You can’t play alone

Füzes Nóra | psychologist, junior consultant

Füzes Nóra | psychologist, junior consultant

You can’t play alone

-On the games at work in a nutshell –

Have you ever found yourself in the same unpleasant workplace situation almost from time to time, and although you were an active participant, you somehow couldn’t understand how you ended up in the same place again? Then it is very likely that you may have been caught up in some kind of game situation, the early recognition and change of which is essential for all participants.

Are the games human?

I probably don’t need to introduce you to Eric Berne, whose book Human Games, published in 1964, has travelled the world. This book is a key moment in his exciting professional life, as it not only made him world famous, but also helped him to reach ordinary people with his game theory.

In Berne’s view

games are communication conflicts that can completely undermine human relationships.

Games are typically repetitive, almost compulsive, but unconscious, and always aim at some invisible benefit, such as reducing anxiety and stress, gaining dominance or power, etc… Contrary to popular belief, games are not always harmful. They are mostly used to connect, to achieve real intimacy, which can take both beneficial and harmful forms. In this article we will focus on problematic play.

We need more than one of us to create play. We cannot play alone, since one of the characteristics of games is that they are kept alive by back and forth interactions. In essence, we are unconsciously (!) stimulating the other’s weak point until he unconsciously (!) enters the game. We then tease each other until we have re-established the well-rehearsed and familiar situation, even if we are otherwise totally fed up with it.

That sounds pretty wild, doesn’t it? We unconsciously torment each other, it’s damaging to us, it poisons our relationships and yet we don’t stop. Why do we do it anyway? We’ll come back to that.

Berne believed above all else in the power of human reason and responsibility, so one of the central ideas of his theory is that

that if an individual understands the source of his difficult feelings, the intricacies of his relationships and the unmet needs and feelings that compel him to communicate covertly, he will be able to change them.

In the first place, he saw open communication as the solution to relationship problems, whether in the family, at work or in any other environment.

When a game is set in motion

Now, for simplicity’s sake, let’s imagine Gabi 1 and Gabi 2. (Why Gabi? Because she could be of any gender.) Gabi 1 is actually not feeling well at work, overworked, feels unappreciated. She is finding it increasingly difficult to cope with the frustration of her job, so instead of quitting or taking responsibility for her feelings and asking for help, she unconsciously takes the bait: “I can’t believe I have to do most of the work again. I was the last one to leave yesterday, I’m the one who solves all the problems, and yet I’m the one who makes the least. But Joli!”

This is the open or social level of communication. This is what we experience in Gabi 1. Gabi 2, who also works hard, does her job with integrity, learned as a child to tolerate and support others above all else – even if this kind of tolerance is harmful to her – takes the bait and joins the game. “Well, you do work harder. Can I take over something from you? How can I help? Well, yeah, Joli, she really doesn’t do anything…” and that’s it. Gabi 1 is stress reduced, Gabi 2 is drained of all good feelings and the game is over.

However, on a deeper, psychological level of communication, the same conversation would sound different:

Gabi 1: “I’m so tired. I wish someone would help me and show me more appreciation. I would like to earn more money…”.

Gabi 2: “I understand that it’s not easy for you, but I’m so exhausted by all this complaining. I would like to do my job in peace without having to listen to the same thing every day. How can we solve this?”

That makes both of your problems more understandable and reasonable, doesn’t it? From the outside, it is perhaps clear that both of them could do something for themselves, express their feelings in a way that could lead to a real reduction in stress and even change. Why don’t they?

One of the most important benefits of games is that they spare us the need for real change.

For the Gabis to end the game, Gabi 1 would have to take responsibility for her fate, and Gabi 2 would have to admit that she is tired of her colleague’s constant nagging. It is clear to see that the above situation is difficult for everyone, but strangely enough, it provides security, so they do not change.

You may be thinking about your own games, from which I will not interrupt you, but allow me to point out one thing.

There are life situations and recurring behaviours that cannot be resolved simply by analysing them in terms of games. In some cases, it is not enough to understand the breakdown in communication because the problem goes deeper. For these more complex cases, we need to delve into the depths of the human psyche, for which it is worth seeking the help of a psychotherapist.

Source:

Eric Berne: Human games