Article summary: Most people want to do their best at work, yet unconscious psychological ‘games’ still undermine performance. This article explores three common dynamics: parent-child relationships, in-group versus out-group thinking, and social loafing. These patterns intensify during change and hybrid working, creating power imbalances and reducing accountability. You can tackle them through emotional intelligence, clear boundaries, empowered decision-making, healthy conflict routines, and values-led leadership.

Many years ago, in my first professional job, I recall commenting to my mother that some people in the team were playing various games that served their own ambitions over the needs of the team. “Get any group of people together in a room and there’ll be politics,” was her response. It was an eye-opener for me at the time. I’d assumed, naively, that once you’re out of the playground and into paid work, everyone’s primary focus would be on doing what they’re paid to do.

I am now 30 years older and wiser, with a career spanning leadership, consulting and coaching in start-ups, SMEs and corporates. Whether downsizing or fast-growing, certain group dynamics show up time and again within organisations of all sizes – either in particular teams or the wider organisational culture.  

I firmly believe that 99% of people come to work wanting to do their best job they can – not to play games. But as Eric Berne wrote about in his groundbreaking book Games People Play (1964), human beings have psychological needs that they are unaware of.

This is especially the case in social group settings. We develop ways of structuring our interactions with other people without being aware that we’re doing it (unless we’ve had some great coaching or therapy).

What games do people play?

The word ‘games’ suggests that people are being deliberately manipulative. But in my experience, that is rarely the case. Instead, they are feeling vulnerable in some way – likely due to high levels of organisational change and especially during restructures. They are unconsciously behaving in ways that keep them safe, doing their best to be seen as capable and successful. 

Nonetheless, when these dynamics are at play, they get in the way of an organisation achieving its goals. The patterns we see most frequently are: 

1. Parent-child dynamics

This is the dynamic that Berne explores most deeply in his transactional analysis theory. He found three different states of mind that people adopt: parent, adult and child.

All are normal and we switch between different states of mind in different scenarios and with different people. However, we may have formed habits through our upbringing and early work experiences that cause us to default to ‘parent’ or ‘child’ mindsets when it is unhelpful. 

In a work context, when one person adopts a ‘parent’ state and another a ‘child’ state it creates an imbalance in power, value and agency that can lead to poor decision-making and performance.

The ‘parent’ (usually someone in a more senior role) assumes they know best, dictates or criticises, or is even too nurturing. The ‘child’ disengages or rebels, feeling undervalued or disempowered. They may even stop thinking for themself and depend on the ‘parent’ for all decision-making. 

2. In-group and out-group dynamics

This terminology was popularised by Henri Tajfel and his colleagues back in the 1970s, during their work on social identity theory. An ‘in-group’ is a social group to which a person psychologically identifies as being a member; for example, the customer services team. An ‘out-group’ is a social group with whom an individual does not identify; for example, the finance team.

Creating a more collaborative culture and overcoming siloed working is one of the most common challenges we are asked to support – and in-group/out-group thinking is at the heart of the problem.

It is natural for people to identify most strongly with the team they work in. But problems escalate when resources become scarce, pressure to deliver increases and teams slide into a survival mindset. In this context, other departments become a threat rather than a collaborative partner. Views about ‘them’ entrench. 

This dynamic is especially prevalent in the context of mergers and acquisitions, when the perceived threat of the unknown new entity is heightened. 

3. Social loafing

This phenomenon took shape in Max Ringelmann’s experiments with rope pulling. He found that teams exert less effort when pulling a rope as part of a team, compared with pulling on the rope alone.

Social loafing is a dynamic in which people don’t take accountability for their own contributions, causing the team’s performance to decline.

With the increase in hybrid or remote working, managers need to motivate every team member to pull their weight rather than rely on the most productive 20% of the team to shoulder 80% of the workload.

Ringelmann’s research found that social loafing is most likely to occur when people’s roles in the team are unclear and when individuals feel their contribution is not noticed or valued. 

How can you stop the game playing?

In times of increased uncertainty and ambiguity, it is human nature to unconsciously behave in a way that puts self-preservation above the ‘right thing to do’. However, each of these dynamics impacts the quality of decision-making, limits innovation, reduces engagement and gets in the way of effective delivery. 

These ‘games’ or dynamics may seem like a dark force that is impossible to master. But you can overcome them in your workplace:

Develop emotional intelligence

It is far easier to see unhelpful behaviours playing out in other people than it is to see our own role in these dynamics.

Work with individuals and teams to raise their self-awareness, unpack what drives certain behaviours and deliberately commit to new ways of working together. Diagnostic tools such as EQi 2.0 can be hugely insightful alongside individual, team or group coaching. 

Create clear accountability

Time and again, we find that the basics of role responsibility and accountability are not put in place. When change is constant and teams have to work more agilely, role boundaries may become murky, especially in matrix structures.

In these circumstances, agree on what outcome needs to be achieved and a decision-making authority – is it Person A, Person B, or committee X, Y or Z?

Empower decision-making

Give people with the most relevant knowledge and experience the power to make decisions. This creates ownership and strengthens an ‘adult-adult’ dynamic, rather than a hierarchical relationship. It also builds a culture of accountability where everyone feels responsible for the success of the organisation. 

Develop healthy conflict routines

There is a lot of focus on creating a sense of belonging in teams to strengthen engagement and wellbeing at work. While this is an important factor in a culture fit for the future, it can become problematic if people feel that challenging their ‘tribe’ puts their social standing at risk.

Team culture needs to include routines that promote healthy conflict. To achieve the best possible outcome most effectively, team members need to test and challenge each other’s ideas and decisions. Steve Jobs’ rock-tumbling metaphor has become a regular way of working in Apple when a team needs to improve an initial idea – “let’s rock-tumble this”.  

Role model values-led behaviour

People may never have worked in an empowered, accountable culture before, so deliberately modelling how to do this is key when evolving a culture. This is especially the case when bringing in newly acquired organisations.

Senior leaders must show it is OK to feel vulnerable, learn from mistakes, work through friction in relationships and not know all the answers. When role models big-up their own department at the expense of others, overlook important insight from others or avoid taking accountability for their mistakes, it perpetuates the game playing. 

Further resources

• Culture Fit for the Future report – Pecan offers comprehensive insights into building resilient organisational cultures that can adapt to future challenges and changing workplace dynamics.
• The science behind what makes or breaks a team – Explores how teams don’t fail because they lack talent but because of invisible choices made every day, from the split-second decision to speak up or stay silent, to whether someone steps forward or holds back.
• Five psychological safety challenges for hybrid workplaces – Addresses how building psychological safety is a complex venture for any organisation, but the very nature of hybrid work makes it even more difficult to foster through small behavioural changes.
• Lessons from the depths: What OceanGate teaches us about toxic leadership – Examines how toxic leadership played a crucial role in a preventable tragedy, revealing that these destructive patterns exist in workplaces everywhere and their profound psychological and commercial costs.