Problematic Workplace Behaviours in the Software Development Profession: Using Transactional Analysis to Diagnose Toxicity and Improve Relationships at Work

Abstract

The growing and unmet demand for coding skills is becoming critical in a world that is ever-more driven by digital technologies, embedded algorithms and artificial intelligence systems. However, sustainability of the profession is threatened because of the failure to attract and retain women developers, which has been an ongoing and corrosive problem for decades and remains unresolved. While many previous studies attribute ‘toxic’ workplace cultures in the software development industry, as a major contributing factor, few examine their root causes and almost none offer practical solutions. To address this lack of both knowledge and effective response, we propose a novel approach building on psychoanalytical Transactional Analysis (TA) theory that is little used in the field of management and organisation studies. TA theory provides a framework using common and simplified language to better understand why communications in the workplace fail, and how occupying incompatible ego states might lead to ‘negative’, ‘problematic’ and, in the worst cases, ‘toxic’ behaviours and workplaces. We propose a TA-based model (OCTAPos) that helps explain how crossed communications at work can result in a lack of acceptance of women in the workplace and attrition among female software developers and the resultant dearth of diverse coders. We further propose a theoretically informed HRM Structured TA Response (STAR) to help increase self-awareness, emotional intelligence, empathy and mutual understanding, with the ultimate aim of positively impacting prevailing attitudes, behaviours and organisational culture to achieve more inclusive and sustainable recruitment and retention in the longer term.

Keywords

transactional analysis toxic culture software development organisational communication diversity & inclusion

Introduction

The demand for coding skills in G20 countries is becoming critical in a world increasingly driven by digital technologies affecting all facets of everyday life. Technology accounts for 25% of STEM¹ roles and, by 2030, 85% of jobs that do not currently exist, will derive from new technologies (Aoki, 2022). Yet less than one fifth (14%–17%) of the technology workforce is female (Little, 2020). There are deep-rooted and serious implications for society of this absence, exclusion and attrition. Software development (SD)² has been dominated by ‘innovative’ men for decades (e.g., Gates, Wozniacki, Jobs). This dominance continues in the digital age (Zuckerberg, Musk, Bezos), thereby consolidating the male stranglehold on the field. Sanders and Ashcraft (2019, p. 325), expose the reality of limited organisational diversity thus: ‘By and large, women are not participating in technology innovation roles, but rather in the roles that support others who are engaging in leading-edge technology design and development … it is rare to find a woman … leading any significant technical development effort’.

The ‘meaningful participation’ of women in technological design and development is vital to secure workplace diversity and, more importantly, to influence the type of technology that is developed (Adam et al., 2004; Ashcraft & Breitzman, 2012; Klawe et al., 2009; Sanders & Ashcraft, 2019; Wajcman, 1991).

Educators, industry and government have sought to address this issue through numerous initiatives.³ Interventions include: changes in curricula; scholarships and grants for women; targeted advertising campaigns; and diversity and inclusion policies (WISE, 2020). Wynn (2019) argues that strategies to improve organisational cultures for women, for example, unconscious bias training and mentorship programmes, are at best ineffective and at worst exacerbate bias. Remedying the ‘gender deficit’ problem through socialisation (of women) processes, equal opportunities (for women) policies and exhorting women to ‘Lean In’ (Sandberg, 2013) (to masculine culture) are inherently problematic (Wajcman, 2010) and do not ‘overcome structural hurdles’ (O’Mara, 2022). Dame Wendy Hall, a lifelong advocate for more diversity in computer science and Artificial Intelligence (AI) (Lovegrove & Hall, 1987, 1991) admitted to being ‘fed up talking about this all the time’ and said the lack of progress must be fixed as an imperative (Bennet, 2021).

In short, we currently face the situation Hall and Lovegrove (1987) first predicted decades ago: a computer science/AI field starved of women’s skills and perspectives; fewer formally trained women and role models; generations of managers and decision-makers made up solely of men; women being unlikely to achieve high-ranking status; and a fundamental lack of influence on the male-dominated direction of research and critical decision-making in organizations, government and on advisory committees.

The persistent hegemonic masculine culture in the technology sector (Wajcman, 1991) which, at its worst, is described as a ‘toxic bro culture’ (Little, 2020), that condones misogyny (Tassabehji et al., 2021) and that women find intolerable in the longer term – is resulting in a woman-shaped leaky pipeline. Of the already too few women in SD, half are likely to quit before they are 35 compared to 20% in other professions and more than half are likely to leave the sector by mid-career (Accenture, 2020; Singh, 2023). Importantly, if we exclude gender from the statistics, there is not a high turnover of SD personnel generally and the technology industry has a comparatively low employee burnout rate, exceeded significantly in the hospitality and healthcare professions (Statista, 2019).

As such, the main purpose in this paper is to present an approach to workplace relations and relationships that could be useful and beneficial within management studies. Our primary location and case is the field of software development described, and the specific workplace relations that might account for the absence and attrition amongst women from this traditionally and persistently male-dominated field. Analysing interpersonal exchanges and repeating behaviours that cause tensions and breakdowns in relations can help colleagues to avoid or react positively and effectively when, as a result of such behaviours, the workplace becomes uncomfortable, unpleasant and, in the more extreme cases, intolerable.

We start by briefly discussing contexts in which Transactional Analysis (TA) can be deployed as an approach for investigating interpersonal relations and communication between members of groups, teams and in some cases whole organisations, to reveal, address and hopefully repair relationships at work. Transaction Analysis is a tried and tested psychoanalytical theory and method of therapy, that is primarily conducted in clinical settings for example, in the context of improving marital relationships, therapies for psychological disorders (such as PTSD/anxiety) and ‘problematic’ child behaviours (Vos & van Rijn, 2022). What is lacking is an application of TA in the field of management and organisational studies. This paper proposes an approach that takes TA out of a clinical setting and off the therapy couch, focusing on its application by individuals, teams and managers to better understand individual and group communications and behaviours at work. Our combined OCTAPos diagnostic and STAR response process focuses on building skills to observe and diagnose harmful behaviours, and understand the consequences of these behaviours on the organisation’s culture, effective management, performance and ultimate sustainability. The purpose of TA in the organisation and management studies context is to reinforce or (if corrective action is required) transform workplace relationships and communications to achieve more empathetic, supportive and sustainable human relations at work.

Sustainable HRM Through Diversity & Inclusion

In recent decades, the HRM profession has changed focus from the wants and needs of employers to those of employees and society by: reintroducing “the ‘human element’ into the rhetoric of HRM” (De Prins et al., 2020) and reducing/removing the psychological, physical, social and work-related harms to employees in the workplace (De Prins et al., 2020; Kramar, 2014), which Griep et al. (2023) rightly say had been neglected for too long.

A lack of diversity is discriminatory, unfair and ‘hinders the advancement of individuals, teams, organizations, and society as a whole’ (Phipps & Prieto, 2021; Syed, 2019). Studies have shown how increased diversity improves organisational performance (Herring, 2009, 2017) and how gender diversity improves innovation, decision-making and problem-solving (Page, 2007; Ritter-Hayashi et al., 2019). In the context of our software development case, by creating more diverse and inclusive workplaces, an estimated 3 million women could be working in technology by 2030 (Accenture, 2020). Organisations in male-dominated professions regularly fail to retain women because of systemic societal (macro) disadvantages (Eagly & Carli, 2007). At the organisational (meso) level, diversity, equality and inclusivity (DEI) policies are often ineffectual because they invariably focus on ‘measurable’ goals and position discrimination as a matter of individual prejudice (commonly addressed through bias awareness training) rather than addressing the entrenched structural issues and practices, which reinforces those structural inequalities and power relations (Sharp et al., 2011). Research highlighting toxic organisational culture tends to focus on patterns of individual resistance, evidencing an array of adaptation and coping strategies (usually by women) to fit in with their environment (Hardey, 2019; Li, 2021). Interventions and policy recommendations for family-friendly workplaces and changes in organisational culture to promote the presence of women in higher positions (Servon & Visser, 2011), imply the need for additional support and differential treatment for women simply because they are women (Eagly & Carli, 2007; O’Mara, 2022; Singh, 2023).

The exhortation for women to ‘lean in’ famously promoted by Meta’s Sheryl Sandberg (2013), one of the highest profile women in the tech world, embraces the idea that ‘remedial work’ needs (and is expected) to be done by women when they occupy the male dominated workspaces (Ford & Harding, 2010). As such, women have to ‘define and redefine, construct and reconstruct their gender identities’ sometimes downplaying their gender identity and blending in as ‘one of the boys’ or as an honorary man (Ford & Harding, 2010). The ‘lean in’ approach focuses on individuals rather than embedded structural inequalities, implying that if women do not succeed in a male-dominated world they either have not tried hard enough (to be assertive, confident, ‘male’) or lack sufficient ambition (the ‘ambition gap’). As Ford and Harding (2010) argue, if women and men continue to be told, in various subtle ways, that they are respectively inadequate/superior, then the imbalance of power between men and women in organizations will continue, albeit differently, despite institutional DEI policies and training.

From this review of the relevant previous work in this area, it is clear that much more research is needed to understand how to create sustainable, inclusive and comfortable workplaces for a diverse spectrum of people. To do this, we present Transaction Analysis as a means to investigate interactions and in doing so, reveal the origins and nature of communication problems and breakdowns. Such detailed analysis can help to diagnose (why) underlying causes of friction and its negative effects and thence offer positive and reparative action (how). We develop a framework comprising a diagnostic tool (OCTAPos) used to demonstrate relation and relationship problems as they occur in the workplace and an intervention (STAR) process that can be used to improve and maintain good relations at work between colleagues to create a mutually respectful, inclusive and sustainable workplace. We will be focusing primarily at the individual (micro-) and organisational (meso-) levels and leaving the macro level for others. Though necessary and urgent, such structural and systemic changes lie beyond the scope of this paper.

Toxic Cultures & Workplaces

Toxic work environments are a widespread social problem involving millions of workers worldwide, and have been long held to negatively impact the effectiveness of the organisation, the mental and physical health of individuals (Casic et al., 2023; Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010) and, in a healthcare setting, have even led to misadministration of medication and patient mortality (Holloway & Kusy, 2010). Toxic culture (borne of behaviour) is particularly prevalent in the tech sector and especially critical for creating sustainable HRM in a profession that is growing exponentially and with it the need for a diverse mix of talented and productive employees. Indeed, ‘Innovative’ tech companies such as Tesla, Space X, Nvidia and Netflix are experiencing higher attrition rates than their more ‘staid’ competitors, such as Ford, Warner Brothers and Boeing because of workplace behaviours and culture (Sull et al., 2022).

Interpersonal relationships are central to organisations and when negative and problematic behaviours occur repeatedly and unchecked, they become embedded, and can be termed ‘toxic’ (Kahn & Rouse, 2021). Toxic conditions in organisations often result from destructive leaders demeaning, marginalising, blaming, ostracising and generally disenfranchising others, even more so where the leaders head the organisations that then reflect their toxic styles of leadership (Kahn & Rouse, 2021). The majority of employees who end up leaving their organisations because of toxic work environments would have remained in their roles had the organisations taken steps to make the company culture fairer and more inclusive for all people on grounds of age, race, and gender and more positive and respectful to all (Casic et al., 2023; Scot et al., 2017; Sull et al., 2022). As such, corporate culture is considered to be a “more reliable predictor” of rates of employee attrition than remuneration and benefits, and that toxic culture is ten times more likely to contribute to attrition than salary (Sull et al., 2022).

Understanding Toxicity

The term ‘Toxic’ has tended to be used in the literature as a catch-all term incorporating a range of behaviours that are negative, problematic and harmful. With the exception of this paper, very few studies have defined what constitutes ‘toxic’ behaviours and even fewer have provided nuanced explanations of the types and categories of workplace that end up being labelled ‘toxic’ and the consequences and remedies for this. In Table 1 below we have summarised key examples of toxic behaviours from the literature and organised them in a taxonomy, subdivided according to how they are manifested and the potential severity of their consequences. Later in this paper, this taxonomy will inform our model (OCTAPos) for diagnosing negative, problematic and toxic behaviours and relations at work (see Transactional Analysis in Practice: Developing the OCTAPos Model).

Table 1.

Categorising Toxic Workplace Behaviours.

Negative	Problematic	Toxic	Authors
• Pointing out others’ mistakes • Has difficulty accepting feedback • Is unaware of own ‘toxic’ behaviours • Monitors other team members’ behaviours covertly	• Makes repeated sarcastic remarks • Makes repeated snide comments • Distrusts others’ opinions • Interferes in team work	• Humiliates others in public and private • Deploys passive aggressive behaviours • Uses authority to punish others	Holloway and Kusy (2010)
• Intolerance	• Narcissism	• Bullying and; • Other forms of destructive behaviour e.g. ostracism	Kahn & Rouse (2021)
• Making personal comments about others’ appearance or emotions • Mis-recognising somebody junior • Confusing an individual with someone else of the same race or ethnicity	• Inappropriate behaviour • Rudeness • Disrespect • Promoting a cutthroat/competitive environment • Gaslighting • Unfair hiring and promotion	• Bullying • Misogyny, sexism and sexual harassment • Racism and being racist • Homo/trans phobia • Unethical • Expect employees to work longer hours, • Expect employees to work at a faster pace and without extra pay • Expect employees to have little or no work-life balance	Sull & Zweig, 2022; Sull & Sull, 2023)
	• ‘Gendered’ recruitment (i.e. homogenous from the same places in the same image and gene pools);• Competition (e.g. playing computer games and nerf1 tournaments; invading and killing other teams; fastest coders and time-one-upmanship)	• Structural (e.g. technologists (usually men) at the top of the hierarchy and customer-facing roles (usually women) at the bottom)• Language (e.g. misogynistic, demeaning and profane)• Visual symbolism (cartoons, drawings and dolls decapitated, defaced, and/or in suggestive sexual positions)	Tapia (2006)

^aSoft-foam toy weapon.

Toxic culture is a ‘cancer that disproportionately affects women’ but one that Sull and Sull (2023) say that organisations can treat relatively quickly and effectively if they choose to do so. However, this requires systematic and sustained commitment from top executives, managers and corporate boards to commit to the necessary change. It is therefore necessary to create a comprehensive set of strategies and processes that unequivocally start to incorporate sustainable leadership and management at all organisational levels.

Addressing Toxic Behaviours in the Workplace

Initiatives to address cultural degradation at organisational, team and individual levels are numerous and complex and taking a whole-systems approach is necessary but admittedly not easy. Repairing a culture means repairing the relationships between people and building respectful workplaces, by rooting out disrespectful behaviour, which is a corrosive component of toxicity (Casic et al., 2023). There is an urgent need for a healthy work culture that is inclusive, considerate and hostility-free where each employee feels valued, safe and appreciated (McKee, 2008). It is at this individual level and in these ways that we believe a Transactional Analysis ‘diagnosis and response’ approach (see below) can help and be a force for good.

In most large organizations, distinctive microcultures coexist within the same company, often across business units, functions, geographies, or acquired companies. Individual leaders can also (inadvertently or deliberately), create subcultures within their extended team (Sull & Sull, 2022). Whatever their origin, microcultures can diverge from the broader corporate culture, which means that even the best cultures can contain pockets of cultural toxicity (Sull et al., 2022). Nevertheless, leaders can achieve rapid gains by measuring microcultures throughout their organizations and take targeted action to improve these subcultures (Sull & Sull, 2022). Such situations and relations are of course the context in which organisational communication takes place. The next section will briefly situate our study and proposals in that academic domain.

Organisational Communication: Impact on Workplace Culture and Behaviour

Organisational communication explores the impact of the organisational context on communication processes and how individuals interpret and give meaning to messages and how messages might be changed or distorted when exchanged through formal and informal networks (Louhiala-Salminen, 2009). Thus, the role of internal communication is fundamental in shaping organisational culture (Men & Yue, 2019). Understanding organisational communication is critical for addressing toxic (behaviour in) workplaces where individuals suffer ‘destructive communication’, emotional abuse, bullying and social ostracism that ‘erodes organisational health and damages employee well-being’ (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012). Negative communication, for example verbal aggressiveness in the workplace can impact the team, the quality of relationships at work, the emotional culture and workplace behaviours generally. Emotional culture, that is how employees feel about their organisation, is central for a wide range of individual and team outcomes (O’Neill et al., 2023). An increasing number of studies have recently linked emotional culture to ‘internal communication practice’ and, specifically, to how a positive emotional culture in the workplace nurtures ‘favourable employee attitudes, and communication behaviour’ and organisational effectiveness (Men & Yue, 2019). This would suggest that a TA approach of the sort we propose would prove effective and beneficial.

Organisational Communication and Workplace Culture

In the context of workplaces where toxic behaviours are evident, many researchers tend to focus on the symptoms that is individual behaviour, characteristics or traits rather than the root cause of the ‘disease’ itself that is organisational culture, climate and demands (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). Organisational culture has a critical effect on employee behaviour and may ultimately promote or discourage toxic behaviours and destructive leadership styles within an organisation. Using a framework to diagnose organisational culture can improve administrators’ and HRM practitioners’ decision-making skills when managing conflicts (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). A communication approach to understanding the complexity of toxic workplaces, highlights the macro- meso- and micro-elements of communication where macro-level discourses (cultural, societal values and beliefs) are buttressed by meso-level organisational policies and practices and fashioned or resisted through micro-level interactions or talk.

At the micro-level, where negative and problematic behaviours occur and where we envisage TA being introduced most effectively, it is manifested through forms of communications such as public shaming and constant criticism, abusive and offensive language, spreading rumours and angry outbursts of shouting. But these forms of communication in and of themselves are not necessarily harmful. Rather, it is the atmosphere in which this type of communication takes places and the degree of repetitiveness that creates problems. The problem then, resides in the prevalence, frequency, ‘intensity, persistence and power distance between targets and perpetrators’ (Lutgen-Sandvik & Tracy, 2012).

Inevitably, destructive communication erodes organisational health and negatively impacts employee well-being. Lutgen-Sandvik and Tracy (2012) argue that through a process of communication and ‘intersubjective sense-making’, talking with friends, families and co-workers; targets of hostile workplace behaviours and bullying become increasingly aware that they are being mistreated. This process fixes a label to their treatment (bullying) that is then reinforced through further conversations, reading and research on the phenomenon they are facing. Once so convinced, they face the challenge of how to make sense of, and respond to, the problem. It is before this stage that interventions need to be made to address and de-escalate the (bullying) problem. Toxic workplaces are replete with destructive conflicts. Strategies for dealing with toxic behaviour need to focus on individual and unit level techniques for increasing understanding of how to manage interpersonal conflicts in the workplace (Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020). However, the existing proposals for employees to identify different conflict styles (for instance Thomas & Killman (1977) and Blake & Mouton (1964) cited in Smith & Fredricks-Lowman, 2020) are difficult to implement and rarely effective. For any inter-personal conflict to be resolved successfully, the problems need to be discussed and solutions found through collaboration involving both parties coming to a mutually agreeable resolution that incorporates both their perspectives over time (Vivar, 2006). But unfortunately, Vivar does not explain how this can be done.

Organisational Communication and Workplace Behaviour

Ostracism in the workplace is another manifestation of toxic behaviour/practice, but Henle et al. (2022) offer a valuable perspective on how this behaviour might arise in groups Workplace ostracism occurs when, for various reasons, the ostraciser feels the need for ‘ego-protection and enhanced self-worth’; they may feel the need to shield themselves from harm, mistreatment and relationships that threaten their self-esteem. Or, they may fear being unfavourably compared to their co-workers in terms of competence, performance and/or ethical behaviour (Henle et al., 2022). They identify a ‘psychological pain’ and threat to well-being when a group’s identity is at risk from violation of its ethos and norm by a ‘deviant’ member. Ultimately this leads to the problem member being ostracised in order to strengthen in-group solidarity, co-operation and performance. Ostracising occurs as a combination of differing individual interests, relationships with ostracisees, and the organizational context (Henle et al., 2022). These authors conclude that ostracism can be curtailed by creating an environment that promotes respectful interpersonal interactions but, like Visar above, they don’t provide practical recommendations of how this might be achieved. This lack of actual proposals for a method to create positive change is a recurrent gap and theme in previous research and our hope is that the response/action process we describe, in conjunction with the diagnostic OCTAPOS model we have developed, makes an important contribution in offering a realistic model for an effective response via remedial interventions.

A Proposed Response: A Psychoanalytical Approach

We propose a psychoanalytical Transactional Analysis (TA) approach based on Berne (1964) and Harris (1973) as a way to uncover the psychology that informs the relationship structures in the workplace and the related emotions between co-workers (Molesworth et al., 2018). While there is a relatively large body of literature related to TA from both practitioners and scholars published mainly in the specialist Transactional Analysis Journal, the majority of these publications cite studies from clinical/therapy, social work and educational settings (e.g., Hall, 2019; Vos & van Rijn, 2021).

The application of TA in organisational settings is still very much in its infancy, but there is growing interest in how it can be used to help us understand relationships at work, workplace culture and relations within groups at work (van Poelje & de Graaf, 2022). For instance, most recently, TA was used to examine the underlying relational dynamics of CSR work and explain the contradictions of CSR actors reinforcing their own practice while failing to solve fundamental societal problems (Grigore et al., 2021).

We contribute to diversity and inclusion research by making a case to deploy TA to help everyone in the organisation, be they HR staff arranging recruitment and development or group leaders and managers and colleagues experiencing deteriorating working relationships. The purpose is to uncover and respond to the ways in which unexamined (primarily, though not exclusively, linguistic) behaviour that we may not recognise as hostile or problematic is in fact the root cause of many inter-relational problems in the workplaces of software developers. The next section summarises the key components of psychoanalytical Transactional Analysis theory as it will be applied in this paper. We then present exemplars from a typical workplace setting where misunderstandings, crossed communications, mis-perceptions and gameplaying result in the breakdown of working relationships. TA-related terms will be introduced and used along the way to inform and demonstrate the proposed model.

Transactional Analysis: A Tool for Theorising Workplace Relationships

Relations and relationships at work resemble relationships outside work in many respects and at least insofar as all individuals have characters, personalities and identities. Berne’s Transactional Analysis (TA) provides a ‘comprehensive framework for understanding behaviour and interaction’ that covers (i) the theory of personality, (ii) the theory of communication, and (iii) games analysis (gameplaying⁴) (Harris, 1973). TA can be effective in improving workplace communication between employees to reduce conflict and promote co-operation (Hall, 2019). Also, it is argued, individuals who understand TA are better placed and more able to understand, empathise and work productively with colleagues to bring about a positive work environment, reduce workplace conflict and develop ‘an ethical organizational culture’ (Davidson & Mountain, 2011; Hall, 2019).

TA Theory of Personality and Ego States

Transactional Analysis connects and explains people’s behaviour and interactions with others by positing three key ego states: parent (P), adult (A), and child (C). The “parent” ego state (the taught concept) is based on behaviours and attitudes learned largely from past authority figures such as parents or teachers. The “child” ego state (the felt concept) is based on emotions and experiences from childhood, while the “adult” ego state (the learned concept) represents rational thinking and decision-making based in the ‘here and now’ but based on lifelong learning (Berne, 1961, 1964). These three ego states (Parent-Adult-Child) are the basic blocks but within each state there are nuances and subdivisions with shades and ‘substates’ (e.g., critical/nurturing parent; adapted/free/rebellious child etc.) (see Table 1). The adult is the position and state to be aimed at/maintained and the parent and child are, in a sense, deviations from the adult ‘steady state’ and as such have destabilising effects.

TA Theory of Communication

Eric Berne (1961) starts by explaining how all conversations and interpersonal communication begins with an opening remark followed by a reaction. He refers to these respectively as the ‘stimulus’ and the ‘response’ and together they comprise identifiable and analysable “transactions”. Each stimulus or response arises from one of the three ego states and transactions are of three primary sorts: complementary; crossed and; ulterior. The ego states and the various transactions are illustrated in Figures 1 and 2 below.

Figure 1.

Complementary transactions (adapted from Harris, 1973).

Figure 2.

Crossed transactions (adapted from Harris, 1973).

In Figure 1, we see how complementary transactions involve stimuluses and responses that either match or align. These transactions include, for example, “parent-to-child” or “adult-to-adult” interactions. In such exchanges: ‘the transaction is complementary and can go on indefinitely’ (Harris, 1973, p. 67). This is because each person in the transaction accepts and ‘plays’ their part or role comfortably and unproblematically.

Crossed or non-complementary transactions on the other hand are problematic and occur when stimulus and response ‘cross’. In Figure 2 below, the responses are incompatible with the stimuluses. For example, if, by the way their opening remark is phrased, person A adopts ‘child’ and in doing so, ‘invites’ person B to take ‘parent’ but B instead also takes ‘child’ and offers person A ‘parent’, there is a crossed transaction and a communication breakdown. The breakdown has occurred because both parties sought to occupy the child ego state and to place the other in the parent ego state and both parties rejected the offered ‘parent’ position. In Figure 2 below, blue lines indicate stimuluses and black lines indicate responses.

Ulterior transactions (see Figure 3 below) are more problematic still because, as the phrase implies, they conceal an unstated and hidden message or agenda. The outcome of ulterior transactions is determined at the psychological (covert) rather than the social (overt) level.

Figure 3.

Ulterior transactions (adapted from Harris, 1973).

Such cases are more difficult to identify and can be masked in behaviours and hidden feelings (positive or negative) that can lead to problematic communications and (to individuals in long term relationships) familiar and, albeit unsaid and unconsciously, well known (to the participants) psychological ‘gameplaying’. The idea is that there is a cloaked malevolent motive in the individual’s communication that will ultimately have deleterious or negative consequences over time (for instance, rates of attrition, or insufferable behaviours leading to an intolerable workplace).

In addition to verbal cues manifested through the use of words and tone of voice, transactions are also enacted physically through body gestures and facial expressions (Harris, 1973, p. 62; Pitman, 1982). Verbal and physical cues are summarised in Table 2 and form the analytical framework for our model.

Table 2.

Verbal and Physical Cues of Ego States (Adapted From Harris (1973) and Hollins Martin, 2011).

Ego State		Verbal Cues	Physical Cues
Parent	Parent	Terms such as ‘always’, ‘never’ ‘how many times …’ ‘if I were you ….’Judgements about the other e.g. stupid, naughty, shocking, lazy, absurd, should and ought	Furrowed brow, pursed lips, folded arms, clearing throat, exaggerated exhaling/inhaling
	Critical parent	That is disgracefulAngry tone of voiceJudgemental/Authoritarian attitude	Furrowed browPointed fingerPounding on table
	Nurturing parent	I will sort it out for youSympathetic tone of behaviourCaring and understanding attitude	Consoling touch/strokes
Child	Child	I wish, I want, I dunno, I’m gonna, I don’t care, I guess,	Tears, temper tantrums, rolling eyes, whining, high pitched laughter, teasing, giggling squirming
	Adapted child	- ‘I will try hard’- ‘Thank you’- Placating voice- Passive/Frightened/Sad	Downcast eyesVigorous head nodding
	Rebellious child	- I don’t care- Not complying- Angry	Tears, temper tantrums
	Free child (Natural)	- ‘That’s great’ ‘Wow’- ‘Expressive emotional voice- Spontaneous- Playful	Clear demonstration of feelings high pitched laughter, teasing, giggling squirming
Adult		- Why, what, where, when, who, and how.- How much, in what way, possible, objective, probably, false, true comparative, unknown, I think I see, in my opinion, it seems – all- Calm Enquiring tone of voice- Non-judgemental	- Continual movement of the face – blinking, face body and eyes. Tilted head – allows the child to show its face- Relaxed attentive and aware- Level eye contact

TA Theory of Gameplaying

Gameplaying in TA refers to a repetitive pattern of negative communication comprising a series of stimuluses and responses that individuals use to achieve certain psychological benefits or advantages over one another. Often, the gameplayers are not themselves aware of the underlying motivations or their causa link to future bad consequences (Harris, 1973) and ‘seeing’ them is the job of the analyst (Harris, 1973). Games are typically characterised by a stimulus/response interaction series (illustrated in Figure 4), called ‘the script’.

Figure 4.

Game playing processes and participants.

In what follows, the terminology may bring card games such as Contract Bridge or Poker to mind and such analogies/metaphors are arguably appropriate to the everyday politics of organisational life, especially in problematic or toxic workplaces. Though such games are played for ‘fun’ they involve deceit and ‘sleight of hand’ as part of the strategy. Gameplaying in TA has such elements but, in this context, the ‘gameplaying’ is anything but fun and thus the analogy is qualified.

There are effectively five elements or ‘moves’ in a ‘game’ and the process involves two people. Berne calls these the “Power Player” and the “Target” but this implies too strongly boss and worker and it is often peer to peer so we will use simply “Gameplayer (GP)” and “Target (T)”. The first move is made by GP and is called the “Con”. The con is a stimulus to prompt a response - effectively an invitation to join the game. The specific form of the Con in any game is referred to as the “Gimmick” and the Gimmick could be phrased as a question or a comment on someone’s work for example. Move two is made by T who will respond to the Gimmick in some way (anticipated consciously or not) by GP. Move three is made by GP in performing what’s called the “Switch”. The Switch in some way refines or redefines the question, comment etc.

Receipt of the Switch constitutes step four in the game, whereby T experiences what’s called the “Cross-Up” through which they find themselves somewhat confused and in something of a cul-de-sac or no-win situation that has subtly taken them unawares. This resulting situation, that is the fifth and final move, which may be quite different from what was expected from the seemingly innocent opening Con/Gimmick, is what is referred to as the “Payoff” which captures the situation for GP and T respectively. The whole process is shown in Figure 4 below.

Gameplaying precludes authentic (Adult) communication. However, TA theory argues that by becoming aware of their own behaviour vis-à-vis scripts and payoffs, individuals can learn to recognize and break free from unhealthy patterns of behaviour.

Transactional Analysis in Practice: Developing the OCTAPos Model

Adapting Harris’ (1973) TA theory, we have developed a new framework we call the Organisational Culture Transactional Analysis Positioning (OCTAPos) model (illustrated in Figure 5) by which organisations could interpret the information resulting from applying TA tools to diagnose the psychological health of their workplace relations (See Figure 5 below). The different workplace ‘states’ in the boxes may imply a linear downward progression from positive to toxic. In fact the four states are more akin to Tuckman’s seminal work regarding ‘stages’ of group/team formation (Tuckman, 1965). Tuckman is clear that stages are often sequential but groups can return to previous situations or even miss stages altogether. We take a similar position regarding workplace conditions.

Figure 5.

Organisational culture transactional analysis positioning (OCTAPos) model.

Organisations should aim for/maintain the Positive Workplace (A), which can be achieved through TA training, raising awareness of self and others, improving communication, recognising early-on any game-playing and modifying behaviours to ensure that all people treat each other fairly and with dignity and respect. Negative Workplaces (B) arise when there are crossed communications between individuals which if unrecognised can lead to a complete breakdown in communication, lack of understanding and empathy between employees, who might then adopt dysfunctional behaviours. This situation is unsustainable and threatens the survival of collegiate relations, teams and even the organisation in the long-term and an inexorable move of the organisation into a toxic workplace (D). By using TA training and processes explaining the different communication styles (crossed and aligned), without isolating individuals as being blameworthy, there is an opportunity for the Negative Workplace to pivot towards a more Positive Workplace. TA Training can help individuals and teams to make sure that any crossed communications become more aligned before more problematic behaviour arises.

Problem workplaces (C) manifest, as in the case of software development, when the power holders (managers, team leaders, individuals) reinforce the culture of the coder stereotype (intense, working unsocial hours, cutthroat, ‘geeky’ etc.), thereby creating barriers to entry for anybody that does not fit in with these self-created and reinforced stereotypes. If this is not dealt with by the leaders and the organisation at the micro and meso level then the already serious problematic behaviour is reinforced by the individuals and the teams and the contagion of toxicity spreads through the individuals, team members and organisation to create an intolerable and incorrigibly toxic workplace (D). The targeted other (in our case women) is thus ‘pushed’ into the Toxic Workplace (D) life/work position where the team bias and bad behaviour remain and cause the ‘excluded’ others to exit the workplace as they are unwilling to engage/continue in gameplaying and experience the workplace as irredeemably toxic and harmful.

If the exit is early enough, the psychological and physical harm to the other (woman) may be recoverable, but staying too long in a Toxic Workplace risks the damage becoming extensive and long-lasting, leading to disillusionment and leaving the profession altogether. Indeed, in the face of a toxic workplace, employee resilience is overwhelmed and even the normally effective role of communication in building employee resilience is weakened considerably (Koo et al., 2022). Thus, unless there is an active, demonstrable change in negative and problematic communications at the micro and meso levels, there can be no inoculation to the contagion, and the toxic workplace culture attracts and retains only an in-group of homogenous people whose behaviours are the norm for the organisation and any queries raised or requests for change, will be dismissed as unnecessary. Consistent with Sull et al. (2022), we accept that such places and environments exist and thus not even TA can ‘correct the incorrigible’.

Applying the OCTAPoS Model as a Diagnostic Tool

We will now operationalise the OCTAPoS model using envisioned vignettes to illustrate its potential application to a workplace setting. For this purpose, we draw on the vast body of TA research and practice using Open AI’s ChatGPT (3.5) (see Appendix 1) to help us assemble vignettes that could reasonably be considered illustrative of TA-based crossed communications and gameplaying exchanges. These were further edited by the authors for clarity and coherence. The vignette stories show how exchanges can be analysed through the lens of Transactional Analysis using the OCTAPos model to gain insights into typical organisational communication in action. We further identify opportunities for improving communication and resolving conflict in the future and offer a way for implementing sustainable and inclusive HRM practices through a Structured TA Response (STAR) approach (detailed below).

Vignette: Crossed Communication/Ulterior Communication Between Kory-Helen

The following vignette (generated with the aid of CHAT-GPT see Appendix 1), presents four exchanges that occur between two software developers, Kory and Helen. The exchanges are exhibited and analysed through the lens of TA Theory and summarised in Tables 3a–3d.

Table 3a.

Crossed Communication Vignette & Analysis: Exchange 1.

Exchange 1: In the Office, During a Project Team Meeting
→Kory¹(CP): Helen, I’ve reviewed your latest feature implementation, and I have serious concerns.→Kory¹(CP): Frankly, your approach seems overly complex. I’m worried it’ll slow down our progress.→Kory¹(CP): I’m not convinced. We need efficiency, not unnecessary complications.	←Helen² (A): Oh, OK. Please, tell me what’s on your mind. [level←Helen²(A): Complexity often ensures scalability. There’s no convincing reason for me to change my design choices.←Helen² (A): And we need robustness, not shortcuts. Let’s not sacrifice quality for speed.
Analysis of ego positions and communications
Kory adopts The critical parent-to-rebellious Child transaction approach (CP→RC): Kory consistently operates from a critical parent ego state, expressing doubts and criticisms about Helen’s work without providing constructive feedback or engaging in collaborative problem-solving. He persists in questioning Helen’s decisions, both publicly and privately, without acknowledging her expertise or seeking mutual understanding, implying that he knows better.	In response, Helen adopts an adult-to adult (A→A) transaction approach: Helen responds from an adult ego state by first seeking clarification and understanding from kory. She continues to try to engage in constructive dialogue and attempts to maintain a rational Adult ego state by framing her perspective in a rational, logical and practical way that sets the boundaries for a professional, respectful and constructive exchange – despite Kory’s confrontational tone.

¹Physical cues (CP): Furrowed brow/annoyed tone of voice/judgemental/authoritarian attitude.

²Physical cues (A): Calm tone of voice/level eye contact/relaxed and in control.

Table 3b.

Crossed Communication Vignette & Analysis: Exchange 2.

Exchange 2: Over Instant Messaging Later in the week (following on from Exchange 1, Kory and Helen continue to discuss the issue that arose in their initial discussion)
→Kory³ (CP): Helen, I can’t shake off my doubts about your approach. Can we discuss this further?→Kory³(CP): Your stubbornness is hindering progress. We need to explore other options.→Kory³ (CP): Fine, ignore my concerns. But when this project fails, don’t say I didn’t warn you.	←Helen⁴ (A): I Thought we settled this, kory. My approach is sound and has been thoroughly considered.←Helen⁴(A): My “stubbornness” is based on expertise and experience. ←Helen⁴ (A): Trust me. Don’t worry, I’ll take responsibility. Let’s focus on the task at hand.
Analysis of ego positions and communications
Kory adopts a critical parent-to-rebellious child (CP→RC) approach to communication: Kory persists in expressing doubts about Helen’s approach, seeking to reopen the discussion outside of the meeting context maintaining a CP stance . He repeatedly criticizes Helen’s decisions and refuses to acknowledge her expertise, assuming a superior position and expecting compliance. He questions Helen’s decisions, trying to undermine her, blaming and chastising her for being ‘stubborn’ and finally resorts to ultimatums and threats, maintaining the authoritative stance of the critical parent. Kory’s persistence thus exacerbates tension, and precludes constructive, professional and respectful dialogue.	Helen maintains an adult → adult (A → A) position in this exchange. Helen consistently responds from an adult ego state, remaining calm, confident, and focused on the task at hand. She asserts her expertise, remains in her adult ego state despite the threats and attempts to undermine her and from this position tries to take control of the situation whist remaining professional and constructive. Despite the provocation, she maintains her Adult ego state and continues to be assertive and set boundaries. Despite unresolved tensions, Helen attempts to establish clear expectations for future interactions, demonstrating resilience and professionalism.

³Physical cues (CP): raised voice/angry tone of voice/pointed finger.

⁴Physical cues (A): Calm tone of voice/level eye contact/relaxed and objective.

Table 3c.

Crossed Communication Vignette & Analysis: Exchange 3.

Exchange 3: During a Team Meeting Several Weeks Later (Over a period of time, the discussion around the original issue highlighted in exchange 1 and continued in exchange 2 escalates)
→Kory⁵(A/CP): Helen, I’m bringing this up again because it’s crucial. We can’t afford to ignore the risks.→Kory⁵ (CP): Trust is earned, helen. And right now, I’m not seeing anything to trust.→Kory⁷ (RC): Maybe I will. Someone who prioritises progress and efficiency over ego.	←Helen⁶ (A) I agree but we also can’t afford to waste time on needless debates. Trust my judgment.←Helen⁷ (RC): If you can’t trust me, perhaps you should find someone else to work with.
Analysis of ego positions and communications
Kory adopts a Critical parent-to Rebellious child CP→RC position and moves in and out of ego states (adult → Adult and rebellious child → rebellious child): Kory first communicates from an authoritarian critical parental ego state, emphasizing the seriousness of the issue, but also acknowledges the necessity of the discussion, appealing to reason (bordering on the Adult ego state). He initiates the conversation with urgency, emphasizing the importance of trust but also expressing doubt and scepticism. At the same time, he questions Helen’s trustworthiness and suggests a lack of sufficient evidence to trust her, maintaining an authoritative stance. As a CP he continues to use blame and criticism, undermining Helen’s confidence. He tries to cement his argument and reach an outcome favourable to him using any ego state that might get him there. He implies a threat to work with someone else and criticizes Helen’s perceived ego-driven approach, potentially escalating the conflict.	Helen continues to maintain an adult-to-adult (A → A) position :She responds assertively, emphasizing the need to prioritize action over debate and assertsher competence and judgment. Helen then adopts Rebellious Child → Rebellious ChildIn the face of persistent undermining Helen begins to express her frustration even offense as a consequence of Kory’s lack of trust. His persistent challenges and scepticism trigger defensiveness and even resentment. She can no longer remain in the Adult ego position and shifts to a Rebellious child ego state expressing frustration and hurt.

⁵Physical cues(CP): raised voice/banging hands on table.

⁶Physical cues (A): Calm tone of voice/level eye contact/reasoned and objective.

⁷Physical cues (RC): Angry tone of voice/non-compliant attitude.

Table 3d.

Crossed Communication Vignette & Analysis: Exchange 4.

Exchange 4: After the Meeting, in the Break AreaAgain, building on all the previous exchanges (1–3), the transactions between Kory and Helen escalate still further and eventually lead to a complete breakdown in communications and the relationship.
→Kory⁸ (A): Helen, I hope you understand my perspective. It’s nothing personal.→Kory⁸ (A): I was only trying to ensure the success of the project. [Physical cues: calm/objective]→Kory⁹ (CP):You’re the one refusing to listen to reason.→Kory⁹ (CP): Fine, if you can’t handle constructive criticism, that’s your problem.	←Helen ¹⁰ (RC/A): Nothing personal? You’ve questioned my competence and integrity at every turn, kory.←Helen ⁹ (CP/A): By undermining me at every opportunity? I Think you are being unreasonable. [Physical cues: raised voice, angry tone, furrowed brow]←Helen (RC/CP): Reason? All I hear from you is arrogance and hostility.←Helen (RC): Constructive? Your criticism has been anything but. Good luck finding someone who will put up with your attitude.
Analysis of ego positions and communications
Kory again adopts multiple ego positions. In the Adult → Adult ego position he attempts to minimize the emotional impact of his actions, potentially dismissing Helen’s feelings. He communicates from an adult ego state, attempting to rationalise his behaviour and maintain a neutral stance. He continues to justify his actions by defending his intentions and the importance of the project, potentially deflecting responsibility for any negative impact onto Helen. In response to helen, Kory adopts a Critical Parent ego position accusing Helen of being irrational, maintaining his critical parental stance. He blames Helen for the conflict and minimizes his own part in escalating the situation. He finally dismisses Helen’s concerns and suggests she is unable to handle criticism, effectively shifting between a critical parental (CP) and rebellious child (RC) ego state by continually dismissing Helen’s perspective (over time in public and private). He communicates from a critical parental ego state in belittling Helen’s concerns and intensifying the conflict.	Helen also shifts ego states, moving from Rebellious Child → Adult/Critical Parent/Rebellious Child. Helen confronts Kory about his behaviour and its impact on her, shifting between an adult and child ego state. She accuses Kory of undermining her and challenges his behaviour, thereby triggering defensiveness and escalation. Helen continues to confront Kory’s behaviour and its impact on her, shifting between an adult and rebellious child ego state by accusing Kory of toxic behaviour and rejecting his actions. The crossed communication coming from different ego positions escalates the conflict. In an adult ego position, Helen challenges Kory’s claim of reasonableness and accuses him of arrogance and hostility, rejecting his unacceptable behaviour which intensifies the conflict. Her ego states flip-flop between adult and child as she continues to challenge Kory’s behaviour and then, finally, rejects his behaviour outright when the relationship has broken down completely.

⁸Physical cues (A): Calm tone of voice/reasoned].

⁹Physical cues (CP): Angry tone of voice/judgemental/pointed finger.

¹⁰Physical cue RCs: Angry tone of voice/don’t care attitude/frustrated and hurt.

Mismatched Transactional Modes

The interaction began with a stimulus from Kory qua ‘Critical Parent’ to Helen qua Rebellious Child. Kory expecting Helen to respond subserviently. However, Helen adopted an Adult ego-state, seeking a rational discussion to another Adult (Kory). Kory however, continued in Critical Parent to Rebellious Child ego position adopting an increasingly authoritative and critical tone as the interactions progressed. Eventually, faced with continued questioning of her competence, Helen abandons Adult to Adult and dynamically adopts an Adult to Critical Parent and Rebellious Child in response to Kory.

Our first order analysis shows that both Kory and Helen demonstrate different ego positions and contribute to crossed and ulterior communication patterns in their interactions. This analysis underlines how the parties are not on the same wavelength, and forewarns the analyst at least, that the consequences of not resolving them are escalation and exacerbation of tensions leading to more conflict, which further complicates communication dynamics in the workplace placing them in the domain of the ‘Negative Workplace’ (Figure 5, Box B) in the OCTAPos model.

To add to the OCTAPos workplace behaviour diagnosis and to indicate appropriate response actions, we introduce here our STAR (Structured Transactional Analysis Response) flow diagram model to depict the deteriorating process over time (see Figure 6). At each stage, we ask whether the communication behaviour was repeated, bearing in mind that isolated and one-off negative behaviours are not necessarily problematic but if they occur repeatedly and are unchecked, then they become problematic, embedded and normalised (Chamberlain & Hodson, 2010; Kahn and Rouse, 2020). We also indicate STAR responses and action points that would serve to ameliorate or resolve such all too familiar communication breakdowns.

Figure 6.

STAR flow chart of crossed communication (helen-kory vignette).

Overall, seen through the lens of Transactional Analysis, this example illustrates how crossed communication can occur when transactional modes are misaligned and the rational and emotional aspects of a conversation are not both fully appreciated or understood. If crossed communication between colleagues at work persists over time, a downward spiral begins such that what started as differences in communication styles and perspectives mutates into personal animosity and hostility leading to a Negative Workplace. The process is broadly as follows: Continuous conflict between colleagues affects and infects the entire team dynamics; other team members feel uncomfortable and demotivated; colleagues begin to engage in apportioning blame and making personal criticisms; trust and collaboration among team members diminishes, leading to worsening relations and communications for both the individuals involved and the overall team dynamics.

Intervention is needed to avoid a ‘Negative workplace’ becoming ‘Problematic’ or, worse, ‘Toxic’. Open communication and conflict resolution strategies are essential to address and mitigate the impact of crossed communication in the workplace. Our response model prescribes open discussions between the individual colleagues, using training in TA theory to better understand each other’s perspectives and learn how to communicate more constructively. We turn now to OCTAPos box C and apply similar analysis to an instance of gameplaying as an example of what happens in what we refer to as a ‘Problematic workplace’.

Vignette: Gameplaying Between Alan-Jaz

The following vignette also generated with the help of ChatGPT (see Appendix 1), presents a fictional but plausible set of exchanges (1–8) that take place between software developers Alan and Jaz, grouped into: initial interactions; subsequent interactions; and long-term dynamics. Each of the exchanges are presented, discussed and the interactions analysed through the lens of TA Gameplaying Theory in Table 4).

Table 4.

Alan-Jaz Game-Playing Vignette & Analysis.

Initial Interaction:		Gameplaying Analysis
1. Project assignment:	→Alan: “Jaz, I’ve got an important coding task for you. I know I can rely on you to handle it well.”←Jaz: “Thank you, Alan. I’ll do my best to deliver.”	The con: Alan’s (Power player) con involves presenting Jaz (the Target) with an invitation to join the ‘game’ of career advancement opportunities. He cons Jaz by offering praise and recognition for her work, leading her to believe that she has the potential for promotion.
Subsequent interactions:
2. Task progress review:	←Jaz: “Alan, here’s the progress report on the task you assigned me.”→Alan: “Hmm, looks decent, but I expected more efficiency. You’ll need to step it up.”←Jaz: “Ok. I’ll make the necessary adjustments and ensure it’s up to par.”	The gimmick: Alan’s gimmick is to use praise and recognition as a tool to manipulate Jaz’s behaviour and emotions. He initially praises her work to gain her trust and compliance ( response ), knowing that she values recognition and validation from her superior. By employing this gimmick, Alan maintains control over Jaz’s actions and keeps her motivated to continue working hard in the hopes of further praise or advancement.
3. Team meeting:	→Alan: “Everyone, let’s give a big round of applause to Jaz for her work on the project.”[Jaz feels relieved by the acknowledgment of her hard work]Alan: “However, moving forward, we need to tighten our deadlines. Jaz, I’m counting on you to meet them.”[ Jaz notices the subtle pressure and implicit element of doubt]
4. Promotion consideration:	Alan: “Jaz, I’ve been thinking about promoting you to a senior developer role. Your performance has been impressive.”[ Jaz feels excited about the opportunity]Alan: “But I need to see more consistency and initiative from you before we can move forward with that.”[ Jaz feels deflated and uncertain. Alan seems to give complements only to then then resile qualify all the time]	The Switch: Alan (Power Player) frequently switches between positive and negative feedback when interacting with Jaz (the target). He starts with positive reinforcement to gain her cooperation and compliance, then switches to criticism or ambiguity to keep her off balance.This switch in behaviour creates uncertainty for Jaz, she cannot assess how well she is doing as she never knows whether to expect praise or criticism from Alan, leading to confusion and anxiety.
Long-term dynamics:
5. Ongoing task assignments:	Alan: “Jaz, I need you to take on this new project. It’s a challenging one, but I believe in your abilities.”Jaz: Starts to feel overwhelmed by the continuous high-pressure assignments. Reflects on previous similar situations…Alan: “I know you can handle it. We’re counting on you.”	The Cross-up: Alan engages in cross-up by presenting conflicting messages or expectations to Jaz (the target). He offers praise and recognition for her contributions, leading her to believe that she is valued and appreciated, but then sets unrealistic goals or criticizes her performance.This cross-up creates cognitive dissonance for Jaz, as she struggles to reconcile the positive feedback with the negative or ambiguous signals from Alan, causing her to question her own abilities and judgment.
6. Feedback session:	Jaz: “Alan, I’d appreciate some feedback on my recent work.”Alan: “Your work has been satisfactory, but I’ve noticed some areas for improvement.”[ Jaz feels frustrated by the lack of specific feedback. Am I really only “satisfactory”?]
7. Annual performance review:	Alan: “Jaz, your performance this year has been commendable. However, there’s still room for growth.”[ Jaz listens attentively, hoping for positive feedback]Alan: “I expect you to continue striving for excellence and taking on more responsibilities.”[ Jaz feels undervalued despite her efforts to deliver and meet Alan’s expectations. Feels undervalued and her confidence is undermined]
8. Resignation discussion:	Jaz: “Alan, I’ve decided to resign from my position.”Alan: “I’m sorry to hear that, Jaz. Is there anything I can do to change your mind?”Jaz: “I appreciate the offer, but I feel it’s time for me to explore new opportunities.” [Alan reflects on Jaz’s departure, confirming his belief that female coders do not have what it takes to stick to the profession long term]	The Payoff: Alan’s payoff in this scenario is maintaining control and power over Jaz’s actions and emotions. By employing gameplaying tactics, he ensures that Jaz remains dependent on his approval and validation for her career advancement. Additionally, Alan may derive satisfaction or a sense of superiority from manipulating Jaz’s behaviour and emotions, reinforcing his position of authority within the team and satisfying his preconception and bias about women in the profession.

Berne (1964) identifies and describes a thesaurus of 35 different games with names like “I’m only trying t help you” and “why don’t you yes but”. In the Alan-Jaz gameplaying vignette we presents what we call the ‘Push-me Pull-you’ Game with an embedded, overt/covert ulterior motive used to reinforce Alan’s belief that whilst (some) women might be good, none are good enough and simply cannot code as well as Alan and those that resemble and mirror him. This scenario illustrates gameplaying in the workplace and the ‘Problematic Workplace’ setting in which it resides (see Box C in the OCTAPos model in Figure 5).

To explain our diagnosis of gameplaying behaviour and establish potential response actions required, we again propose (for HRM practice) and use (here) a Structured, Transactional Analysis Response (STAR) flow diagram to depict the gameplaying process over time in our vignette (see Figure 7). As before, at each stage of the series of interactions between Alan and Jaz, we query whether the pattern of communication is repeated and ask whether and how the stimuluses and responses (the script) match the five elements of the gameplaying process (Harris, 1973). We also add TA-informed responses and potential response action points that would serve to uncover and identify the gameplaying between colleagues (Alan and Jaz) that they themselves might very well be unaware of both consciously and unconsciously.

Figure 7.

STAR flow chart of gameplaying (Alan-Jaz).

This scenario illustrated how gameplaying in the workplace can lead to manipulation, frustration, and ultimately, a toxic work environment that is intolerable to those that do not fit in. Alan’s gameplaying tactics demonstrate how, for example, a male colleague and especially one with power and influence can control and undermine female others to maintain and reinforce his belief that female coders lack the aptitude required for software development. Such behaviours, repeated again and again with people that do not fit in with (or fit within) the software development culture, erode trust, morale, and productivity, leading ultimately to problematic outcomes (attrition) but also serve to validate and nurture the toxic culture that excludes ‘others’ from the profession.

Summary, Recommendations and Future Work

In this paper, we have presented credible arguments based in psychoanalytic theory to account for workplace communication breakdowns and conflicts. We have developed a theoretically informed communications-based diagnostic (OCTAPos) model and response (STAR) framework to address the shortcomings of previous diversity and inclusion research. We presented (and recommend) a practical way forward, using TA to enhance sustainable employability for organisations in this sector and others. Implementing TA as a learning device rather than as therapy or a confessional will illuminate, but also seek to eliminate, problematic relational dynamics in the workplace and deliver the changes that many have called for (but not provided), to improve respectful interpersonal interactions and guard against ostracism and unethical behaviours (Henle et al., 2022).

Our proposed TA-based approach could provide individual employees, HR practitioners and team leaders with the skills, tools and language to better understand communications styles, motivation and behaviours at work to reduce miscommunication and avoid creating negative, problematic and toxic environments. They also allow individuals, teams and organisations to operationalise diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) policies that have a real-life impact and potential for positive change beyond simply ticking the appropriate DEI boxes. In the following section we recommend briefly how our TA approach would work at the micro (individual/team), and meso (organisational) levels.

Combining an OCTAPos Diagnostic Tool and a STAR Process Approach

At the micro-level , STAR training and development sessions can be embedded in HRM induction/personal development programmes to help employees understand and apply TA concepts and techniques at work. This could be done through a combination of workshops, coaching sessions, and online courses. Awareness of individual communication processes and breakdowns would support and protect staff by reducing negative and problematic behaviour patterns from developing into toxic behaviours between colleagues at work.

At the meso-level , supportive TA training programmes for individual leaders will help them understand their own communication styles and patterns of behaviour, as well as the communication and behavioural needs of their team members. Organisations will thus experience the bottom-up benefits of micro/meso TA implementation once it is embedded in their sustainable HRM policies to promote a more inclusive, diverse, respectful, equal and equitable culture.

Organisations can also use the OCTAPos model to audit and evaluate their current status and track their progress through biennial audits, taking targeted action to head-off early signs of problematic patterns of behaviour and communication where necessary.

Through the lens of Transaction Analysis Theory using a combination of our theoretically derived OCTAPoS model and STAR response framework we have demonstrated its practical application, by applying it to the vignettes of crossed and ulterior transactions and gameplaying to diagnose Problem and Negative Workplaces. We highlighted the stages at which remedial action might be needed and the consequences of not responding. As this is a theoretical model, it is as yet untested and this important next step remains for future work.

There are several opportunities to build on this paper. One direction is a quantitative approach to develop a psychometric tool, based on the OCTAPos model, to measure, assess and validate the constituent parts and levels of Positive, Negative, Problem and Toxic Workplaces in organisations, which could then be tested further and applied in practice. Another would be through a qualitative route (workshops, observations and ethnographic studies) to develop, test and evaluate the STAR response framework in situ.

Conclusions & Implications

For ethical, economic and sustainability reasons, toxic and discriminatory workplaces that exclude ‘others’ are to be avoided. In terms of ethics, implicit bias and discrimination against women (and others) and in favour of men (of a certain type) is wrong. In terms of economics, in the context of software development, products and services are developed and constructed predominantly and almost exclusively (97%) by men, thereby excluding 50% of the population which is neither fair nor sensible business. As for sustainability, toxic workplaces not only deter and exclude large swathes of excellent, enthusiastic and dynamic people, but they can be harmful to individuals, teams and the wider organisation. Practitioners, policy-makers and academics have understood and theorised the absence of women in software development as problematic in many different ways, but invariably they have focused their attention on women or on men or on gender but without offering effective or impactful solutions. Here we present a relatively novel explanation for the absence of women in the profession by focusing instead on relational dynamics between people in the software development workplace using Transactional Analysis theory.

Our paper contributes to the diversity, inclusion and sustainable HRM literature by demonstrating the relational dynamics that lead to negative outcomes and accusations of toxic workplaces. By taking a psychoanalytic theory (TA) approach, we aim to re-introduce the ‘human element’ into HRM, by focusing on human relationships at work and addressing what has often been neglected in the field (De Prins et al., 2020; Griep et al., 2023). We believe our TA-based theoretic approach offers one way of helping reduce, and potentially remove, the psychological, physical, social and work-related harms to employees in the workplace. But admittedly, this needs to be tested and validated in future work.

We contribute to organisational communication literature by theorising the potential impact of the ‘dark-side’ of workplace communication on organisational culture from a psychoanalytical perspective. Using our TA-based theoretical model and framework, we demonstrate how communications at work can be better understood and improved to avoid conflict between individuals and toxification of workplaces. By providing insights into the nature of transactional exchanges, ego positions, and gameplaying as potential causes and consequences of breakdowns in workplace relationships, we offer a more nuanced and in-depth understanding of what might lead to negative, problematic and intolerable toxic organisational cultures. Our proposed TA diagnostic model and response framework (OCTAPos/STAR) offers a blueprint for a sustainable way forward for organisations and our recommendations for training and learning programmes provide individuals, teams, managers and organisations with pro-active tools to help break the vicious cycle of unrelenting and harmful gameplaying at work.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Associate Editor: René Schalk and Joannes Kraak

ORCID iDs

Rana Tassabehji

Hugh Lee

Notes

Appendix

Author Biographies

Rana Tassabehji is senior researcher and academic. Her research and teaching interests cover the impact of new technologies on society, organizations, and individuals. Topics include artificial intelligence (AI) and digital technologies; diversity in the technology industry; and digital government. She has published her work in Journal of Business Ethics, Human Relations, Organizational Studies, International Journal of Operations & Production Management and a sole authored book.

Hugh Lee is senior professor at Kedge Business School, Bordeaux. His research interests include business ethics; organization behavior; corporate social responsibility; and diversity, equity, and inclusivity. He has published previously in Public Administration, Human Relations, Organization Studies, Journal of Business Ethics, and Leadership.

Nancy Harding is professor of human resource management at the University of Bath’s School of Management. Her research and teaching focus on critical approaches to understanding organizations, particularly working lives, gender, and other forms of oppression or exploitation. Her papers have appeared in many of the expected academic journals. She has published two sole-authored books, two joint-authored books, and several edited collections and is (still) working on a third sole-authored book.

References

Accenture . (2020). Resetting tech culture. A research report produced jointly by Accenture and Girls Who Code Online. https://www.accenture.com/content/dam/accenture/final/a-com-migration/pdf/pdf-134/accenture-a4-gwc-report-final1.pdf#zoom=50 (Accessed 23 August 2023).

Adam

Howcroft

Richardson

(2004). A decade of neglect: Reflecting on gender and IS. New Technology, 19(3), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-005x.2004.00139.x

Aoki

A. M.

(2022). How to close the digital gender divide and empower women. The Digital Economy, World Economic Forum Online. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2022/03/how-to-close-digital-gender-divide/ (Accessed 26 March 2023).

Ashcraft

Breitzman

(2012). Who invents IT? Women’s participation in information technology patenting. 2012 update. https://rdw.rowan.edu/csm_facpub/6/ (Accessed 29 January 2023).

Bennet

(2021). AI, bro? No! How do we stop AI being the next tech ‘bro’ domain? Diginomica Online. https://diginomica.com/ai-bro-no-how-do-we-stop-ai-being-next-tech-bro-domain (Accessed 26 3 2023).

Berne

(1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematic individual and social psychiatry. Grove Press. https://doi.org/10.1037/11495-000

Berne

(1964). Games people play: The psychology of human relationships. Grove Press.

Casic

Pavlour

Gavala

Davies

(2023). Toxic work culture in the tech industry. Talent LMS Research Report Online. https://www.talentlms.com/research/toxic-culture-tech-industry-survey (Accessed 2 February 2024).

Chamberlain

L. J.

Hodson

(2010). Toxic work environments: What helps and what hurts. Sociological Perspectives, 53(4), 455–477. https://doi.org/10.1525/sop.2010.53.4.455

10.

Davidson

Mountain

(2011). Working together: Organizational transactional analysis and business performance (1st ed.). Gower. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315546360

11.

De Prins

Stuer

Gielens

(2020). Revitalizing social dialogue in the workplace: The impact of a cooperative industrial relations climate and sustainable HR practices on reducing employee harm. International Journal of Human Resource Management, 31(13), 1684–1704. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2017.1423098

12.

Eagly

Carli

L. L.

(2007). Women and the labyrinth of leadership. Harvard Business Review Magazine, 85(9), 62–146. https://doi.org/10.1037/e664062007-001

13.

Ford

Harding

(2010). Get back into that kitchen, woman: Management conferences and the making of the female professional worker. Gender, Work and Organization, 17(5), 503–520. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2009.00476.x

14.

Griep

Kraak

J. M.

Beekman

E. M.

(2023). Sustainability is dead, long live sustainability! Paving the way to include ‘the people’ in sustainability. Group & Organization Management, 48(3), 966–980. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221127107

15.

Grigore

Molesworth

Vonțea

Basnawi

A. H.

Celep

Jesudoss

S. P.

(2021). Drama and discounting in the relational dynamics of corporate social responsibility. Journal of Business Ethics, 174(1), 65–88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04591-5

16.

Hall

(2019). Using transactional analysis to understand workplace bullying. Transactional Analysis Journal, 49(1), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2019.1544775

17.

Hall

Lovegrove

(1987). Women and AI. AI & Society, 2(3), 270–271. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01908552

18.

Hardey

(2019). Finding work and working through masculine tech toxicity. In The culture of women in tech (pp. 99–128). Emerald Publishing Limited.

19.

Harris

(1973). I’m OK, You're OK. Arrow Books, Penguin Random House.

20.

Henle

C. A.

Shore

L. M.

Morton

J. W.

Conroy

S. A.

(2022). Putting a spotlight on the ostracizer: Intentional workplace ostracism motives. Group & Organization Management, 48(4), 1014–1057. https://doi.org/10.1177/10596011221092863

21.

Herring

(2009). Does diversity pay? American Sociological Review, 74(2), 213–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240907400203

22.

Herring

(2017). Is diversity still a good thing? American Sociological Review, 82(4), 868–877. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122417716611

23.

Hollins Martin

C. J.

(2011). Transactional analysis: A method of analysing communication. British Journal of Midwifery, 19(9), 587–593. https://doi.org/10.12968/bjom.2011.19.9.587

24.

Holloway

E. L.

Kusy

M. E.

(2010). Disruptive and toxic behaviors in healthcare: Zero tolerance, the bottom line, and what to do about it. The Journal of Medical Practice Management, 25(6), 335–340.

25.

Kahn

W. A.

Rouse

E. D.

(2021). Navigating space for personal agency: Auxiliary routines as adaptations in toxic organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 64(5), 1419–1444.

26.

Klawe

Whitney

Simard

(2009). Women in computing - take 2. Communications of the ACM, 52(2), 68–76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1461928.1461947

27.

Koo

Anjam

Zaman

(2022). Hell is empty, and all the devils are here: Nexus between toxic leadership, crisis communication, and resilience in COVID-19 tourism. Sustainability, 14(17), Article 10825. https://doi.org/10.3390/su141710825

28.

Kramar

(2014). Beyond strategic human resource management: Is sustainable human resource management the next approach? International Journal of Human Resource Management, 25(8), 1069–1089. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2013.816863

29.

(2021). Strategic flexibility in a male-dominated occupation: Women software engineers in China. Journal of Gender Studies, 32(4), 330–342. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589236.2021.2006615

30.

Little

(2020). Ten years on and still too few women in technology. Guardian Online. February 1, 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/careers/2020/jan/02/ten-years-on-why-are-there-still-so-few-women-in-tech (Accessed 21 January 2023).

31.

Louhiala-Salminen

(2009). Business communication. In Bargiela-Chiappini

(Ed.), The handbook of business discourse (pp. 305–316). Edinburgh University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.3366/j.ctt1g09zrh.32

32.

Lovegrove

Hall

(1987). Where have all the girls gone? University Computing, 9(4), 207–210.

33.

Lovegrove

Hall

(1991). Where are the girls now? In Lovegrove

Segal

(Eds.), Women into computing. Workshops in computing. Springer.

34.

Lutgen-Sandvik

Tracy

S. J.

(2012). Answering five key questions about workplace bullying: How communication scholarship provides thought leadership for transforming abuse at work. Management Communication Quarterly, 26(1), 3–47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0893318911414400

35.

McKee

(2008). Neutralize your toxic boss. Harvard Business Review. September 24, 2008. https://hbr.org/2008/09/neutralize-your-toxic-boss

36.

Men

L. R.

Yue

C. A.

(2019). Creating a positive emotional culture: Effect of internal communication and impact on employee supportive behaviors. Public Relations Review, 45(3), Article 101764. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.03.001

37.

Molesworth

Grigore

G. F.

Jenkins

(2018). Games people play with brands: An application of transactional analysis to marketplace relationships. Marketing Theory, 18(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470593117706530

38.

O'Mara

(2022). Why can’t tech fix its gender problem? MIT Technology Review. September/October 2022. https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/08/11/1056917/tech-fix-gender-problem/ (Accessed 1 October 2023).

39.

O'Neill

O. A.

Barsade

S. G.

Sguera

(2023). The psychological and financial impacts of an emotional culture of anxiety and its antidote, an emotional culture of companionate love. Social Science & Medicine, 317 (January 2023), Article 115570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.115570

40.

Page

S. E.

(2007). The difference: How the power of diversity creates better groups, firms, schools, and societies (New Edition). Princeton University Press.

41.

Phipps

S. T.

Prieto

L. C.

(2021). Leaning in: A historical perspective on influencing women’s leadership. Journal of Business Ethics, 173(2), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04566-6

42.

Pitman

(1982). Transactional analysis: An introduction to its theory and practice. British Journal of Social Work, 12(1), 47–63.

43.

Ritter-Hayashi

Vermeulen

Knoben

(2019). Is this a man’s world? The effect of gender diversity and gender equality on firm innovativeness. PLoS One, 14(9), Article e0222443. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0222443

44.

Sandberg

(2013). Lean in-women, work and the will to lead (p. 250). Random House.

45.

Sanders

L. M.

Ashcraft

(2019). Confronting the absence of women in technology innovation. In Wisnioski

Hintz

E. S.

Stettler (Eds.), Does America need more innovators? (pp. 323–344). The MIT Press. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11344.001.0001

46.

Scot

Klein

F. K.

Onovakpuri

(2017). TECH LEAVERS STUDY kapor center for social impact. https://kaporfoundation.org/the-2017-tech-leavers-study/ (Accessed 01 May 2023).

47.

Servon

L. J.

Visser

M. A.

(2011). Progress hindered: The retention and advancement of women in science, engineering and technology careers. Human Resource Management Journal, 21(3), 272–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-8583.2010.00152.x

48.

Sharp

Franzway

Mills

Gill

(2011). Flawed policy, failed politics? Challenging the sexual politics of managing diversity in engineering organizations. Gender, Work and Organization, 19(6), 555–572. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0432.2010.00545.x

49.

Singh

(2023). The retention problem: Women are going into tech but are also being driven out. The Conversation. 3 March, 2023. https://theconversation.com/the-retention-problem-women-are-going-into-tech-but-are-also-being-driven-out-200625 (Accessed 23 August 2023).

50.

Smith

Fredricks-Lowman

(2020). Conflict in the workplace: A 10-year review of toxic leadership in higher education. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 23(5), 538–551. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603124.2019.1591512

51.

Statista . (2019). Industries with the highest employee burnout rate worldwide in 2019. Statista Online. https://www.statista.com/statistics/1274617/industries-burnout-globally/ (Accessed 23 March 2022).

52.

Sull

C. S.

Zweig

(2022). Toxic culture is driving the great resignation. MIT Sloan Management Review. January 11, 2022. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/toxic-culture-is-driving-the-great-resignation/

53.

Sull

(2023). The toxic culture gap shows companies are failing women. MIT Sloan Management Review. March 14, 2023. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/the-toxic-culture-gap-shows-companies-are-failing-women/

54.

Sull

Cipoli

Brighenti

(2022). Why every leader needs to worry about toxic culture. MIT Sloan Management Review. March 16, 2022. https://sloanreview.mit.edu/article/why-every-leader-needs-to-worry-about-toxic-culture/

55.

Syed

(2019). Rebel ideas: The power of diverse thinking. Hachette.

56.

Tapia

A. H.

(2006). Hostile work environment.com: Increasing participation of underrepresented groups, lessons learned from the dot-com era. SIGMIS Database, 37(4), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1145/1185335.1185346

57.

Tassabehji

Harding

Lee

&Dominguez-Pery

(2021). From female computers to male comput♂rs: Or why there are so few women writing algorithms and developing software. Human Relations, 74(8), 1296–1326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0018726720914723

58.

Tuckman

B. W.

(1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63(6), 384–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0022100

59.

van Poelje

de Graaf

(Eds.), (2022). New theory and practice of transactional analysis in organizations: On the edge (p. 212). Routledge.

60.

Vivar

C. G.

(2006). Putting conflict management into practice: A nursing case study. Journal of Nursing Management, 14(3), 201–206. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2934.2006.00554.x

61.

Vos

van Rijn

(2021). The evidence-based conceptual model of transactional analysis: A focused review of the research literature. Transactional Analysis Journal, 51(2), 160–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/03621537.2021.1904364

62.

Vos

van Rijn

(2022). The effectiveness of transactional analysis treatments and their predictors: A systematic literature review and explorative meta-analysis. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, OnlineFirst. https://doi.org/10.1177/00221678221117111

63.

Wajcman

(1991). Patriarchy, technology, and conceptions of skill. Work and Occupations, 18(1), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888491018001002

64.

Wajcman

(2010). Feminist theories of technology. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 34(1), 143–152. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/ben057

65.

WISE . (2020). Annual core-STEM stats round up: 2019-20. https://www.wisecampaign.org.uk/annual-core-stem-stats-round-up-2019-20/ (Accessed 02 October 2023).

66.

Wynn

(2019). Why tech’s approach to fixing its gender inequality isn’t working. Organizational Culture Harvard Business Review Online. https://hbr.org/2019/10/why-techs-approach-to-fixing-its-gender-inequality-isnt-working (Accessed 20 August 2023).