease him will only provoke him further. In other words, Jane thinks Ed is operating from his rational Adult ego state. But he’s not.
Finally, the emotional payoff for Ed is when he blows up at Jane and storms out of the room. This was the expression of anger that Ed needed the whole time. The entire setup of the meeting was just a scenario that enabled Ed to create an excuse to express some anger.
It is critical to remember that Ed is doing all of this subconsciously. He’s not aware that he’s playing a game with Jane. In his mind, the whole scenario is completely justified. There is a way for Jane to respond to Ed that avoids getting trapped in the game with Ed. We’ll talk about that at the end of our discussion.
The point here is that as spooky as it sounds, mind games are being played in offices all the time.
Because mind games allow the initiator to experience a particular emotion that they would have otherwise not felt comfortable expressing openly, players tend to gravitate towards the same types of games, often with the same people. A player who is driven by the need to express anger will frequently act out certain types of games that have a payoff to that effect.
Other types of players may seek out games that allow them to feel inferior, anxious, or depressed. A classic example of this kind of game is “Yes, But...” You’ve certainly seen it before. The initiator asks for some advice to solve a problem they have. You offer them your thoughts on how to solve it. Instead of considering your solution idea, they say “yes, but…” followed by all the reasons why it wouldn’t work for their situation.
Maybe you follow up with a second suggestion, but the pattern repeats. Each time you offer an idea, they continue to reject your idea as impossible or inappropriate. It can feel irritating to be put in that situation. Eventually, if you’re smart, you’ll give up and walk away.
What makes this situation a game? It’s the three-part structure. The “hook” is the request for advice. The “switch up” is the rejection of perfectly valid advice every time it is offered. The “payoff” is the continued justification for the feeling of total helplessness.
As long as you continue to offer suggestions to someone who has no intention of accepting them, who simply wants to complain so that they can feel lost and hopeless, you are trapped in their game, and playing along. You are contributing to their payoff, and wasting your time to boot.
How Organizations Can Discourage Mind Games
As we’ve seen, games are a way for the players to satisfy their hunger for recognition, positive or negative. Put any group of humans together, in a club, at a party, in an organization, and they will find other players for their favorite game.
When organizations lack a clear and coherent purpose and strategy, people in the organization are more likely to trigger games with each other, play politics, and participate in other dysfunctional behaviors as a way of structuring time, fighting for social position, and exchanging negative strokes that feed recognition hunger.
A strong and clearly articulated purpose can diffuse the compulsion to play games. There is a really clear goal that gives teams and individuals something concrete at which to direct their energy. People are getting their need for stroke or recognition hunger fulfilled by the act of striving for and achieving goals that are in line with organizational purpose, and working together on a team for a common mission. Purpose provides the human need for fulfillment in a real and authentic way that games can only fulfill in a pale and dysfunctional way.
You cannot prevent other people in your organization from playing games, or attempting to hook you into their game. Your only move is to refuse to play. When a game player’s hook fails to catch another player, the game is effectively broken. Some game players will simply go away in search of another player to hook. Others may become sullen or upset when the game doesn’t turn out as they’d hoped. Your best option when you detect someone is playing a game is to stay calm, or mindful, and remain focused on the organization’s purpose or the particular goal of your work. Avoid responding to a game player in a way that would lead to their payoff.
Each game has its own payoff, and its own antidote or negation that will dissolve the game. Berne cataloged dozens of different games, and it is worth reading the book to get a sense for them. The game “Now I’ve Got You”, for example, succeeds in a payoff when there is a lack of clarity about expectations. This lack of clarity is used as a pretext for an angry response when the victim is unable to meet the expectations which were never clarified in the first place. By not clarifying expectations Ed was able to set a trap for Jane to fall into so he can blame her for missing them and express his anger.
There is nothing that Jane can do about this directly. It is really between Ed and his therapist. Ed is Jane’s boss, and for the moment, she is a captive audience for Ed’s game of “Now I’ve Got You.” Knowing that a game of “Now I’ve Got You” can only happen when there are unclear expectations, Jane’s best strategy is to always ensure that expectations with Ed are set down clearly and in writing in advance. If she finds herself in the game, after the opportunity to set expectations has already passed, her next best option is to stay calm, and ask open ended questions that direct the conversation back to the goal or the organization’s purpose. Being as non-reactive as possible to Ed’s provocations is paramount. Jane can’t control Ed’s feelings, but she can control her own (actually, in our story above, Jane handled it about as well as she could have).
The other important lesson here is that while we may get caught in someone else’s game, we could be initiating our favorite game with other people and not know it. It is critical to become familiar with our own emotional patterns so that we avoid hooking others, just as we avoid getting hooked.
For Berne, releasing oneself from the overwhelming power of the critical Parent ego state requires achieving autonomy. In one of the final chapters of “Games People Play”, Berne says the attainment of autonomy is the result of building three capacities: awareness, spontaneity, and intimacy. There is powerful advice from Berne here for all of us.
Awareness is the capacity “to hear a bird’s song in one’s own way, and not the way one was taught.” It is something we experience as young children, but gradually lose as we are conditioned to sense and interpret the world around us by our parents and other authority figures. Becoming a full adult is the process of recapturing our own autonomous experience of our lives.
Spontaneity is “the freedom to choose and express one’s feelings from the assortment available…It means liberation, liberation from the compulsion to play games and have only the feelings one was taught to have.”
Intimacy, possibly the most important, is “the spontaneous, game-free candidness of an aware person…” the “uncorrupted Child in all its naiveté living in the here and now.”
With these words Berne leaves us a powerful message that striving to know ourselves, our Child, Adult, and Parent ego states, and learning to calmly accept our thoughts, feelings, and bodily sensations as they are, not as anyone else would have us interpret them, is the key to breaking the pattern of mind games that is so prevalent in today’s organizations.
…
Deconstructing games is one of the components of our Three Pillars of Mindful Leadership program. If you want to learn more techniques like this, please reach out to us and we’ll set up a conversation.
