Not long ago, we talked about Eric Berne and his game theory (this was in one of last year’s articles on soft skills). In his book, Berne mainly discusses family and social games. However, his theory can be perfectly applied to office relationships as well. In this article, I will analyze a few typical office games.
Disclaimer
I’ve called these games “office games,” but physical presence in the company’s headquarters is not necessary at all. They can just as easily unfold in messengers or on Zoom. However, in my experience, it’s harder to shift away from an adult-to-adult communication style in remote work because a significant portion of nonverbal communication is missing. To push someone into a destructive role, the initiator of the game has to put in much more effort. Perhaps that’s why people who feel uncomfortable in the office “zoo” often prefer remote work.
As Berne himself notes, games can also be constructive. If that’s the case — if all participants are fully aware of what’s happening, agree to it, and the games bring only benefits — there’s no need to identify or stop them. For example, if you are comfortable working in a pair where one takes on the role of a caring parent and the other a compliant child, and both of you are satisfied with the results, there’s no need to disrupt that dynamic.
This article, however, focuses more on destructive games — manipulations and conflicts that are initiated by some but without the consent of others. Interestingly, destructive games are the best described in literature, likely because they are the ones that most often catch the attention of specialists.
Game Participants
In his book, Eric Berne identifies three ego states, and occupying one of them is completely normal depending on the situation. When interacting with your own children, you can naturally take on the role of a parent, and when dealing with the older generation, you might take on the role of a child. However, workplace communication should function on an adult-to-adult basis.
For the purposes of this discussion, we’ll consider the adult ego state as the default or “baseline” for equal communication. Indicators of this state include:
- “I think this way — what do you think?”
- “I can suggest this option to you.”
- “We can do it this way.”
- “Explain why you made that decision.”
Other ego states can take different forms:
- Parent — A dominant or nurturing position: Caring parent (indicators: “You can come to me with any questions,” “This can happen to anyone,” “I’ll help you.”), Controlling parent (indicators: “This is wrong,” “That’s not allowed,” “It should be done this way,” “How long will this go on?”).
- Child — A more emotional and creative ego state: Rebellious child (indicators: “I don’t want to,” “I won’t do it,” “Ask someone else.”), Adaptive child (indicators: “I’ll try,” “I’ll give it a shot,” “I probably won’t succeed,” “What do I do now?”), Free child (indicators: “Great!” “Awesome!” “Terrible!” “I want this!” “I’ll definitely do it!”).
From the perspective of workplace relationships, both parent and child ego states — regardless of variation — are destructive.
When someone enters a conversation and (even unconsciously) assumes a particular role, they send signals that influence the other person’s response. If someone approaches communication from a child position, their conversation partner will naturally take on the parent role.
The Game “Gotcha!”
According to Berne, this is one of the most common psychological games. The essence of the game is to provoke a conflict and then blame the other party, gaining certain benefits for oneself — such as a sense of satisfaction or superiority.
A classic office example is a manager who assigns tasks and loves micromanaging execution details. Their goal is to catch mistakes and call out employees on them. Typically, the task is given in a deliberately vague way — leaving room for multiple interpretations. Common phrases from such a manager include:
- “That’s not what I meant.”
- “You should have done it this way.”
The employee, subjected to this criticism, is pushed into the child role. Meanwhile, the manager takes on the parent role, reinforcing their sense of superiority by implying that the team is not as competent as they should be. At the same time, they shift responsibility for the conflict onto the employees — controlling the situation while gaining emotional satisfaction from the game. The employees, on the other hand, are left feeling frustrated and resentful, realizing they are not trusted.
This game is often accompanied by competition between employees. While less common in IT, it is frequently seen in sales departments, where team members may be pitted against one another.
To avoid getting caught in this game, the best approach is to establish a clear and open dialogue — setting realistic goals with well-defined descriptions. One useful method for this is the SMART framework, which helps outline clear objectives and define expected outcomes.
The Game “Look What You Made Me Do”
It’s always easier to blame external factors for mistakes rather than admitting one’s own missteps. The essence of this game is to make someone else feel guilty or responsible for one’s own failures. For example, an employee might miss a deadline — not because they lacked the skills to plan their work properly, but because others distracted them, assigned too many tasks, or otherwise got in the way.
Beyond emotional satisfaction, the initiator of this game may also feel a sense of control over the situation. However, these dynamics ultimately damage relationships between colleagues.
A company culture that encourages accountability and open communication is key to avoiding this game. Recognizing cause-and-effect relationships and taking responsibility for one’s own mistakes are crucial skills in a healthy work environment.
The Game “Wooden Leg”
This game revolves around manipulating others for attention and sympathy. In a work setting, it often involves finding an “objective” excuse for not completing a task. Similar to “Look What You Made Me Do,” the person avoids admitting they failed to plan properly. Instead, they blame unavoidable external factors — and often exaggerate them to gain sympathy.
When someone provides such an “objective” excuse for their mistakes, communication tends to hit a dead end. However, communication is also the way out of this trap. One effective approach is to break down a large task into smaller steps, addressing these “unavoidable” obstacles one by one. This helps to remove the excuses and focus on practical solutions.
The Game “I’ll Show Them How It’s Done”
In the workplace, there are always colleagues who believe they know best how things should be done. They constantly correct others, insisting that their way is superior. The initiator of this game isn’t necessarily a manager — this dynamic can just as easily emerge between team members of equal standing.
The initiator’s goal is to gain recognition and admiration. In pursuit of this, they may exaggerate their own skills or even take credit for others’ work — anything to achieve their desired status. The result? Damaged team relationships and a loss of trust.
It’s important not to confuse this game with genuine knowledge sharing. Helping a colleague find a more efficient way to complete a task is one thing. But adopting an attitude of “Only I know the right way” is entirely different. True knowledge sharing lifts others up, while the initiator of this game may put others down in order to elevate themselves.
This dynamic is rare in IT, where collaboration is typically valued. However, in highly competitive industries that reward aggressive individualism (think: sales, finance, or other “shark tank” environments), this kind of behavior is much more common.
How to Prevent This Game?
Once again, the key is effective communication. A culture of openness, collaboration, and mutual support reduces the likelihood of such games taking root. When people feel valued and recognized for their contributions, there’s less need for status-driven power plays.
The Game “Look How Good I Am”
The goal of this game is to gain attention and approval by proving to everyone how helpful and selfless the initiator is. In a work environment, this typically looks like someone taking on too many tasks and trying to help everyone who asks. While this might fulfill their internal ambitions, it quickly leads to exhaustion and burnout.
Yes, this person is often well-liked, but they’re unlikely to last long in the company. And even if they don’t leave, their fatigue will eventually lead to mistakes — which can then trigger a whole new set of unpleasant dynamics.
How to Avoid This Game?
Unfortunately, the only real solution is for the initiator to recognize the problem themselves. External intervention rarely works because the behavior seems so positive at first glance. The best thing colleagues can do is set boundaries and avoid relying too much on their “helpful” coworker, even when their assistance seems convenient.
Encouraging a healthy workload balance and open conversations about burnout can also help prevent this pattern from forming in the first place.
How to Avoid Getting Caught in These Games?
When evaluating a potential employer, we typically focus on salary, tasks, and tech stack. Unfortunately, no one will tell you during an interview whether office “games” are common in the company. However, workplace atmosphere is just as important as the work itself.
The reality is that games exist in many forms and can be found in all kinds of teams:
- Some workplaces are built entirely around games, where escaping them is nearly impossible. These teams have no real intention of fostering healthy, adult-to-adult communication.
- Other teams may seem functional, but a new hire with a “baggage” of games can pull others into them, disrupting the existing culture.
Ask Yourself: Do You Even Want to Work in That Environment?
If you find yourself in a game-heavy workplace, take a step back and ask yourself whether you want to be part of it.
The answer might surprise you — because not all games are necessarily bad. As mentioned earlier, some games can be constructive. For example, the “Look How Good I Am” game can actually help someone pass an interview by demonstrating enthusiasm and proactiveness.
But what if your answer is no?
The Key to Escaping Workplace Games: Open and Direct Communication
For nearly all games, the best exit strategy is open communication. To build that, it’s important to:
✅ Develop emotional intelligence — observe, analyze, and understand the behaviors of others (and yourself).
✅ Recognize manipulation — avoid being drawn into toxic dynamics or forced into destructive roles.
✅ Assess company culture — does your employer promote healthy communication? Look for:
- One-on-one meetings
- Team feedback sessions
- Open discussions about successes and failures
If a company values open communication, they will actively support it at a structural level.
Practical Ways to Improve Awareness
Training sessions and workshops can help. They won’t turn you into a psychologist, but practical examples (like film clips and case studies) can teach strategies for handling tricky social situations — at work and beyond.
💡 Bottom line: Whether you choose to engage with office games or avoid them altogether, awareness and communication are your best tools.
Author: Marina, Maxilect
