Human Roles and Transactional Analysis

Why do you so often end up doing everything yourself, while others avoid taking initiative, slack off, or evade responsibility?

Why do some of your clients react negatively or raise objections, even when what you’re offering is genuinely beneficial for them?

Why do you sometimes hesitate to speak up, hold back, or find it hard to say “no,” even when you know you’re right?

These questions can be answered by understanding the principles of Transactional Analysis (TA), a psychological framework developed in the late 1950s by Eric Berne.

Transactional Analysis describes how people interact and how their communication patterns are shaped by the “ego state” or mindset each person adopts. Although it began as a psychological theory, it has found practical applications in management, leadership, sales, and communication.

While TA is a fairly complex framework with its own terminology and techniques, we will outline its core principles in a simple and practical way.

The Three Ego States in Human Interaction

According to Transactional Analysis, every time we interact with another person—whether a colleague, subordinate, manager, client, or friend—we communicate from one of the following three ego states or roles:

Parent – Can be critical, controlling, and directive, or alternatively caring and protective.
Child – When we operate from the “Child” state, we either seek to please the parental figure and comply, or we react impulsively and irresponsibly, with complaints or defiance.
Adult – The Adult takes responsibility for their own actions, behavior, and emotions, and expects the same from others. They operate neither as superior nor inferior, but as equals—living in the “here and now,” making rational decisions based on facts and current reality.

Who Is Really “At Fault”?

Transactional Analysis suggests that, often, others are not to blame for their behavior—it is we who unconsciously adopt a certain role before communication even begins.

For example, when we operate as “Parents,” we tell others what to do, try to control everything, and impose our authority. This often triggers “Child” behavior in others—they may comply temporarily, but later react, avoid responsibility, or stop taking initiative.

Following this logic, a manager who acts like a strict “parent-boss” leaves no room for growth among their team members. Employees then depend on the manager for every small decision, make repeated mistakes, and constantly come up with excuses.

Conversely, a weak manager who behaves as a “Child” avoids taking initiative, sets no boundaries or rules, and eventually loses control of the team—leading to confusion, inconsistency, and lack of direction.

Similarly, a salesperson operating from the “Child” position tries excessively to please the client, speaks submissively, and fears losing them. As a result, the client either distances themselves or becomes demanding and difficult to work with.

The Role of the Adult

This raises the question: what is the right stance to adopt?

Transactional Analysis proposes that the Adult state is the foundation for healthy collaboration, harmonious relationships, and effective people development.

Instead of telling others what to do, we can treat them as equals—asking what they intend to do and encouraging them to take ownership of their actions and outcomes.

For example, a supervisor might ask their team member:

“-What do you plan to accomplish today? What’s your plan?”
“-What are your goals, and how do you define success?”
“-What obstacles are you facing, and what could you do to overcome them?”

These are coaching-style questions that perfectly align with the principles of Transactional Analysis.

When the Parent Role Is Necessary

Of course, there are situations where adopting a more directive or parental role is appropriate and even necessary.
Some clients need guidance and reassurance from a professional who demonstrates confidence and expertise—someone who can help them make decisions more easily.

However, this should be done consciously and only when we recognize that the other person truly needs such direction. Otherwise, it can backfire—the client may feel pressured, complain, or regret their decision later.

The most effective approach remains the Adult-to-Adult interaction, where through thoughtful, consultative questioning, we help the client recognize the value of the product or service and make an informed decision on their own.

Role Conflicts

The way we communicate can easily lead to role conflicts.

For example, if we begin from a directive “Parent” position by saying, “Why are you dressed like that?”, the other person might respond from their own “Parent” role: “Who are you to talk to me like that?”
At that point, we may retreat into the “Child” role, saying, “You’re right, I didn’t mean it that way…”

Only Adult-to-Adult relationships are balanced, sustainable, and conducive to growth.
All other communication patterns involve victim–persecutor dynamics that perpetuate tension and conflict.

Conclusion

Before starting any interaction, it’s worth considering not just what we’re going to say, but from which stance we’re going to say it.

When we act as “Parents,” we may achieve short-term compliance but risk long-term resistance and disengagement.
When we act as “Children,” we lose control and become victims of circumstance.

The effective stance is that of the Adult—honest, responsible, balanced, and equal.
To express our views with confidence, treat others with respect, take responsibility for our behavior, and expect the same in return.