英文原文
Managing Conflict at Work: Why Your "Ego State" Matters
I avoided conflict for years. Then I learned to confront it. That made things worse. The first pattern looked like this: someone would say something I disagreed with, and I'd stay quiet. Keep the peace. Protect the relationship. What actually happened was resentment—mine, mostly—and missed chances to grow through challenge. The second pattern looked different but failed the same way: I challenged viewpoints, but only when I was certain. I'd built my arguments, tested my logic, sharpened my position until it felt solid. Which meant when I spoke up, I wasn't curious. I was correcting. The other person wasn't offering a perspective—they were just mistaken. Both approaches failed. The first, lacked courage, the second fuelled arrogance. Here's what I've learned: when you lead with curiosity and humility conflict becomes a catalyst for connection, productivity and loyalty.
Why Conflict Exists
The simple answer: A situation isn't just made up of facts. A situation, in life or work, is made up of the facts plus the histories people bring to those facts. The psychological patterns people have learned from past experiences and the stories that matter to them in the moment are all components of the situation. Take a missed deadline. That's the fact. But person A sees it through their history of being let down by an unreliable colleague. Person B sees it through their experience of chronically under-resourced department that is consistently late in delivering documents. Person C sees it through their pattern of taking on too much and struggling to say no. Same fact. Three completely different situations. This is why conflict is inevitable. Not because people are unreasonable. Because people bring themselves—their whole selves—to every interaction. This means they bring their stories, their biases, their values, as varied and unique as each of these are. Their lens is constructed from lived experience. It's real to them. And it shapes, often literally, what they see. When you play it out, this means that it's impossible to be 100% right about a situation 100% of the time. Your perspective is always partial, always perspectival. Always filtered through your own history, your own psychology, your fears, your self image and your desires.
Start with principles
To resolve conflict, we need to internalise two key principles. First: you have a lens and so does everyone else. The other person's lens is as real to them as yours is to you. Dismissing it doesn't make it go away. It just makes collaboration impossible. Second: practice humility. You cannot possibly be 100% right about every aspect of the situation, because situations are not constituted by facts alone, so get curious. Be willing to inspect, what is that 5 or 10 (or more) percent of your viewpoint that could be wrong? This humility is what creates space for you to invite the other person to have some element of their view that's right. In the mist of conflict, sense check. Karleen Savage suggests you ask yourself: Am I allowing them to have their own story independent of mine? Am I willing to hear their story without my additions, judgment or defensiveness? Which parts of the story they are telling could be true? Where and how can I create space for their story to become part of the resolution? It could look like: "Can you help me to understand...?" "it sound you're saying x, have I got that right?" "Here's where I think we agree..." "What can we do to shift this in the right direction?" "What part did I have to play in this situation?" "What can a win-win look like here?" So once we lean in with curiosity, we're creating the space for a win-win. Let's think about what's actually happening in the moment when a conversation derails and the stakes count.
Enter Transactional Analysis
I was recently introduced to Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis, and it offered a great framework for understanding why conflicts arise and persist, and I immediately came into contact with versions of myself. At any moment in a conversation, Berne argues, we're operating from one of three "ego states": Parent, adult or child. Parent and child have two dimensions, but we will focus on one of each below: Parent – the voice of rules, judgment, and "shoulds" Adult – curious, present, humble Child – reactive, defensive, frustrated, or appeasing When Conversations Go Sideways Here's what Berne's research suggests. When conflict escalates, there is typically a special configuration of ego states. Parent-Parent: both parties are stuck in judgement, criticism and blame. Person A, how could you miss the deadline, you should care more about the reputation of our team. Person B, you never once sent or set a clear deadline, you're the manager why can't you manage? Personal A, how dare you talk to me like that. Two versions of "the right way to do things" talking past each other. No curiosity. No collaboration. Just mutual judgment. Parent-child: Here we're looking at blame met with defensiveness or, much worse, silent self-abasement. The Parent criticises. The Child either retreats into passivity ("I guess I'm just not good enough") or lashes out defensively ("You never appreciate what I do"). Personal A, how could you miss the deadline you should care more about the reputation of our team. Person B, you're always picking on me Claire did the same last week I don't see you picking on her. The former stifles teamwork and the latter can boil over into heated conflict. Think back to an argument you recently had. Can you recognise these dynamics? Have you taken the role of critical parent or defensive child in a conflict? Both are perfectly natural, but escalate conflict. The Critical Parent shuts down dialogue with judgment leading to resentment. The Adapted Child either retreats into passivity or lashes out defensively. In both cases, the actual problem underlying the conflict—the thing that needs fixing—gets buried under ego protection.
The Adult State Advantage
What Eric Berne's work is about is cultivating the ego state represented by the Adult. When conflict knocks, with someone approaching you either as a defiant Child or judgmental Parent, the goal is to shift yourself into Adult mode, and invite the other person to join you there. Adult mode doesn't mean emotionless or clinical. It means humble and curious, guided by our two principles. So let's imagine you're the supervisor, speaking to the person who missed the deadline. What could you say? It sounds like: "Can you help me to understand what happened?" "Can we look at this together and figure out what went wrong?" "What do you need from me/the team to help you deliver?" Adult mode asks open ended questions. Checks assumptions. Looks at the actual problem instead of defending territory. And it's hard, and I can hear you saying what if there's NOTHING, no single element of the way they see the situation that makes sense? I would encourage you to reflect a little deeper. At the very least, you couldn't acknowledge their feelings, their intentions and how the behaviours of others impacted them. It is understanding and empathy open up the opportunity to build deeper relationships.
The Practice
Here's what this looks like in action. When you get into a conflict—or when someone brings conflict to you—pause. Take a breath. Literally move to shift your perspective. Stand up. Expand your gaze to cover your peripheral vision. Change your physical position. This does something important: it interrupts your automatic pattern and creates space for choice. It activates your parasympathetic nervous system, and it shift you out of the fight flight freeze response by expanding your range of vision. Then remember: no situation is made up of just the facts. There is no way you're 100% right about this. That recognition—that humility—opens up space. From that place, get curious. How do they view the situation? Why do they think what they think? What is important to them about the situation? What percentage of what they're saying could be right? What parts of what they're saying do you actually agree with? Then tell them. Lead with what you can see from their perspective: "I agree that..." "Can you tell me a bit more about X? I think it's important..." "I think you make a good point when you said..." You're not conceding defeat. You're acknowledging the parts of their lens that overlap with reality as you understand it, and that this part should be acknowledged and, wherever possible, included in the situation. You're leading with curiosity and an intention to understand. What happens next shows others, through the Adult mode, that you are willing to give ground, that you are curious to understand more. When you demonstrate that you've actually heard them—the other person usually softens. And that's when you can ask collaborative questions that move toward resolution: "Based on what you've said, could we...?" "What would you suggest would resolve this?" "How do you suggest we move forward?" "I've got this idea—what do you think?" You've shifted from "who's right?" to "how do we solve this together?"
Why This Works
When you stay in Adult, something interesting happens: the other person usually follows. The temperature drops. Understanding rises. The conversation stops being a fight about who's to blame and becomes a collaborative effort to fix the underlying issue. This framework won't make conflict disappear. People will still disagree. Priorities will still clash. Resources will remain limited. But when you consciously choose your ego state, you take control of the one variable you actually own: how you show up. And in my experience, that single choice determines whether a conflict conversation becomes productive or just another exhausting standoff.
中文翻译
职场冲突管理：为什么你的“自我状态”很重要
我多年来避免冲突。然后我学会了面对它。这让事情变得更糟。第一种模式是这样的：有人说了我不同意的话，我会保持沉默。保持和平。保护关系。实际上发生的是怨恨——主要是我的——以及通过挑战成长的机会被错过。第二种模式看起来不同，但以同样的方式失败：我挑战观点，但只在我确定的时候。我建立了我的论点，测试了我的逻辑，磨砺了我的立场，直到它感觉牢固。这意味着当我发言时，我并不好奇。我在纠正。对方不是在提供一个视角——他们只是错了。两种方法都失败了。第一种缺乏勇气，第二种助长了傲慢。这是我学到的：当你以好奇心和谦逊引领时，冲突成为连接、生产力和忠诚的催化剂。
为什么冲突存在
简单的答案：一个情况不仅仅由事实构成。一个情况，在生活或工作中，由事实加上人们带入这些事实的历史构成。人们从过去经验中学到的心理模式以及对他们重要的故事都是情况的组成部分。以错过截止日期为例。那是事实。但A通过被不可靠同事辜负的历史来看待它。B通过长期资源不足部门总是延迟交付文件的经验来看待它。C通过承担太多并难以说不的模式来看待它。相同的事实。三个完全不同的情况。这就是为什么冲突是不可避免的。不是因为人们不讲理。因为人们把自己——他们的整个自我——带入每一次互动。这意味着他们带来他们的故事、偏见、价值观，这些各不相同且独特。他们的视角由生活经验构建。对他们来说是真实的。并且它塑造，通常字面上，他们看到的东西。当你展开它时，这意味着不可能100%的时间对情况100%正确。你的视角总是部分的，总是视角性的。总是通过你自己的历史、你自己的心理、你的恐惧、你的自我形象和你的欲望过滤。
从原则开始
要解决冲突，我们需要内化两个关键原则。第一：你有一个视角，其他人也有。对方的视角对他们来说和你的对你一样真实。忽视它不会让它消失。它只会让合作不可能。第二：练习谦逊。你不可能对情况的每个方面100%正确，因为情况不仅仅由事实构成，所以要好奇。愿意检查，你的观点中那5%或10%（或更多）可能是错误的？这种谦逊为你创造空间，邀请对方拥有他们观点中正确的部分。在冲突的迷雾中，进行感知检查。Karleen Savage建议你问自己：我是否允许他们拥有独立于我的故事？我是否愿意听他们的故事，不加我的添加、评判或防御？他们讲述的故事中哪些部分可能是真的？我在哪里以及如何创造空间让他们的故事成为解决方案的一部分？它可能看起来像：“你能帮我理解...吗？”“听起来你在说x，我理解对了吗？”“这是我认为我们同意的地方...”“我们能做什么来把它转向正确的方向？”“我在这情况中扮演了什么角色？”“这里双赢看起来像什么？”所以一旦我们带着好奇心倾向，我们就在为双赢创造空间。让我们想想当对话脱轨且利害攸关时，实际上发生了什么。
进入沟通分析心理学
我最近被介绍了Eric Berne的沟通分析心理学，它提供了一个很好的框架来理解为什么冲突产生和持续，我立即接触到了自己的版本。在对话的任何时刻，Berne认为，我们正在从三个“自我状态”之一操作：父母、成人或儿童。父母和儿童有两个维度，但下面我们将各关注一个：父母——规则、评判和“应该”的声音 成人——好奇、当下、谦逊 儿童——反应性、防御性、沮丧或讨好 当对话偏离时 这是Berne的研究建议的。当冲突升级时，通常有一个特殊的自我状态配置。父母-父母：双方都陷入评判、批评和责备。A，你怎么能错过截止日期，你应该更关心我们团队的声誉。B，你从未发送或设定明确的截止日期，你是经理为什么不能管理？A，你怎么敢这样跟我说话。两个“做事的正确方式”版本互相错过。没有好奇心。没有合作。只是相互评判。父母-儿童：这里我们看到责备遇到防御性，或者更糟，沉默的自我贬低。父母批评。儿童要么退缩到被动（“我想我只是不够好”），要么防御性地猛烈抨击（“你从不欣赏我做的”）。A，你怎么能错过截止日期你应该更关心我们团队的声誉。B，你总是挑我毛病Claire上周做了同样的事我没看到你挑她毛病。前者扼杀团队合作，后者可能升级为激烈冲突。回想你最近的一次争论。你能认出这些动态吗？你在冲突中扮演了批判性父母或防御性儿童的角色吗？两者都完全自然，但升级冲突。批判性父母用评判关闭对话导致怨恨。适应儿童要么退缩到被动，要么防御性地猛烈抨击。在这两种情况下，冲突背后的实际问题——需要修复的东西——被自我保护埋没。
成人状态优势
Eric Berne的工作是关于培养由成人代表的自我状态。当冲突来临时，有人以挑衅儿童或评判性父母的方式接近你，目标是让自己切换到成人模式，并邀请对方加入你那里。成人模式并不意味着无情感或临床。它意味着谦逊和好奇，由我们的两个原则指导。所以想象你是主管，对错过截止日期的人说话。你会说什么？听起来像：“你能帮我理解发生了什么吗？”“我们能一起看看并找出哪里出错了吗？”“你需要我/团队提供什么来帮助你交付？”成人模式问开放式问题。检查假设。看实际问题而不是捍卫领地。这很难，我能听到你说如果什么都没有，他们看待情况的方式中没有一个元素有意义？我会鼓励你反思更深一点。至少，你可以承认他们的感受、意图以及他人的行为如何影响他们。理解和同理心为建立更深关系打开机会。
实践
这是它在行动中的样子。当你陷入冲突——或当有人把冲突带给你时——暂停。深呼吸。字面上移动以改变你的视角。站起来。扩大你的视线以覆盖周边视觉。改变你的身体位置。这做了一些重要的事：它打断你的自动模式并为选择创造空间。它激活你的副交感神经系统，并通过扩大你的视觉范围让你摆脱战斗逃跑冻结反应。然后记住：没有情况仅仅由事实构成。你不可能100%正确。这种认识——那种谦逊——打开空间。从那个地方，变得好奇。他们如何看待情况？他们为什么这么想？情况中什么对他们重要？他们说的有多少百分比可能是正确的？他们说的哪些部分你实际上同意？然后告诉他们。以你能从他们视角看到的东西引领：“我同意...”“你能多告诉我一点X吗？我认为它很重要...”“我认为你说...时说得很好”你不是在承认失败。你是在承认他们视角中与你理解的重叠现实的部分，并且这部分应该被承认，并在可能的情况下包含在情况中。你以好奇心和理解的意图引领。接下来发生的事情通过成人模式向他人展示，你愿意让步，你好奇想理解更多。当你证明你实际上听到了他们——对方通常会软化。那时你可以问协作性问题，朝着解决方案前进：“基于你说的，我们能...吗？”“你会建议什么来解决这个？”“你建议我们如何前进？”“我有个想法——你觉得呢？”你从“谁是对的？”转向“我们如何一起解决这个？”
为什么这有效
当你保持在成人状态时，有趣的事情发生：对方通常会跟随。温度下降。理解上升。对话不再是关于谁该责备的战斗，而是修复潜在问题的协作努力。这个框架不会让冲突消失。人们仍然会不同意。优先级仍然会冲突。资源仍然有限。但当你有意识地选择你的自我状态时，你控制了你真正拥有的一个变量：你如何出现。根据我的经验，那个单一选择决定了冲突对话是变得富有成效还是只是另一个令人筋疲力尽的僵局。
文章概要
本文探讨了职场冲突管理，强调成人自我状态在决策中的关键作用。文章通过个人经历引入冲突的两种失败模式：避免冲突导致怨恨，以及过度自信导致傲慢。作者指出冲突源于人们带入事实的不同视角和历史，因此不可避免。为有效解决冲突，文章提出两个原则：承认每个人都有独特视角，并练习谦逊以保持好奇心。文章引入沟通分析心理学理论，解释自我状态（父母、成人、儿童）如何影响冲突动态，特别是父母-父母和父母-儿童模式如何加剧冲突。重点强调了成人自我状态的优势，即通过好奇、谦逊和开放式问题，将冲突从责备转向协作解决。实践部分提供了具体步骤，如暂停、改变视角和提问技巧，以激活成人状态。最后，文章总结成人状态能降低冲突温度，促进理解，使对话更富有成效，尽管冲突不会消失，但个人可以选择如何应对。
高德明老师的评价
用12岁初中生可以听懂的语音来重复翻译的内容：这篇文章就像在说，当你在学校或家里和别人吵架时，有时候你会不说话，有时候你会大声说“你错了”，但这样都不好。文章教我们，要像大人一样冷静和好奇，问问别人“你怎么想的”，这样大家就能一起解决问题，而不是一直吵下去。它用了沟通分析心理学，说我们有三种状态：像爸妈一样爱批评，像小孩一样爱生气，或者像大人一样爱学习。选大人状态最棒，能让吵架变少，合作变多。
TA沟通分析心理学理论评价：本文出色地应用了沟通分析心理学理论，特别是自我状态概念，来解析职场冲突。作者清晰地识别了父母、成人和儿童自我状态在冲突中的表现，如父母状态的评判性和儿童状态的防御性，这符合Berne的理论框架。文章强调了成人自我状态作为解决冲突的核心，通过好奇和谦逊促进协作，这体现了沟通分析心理学中“成人”作为理性、现实导向状态的价值。理论应用准确，没有偏离到其他心理学流派，专注于自我状态互动如何影响沟通和决策过程。
在实践上可以应用的领域和可以解决人们的十个问题：在实践上，成人自我状态决策可应用于职场管理、团队合作、家庭沟通、教育辅导、客户服务、领导力发展、冲突调解、个人成长、社区建设和心理健康促进。它可以解决人们的十个问题：1. 减少职场中的指责和防御行为，提升团队效率。2. 改善家庭关系，避免亲子或伴侣间的权力斗争。3. 增强学生在学习中的合作能力，减少同伴冲突。4. 帮助领导者在压力下做出更理性的决策。5. 促进客户服务中的同理心，解决投诉更有效。6. 在会议中引导讨论，避免陷入僵局。7. 支持个人在冲突中保持冷静，减少情绪化反应。8. 增强跨文化沟通中的理解，减少误解。9. 在社区活动中培养协作精神，解决分歧。10. 提升心理健康，通过成人状态减少焦虑和压力，促进积极互动。