© 2025 Luis A. Marrero, Boston Institute for Meaningful Purpose
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." —John 8:7, KJV
Abstract
This paper explores how the Drama Triangle model can elucidate interpersonal and organizational dynamics when an injury occurs, using a hypothetical case involving a racist joke in a professional setting. We integrate the logoteleological framework—prosocial behavior, safety, wellness, engagement, and prosperity—with forgiveness, gossip, and reconciliation theories. Lessons in sensitivity, discretion, and conflict resolution are offered to transform potentially destructive patterns into pathways for growth and organizational harmony.
“Many people have deep-seated convictions about this topic [forgiveness]. Very few are neutral when it comes to forgiveness. This point applies as much to researchers and practitioners as it does to the people they study and serve. Those who enter this field of study would do well to assess their own attitudes and values toward this construct before they take it on. Forgiveness cannot be studied with dispassion and complete objectivity. It can, however, be studied fairly if we are willing to recognize our biases and our values, if we are willing to put them to test, if we are willing to be surprised and learn from whatever the world has to teach us about this enigmatic yet utterly human process.” ~ McCollough, Pargament, and Thoresen (2000) ~
Introduction
Conflict and forgiveness are complicated and challenging subjects for many. However, they are very present in our lives and play a significant role in our ability to be at peace and well. This is true in all facets of life, including at work, which is my focus here. Conflicts often arise in the workplace due to insensitivities, misunderstandings, or personal biases and can be exacerbated by organizational dynamics. I will refer to The Drama Triangle—a conceptual framework identifying the roles of persecutor, victim, and rescuer—that offers a lens to explore these dynamics. I will also refer to the Empowerment Triangle and the Meaningful Path as preventive and remedial tools.
In this paper, I will use a hypothetical workplace scenario to analyze how these roles perpetuate conflict, the cascading injuries they cause, and the potential for reconciliation when viewed through a logoteleological framework. Logoteleology, emphasizing prosocial behavior, psychological safety, wellness, engagement, and prosperity, provides a roadmap for navigating these challenges and fostering a culture of forgiveness and growth.
The case presented involves Mary, Joe, Susy, and the Human Resources Department, each embodying the Drama Triangle roles in different stages of the conflict. This cascade of roles and reactions illustrates how mishandled conflicts can escalate into organizational and personal dysfunction. By integrating the principles of forgiveness and peace theories with logoteleology, this paper outlines practical steps for fostering understanding, discretion, and reconciliation in the workplace.
The Drama Triangle
Stephen Karpman, in 1968, developed the Drama Triangle, a psychological model that explains the dynamics of interpersonal conflict and dysfunctional relationships. It outlines three roles that people often unconsciously adopt in conflict situations:
1. Persecutor
Characteristics: Blames, criticizes, or oppresses others. The persecutor often uses power or authority to control or demean.
Behaviors: Aggressive, condescending, and rigid.
Underlying Motivation: A need to feel superior or in control, often masking insecurity or fear.
2. Victim
Characteristics: The victim often feels helpless, oppressed, or wronged and believes they have no power to change their circumstances.
Behaviors: Passive, dependent, and self-pitying.
Underlying Motivation: A need for attention, sympathy, or responsibility avoidance.
3. Rescuer
Characteristics: The rescuer intervenes to "save" the victim, often without being asked. The rescuer appears altruistic but may enable the victim's helplessness.
Behaviors: Over-helpful, self-sacrificing, and controlling.
Underlying Motivation: A need to feel needed or valued, which can lead to burnout or resentment.
Key Dynamics
Role Switching: Individuals can switch roles rapidly, perpetuating the conflict. For example, a persecutor may feel victimized if confronted, or a rescuer may become a persecutor if their help is rejected.
Cycle of Dysfunction: The triangle traps participants in reactive behaviors, preventing resolution or growth.
The drama happens at the unconscious level; thus, people are unaware of what they are doing and what is happening. However, by understanding these dynamics, we can take steps to be more genuine and authentic in the ways we manage conflict, forgiveness, and reconciliation. Let’s see an example of such dynamics.
A Comedy of Errors
We will start with a situation in which not-too-uncommon versions of it are plaguing organizations. As you read the case, you will appreciate the title.
During our imaginary interdepartmental meeting, Mary makes an inappropriate joke about members of a minority group. Joe is offended by Mary’s humor but keeps it to himself. After the meeting, Joe complains about Mary's inappropriate behavior to the Human Resources Department (HR). Given that it is against company policy to practice any form of discrimination, HR opens an investigation and interviews those present in the meeting. Verifying the offense, HR reprimands and gives Mary a written warning not to repeat the offense. Discussing the situation with the HR representative, Mary takes responsibility for her indiscretion and apologizes to the HR representative. She promises herself to learn from the lesson and not repeat the mistake.
Shortly thereafter, another team member, Susy, heard about Mary being reprimanded by HR. Susy told others what happened in the meeting and what ensued with HR. Mary wondered why the people were staring at and avoiding her. A close friend and confidant, Elmer, told Mary that Susy was spreading what had happened. Elmer also shared that Joe complained to HR. With anger and shame, Mary felt betrayed by both Joe and Susy.
Dissecting the Case
I will explain the situation through the lens and roles of the Drama Triangle.
· Mary (Persecutor) offends Joe
· Joe (Victim) is offended by Mary
· HR plays a legitimate role, but in the dynamic, it plays the role of Joe’s Rescuer and Mary’s Persecutor. Joe seeks a Rescuer to act on his behalf.
· Mary is Joe’s Victim, and thus Joe the Persecutor
· Susy becomes a Persecutor by gossiping.
· Mary is Susy’s Victim, and thus Susy the Persecutor
· Elmer Rescues Mary and becomes Joe and Susy’s Persecutor. Hence, Susy and Joe are Elmer’s Victims
Implications
The case presented involves Mary, Joe, HR, Elmer, and Susy, each embodying the Drama Triangle roles in different stages of the conflict. This cascade of roles and reactions illustrates how mishandled conflicts can escalate into organizational and interpersonal dysfunction. In this case, indiscretion and a lack of character and integrity are rampant. Reconciliation and goodwill will be difficult to achieve under these conditions. The situation promotes a lack of trust, impacting organizational cooperation and productivity (Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman 1995). Certainly, we do not see happy faces here or people on a growth path.
Breaking the Cycle
Edmondson (1999) introduced the concept of psychological safety as a critical factor in trust and cooperation. When psychological safety is low, individuals fear judgment, blame, or reprisal, challenging reconciliation and goodwill (Lewicki & Tomlinson, 2003). To break free from the Drama Triangle, individuals must step into a healthy alternative framework, such as the Empowerment Triangle (Emerald, 2006), where roles shift from:
Persecutor → Challenger: Assertive and constructive in addressing issues.
Victim → Creator: Takes responsibility and seeks solutions.
Rescuer → Coach: Supports others by fostering independence.
Applying it to the case study, actors could have approached the situation meaningfully.
· Mary could have been aware of the inappropriateness of the joke.
· After becoming aware of her error, Mary could have met with the team members to apologize.
· Joe could have coached Mary privately.
· Susy could have been more discrete and respectful of Mary and the disciplinary and private process. If she, too, had been offended by Mary’s remarks, she could have also coached Mary and offered her support in some way.
· Elmer could have coached Susy by making her aware of her indiscretion.
· As Mary did, Joe, Susy, and Elmer could own up to their respective roles and how they fed a negative spiral of errors.
Guided by the Meaningful Standard
Meaningful Purpose Psychology (MP), or Logoteleology, identifies Five Meaningful Life Strivings (Marrero, 2013. Marrero & Persuitte, 2022). We also call the strivings “The Meaningful Path.” These are five meaningful states that people seek. When we attain these five meaningful states, we thrive through them.
1. Prosocial (Love) refers to voluntary actions intended to benefit or help others. This can include a wide range of actions, such as sharing, comforting, counseling, and cooperating. Prosocial behavior is driven by empathy, moral values, and the desire to support social bonds and community well-being. It contrasts with antisocial behavior, which is aimed at harming or disregarding the welfare of others.
2. Psychological Safety (Peace) was popularized by Amy Edmondson, a professor at Harvard Business School. She defines psychological safety as "a belief that one will not be punished or humiliated for speaking up with ideas, questions, concerns, or mistakes." According to meaningful purpose psychology, prosocial conditions are a prerequisite to psychological safety (Marrero & Persuitte, 2022). In addition, psychological safety can be a critical factor in achieving peace of mind. When people feel safe to be themselves and express their thoughts and concerns, it reduces stress and anxiety, contributing to a more peaceful mental state.
3. Well-being (Happiness) and Wellness. Well-being includes an individual's overall experience of life satisfaction and happiness. It includes the presence of positive emotions, a sense of purpose, and the ability to manage stress and challenges effectively. Wellness is a holistic concept that refers to the overall state of well-being, encompassing physical, mental, emotional, and social health. It is more than just the absence of illness; it is about thriving in multiple aspects of life. According to logoteleology, a precondition to well-being and wellness is psychological safety first, followed by engagement and flow.
4. Engagement and Flow. Engagement refers to an individual's emotional and psychological investment in an activity or task (Kelder, van Zyl, & Ludden, 2020). It involves being actively involved, attentive, and motivated. Engagement can occur in various domains, such as work, education, hobbies, and social interactions. It is often associated with positive outcomes like increased productivity, satisfaction, and well-being. Flow, also known as being "in the zone," is a state of complete immersion in an activity. Coined by psychologist Mihaly Csikszentmihályi, (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975), flow is characterized by energized focus, full involvement, and enjoyment in the activity process. During flow, individuals often lose track of time and experience a deep sense of fulfillment. According to meaningful purpose psychology, a precondition to genuine engagement and flow is a state of contentment, well-being, and wellness. However, meaningful engagement can also contribute to happiness and well-being.
5. Prosperity results from the previous stages and states, where a foundational legacy of love, peace, happiness, engagement, and flow leads to and builds a positive legacy. The legacy includes an economic, spiritual, experiential, intellectual, and relational legacy.
Breaking the Cycle through The Meaningful Path as a Relational Standard
The Drama Triangle explained the apparent comedy of errors in our case study, and applying the Empowerment Triangle and The Meaningful Path could have prevented them. These two meaningful models are more than techniques. A spirit of intent, attitude, or life force wills them. In the shared situation, let us apply The Meaningful Path to Mary and her colleagues.
· All concerned could have been aware of and guided by prosocial values and belief systems. Following The Meaningful Path would not have broken the peace and psychological safety of others with a sensitive nature.
· Joe and Susy could have coached Mary privately. By this action, they would have shown Mary that they
o cared for her personal and professional success
o were willing to be supportive through advice, awareness of sensitive topics, and company policies.
o meant to be developmental, not critical or judgmental
o were willing to protect Mary's reputation
· HR could have coached Joe on how to talk to Mary about the situation before raising a formal complaint.
· Elmer could have coached Susy privately by making her aware of the impact of her gossiping on Mary’s reputation and the esprit de corps. It translates to "spirit of the group.” This phrase describes a sense of unity, camaraderie, and mutual loyalty among group members, denoting a strong sense of fellowship and shared commitment.
· Because the behavior was meaningless (rather than meaningful),
o the lack of concern for one another (being prosocial) yielded distrust and, hence, low psychological safety for some. Because it happened to Mary, it could happen to others.
o the absence of psychological safety (peace) counters the potential to enjoy going to work. It hampers wellness and well-being (happiness).
o feeling uncared for, unsafe, and unhappy becomes a distraction from being creative and productive.
o The distraction can have a detrimental effect on employee and organizational productivity.
The bottom line is that it is a lose-lose situation when the meaningful path is not followed. Following The Meaningful Path as a behavioral standard or guiding light would prevent the comedy of errors and create an opportunity to prevent and remedy them meaningfully.
Conclusion
In this paper, I used a hypothetical workplace scenario to analyze how the roles of Victim, Persecutor, and Rescuer (Drama Triangle) perpetuate conflict and the cascading injuries they cause. The Empowerment Triangle and The Meaningful Path models were presented as potential tools to prevent, reconcile, and develop all concerned. The logoteleological framework of The Meaningful Path, emphasizing prosocial behavior, psychological safety, wellness, engagement, and prosperity, provides a roadmap for navigating these challenges and fostering a culture of harmony and growth.
Early in the article, the quote states...
Forgiveness cannot be studied with dispassion and complete objectivity. It can, however, be studied fairly if we are willing to recognize our biases and our values, if we are willing to put them to test, if we are willing to be surprised and learn from whatever the world has to teach us about this enigmatic yet utterly human process.” ~ McCollough, Pargament, and Thoresen (2000) ~
We are all prone to making mistakes, and we can all contribute to meaningful problem prevention and resolution. We do this by paying attention to our values, beliefs, and what we attribute is true of ourselves and others. The Meaningful Path and the Empowerment Triangle are just two examples of many that are available to us. Both models are pro-meaningful. May we follow The Meaningful Path and be surprised by its blessings.
To learn more about Meaningful Purpose Psychology's practical approaches, please subscribe to our mailing list at the bottom of our main page: https://www.bostonimp.com/.
References
Bradshaw, J. (1999). Healing the Shame That Binds You. Deerfield Beach, FL: Health Communications.
Coleman, P. T. (2011). The Five Percent: Finding Solutions to Seemingly Impossible Conflicts. New York: PublicAffairs.
Edmondson, A. C. (2018). The Fearless Organization: Creating Psychological Safety in the Workplace for Learning, Innovation, and Growth. John Wiley & Sons.
Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999
Emerald, D. (2006). The Power of TED: The Empowerment Dynamic. Polaris Publishing.
Enright, R. D., & Fitzgibbons, R. P. (2015). Forgiveness Therapy: An Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Restoring Hope. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Karpman, S. (1968). Fairy tales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 39–43.
Lewicki, R. J., & Tomlinson, E. C. (2003). Trust and trust building. In E. H. Kessler & J. R. Bailey (Eds.), Handbook of Organizational and Managerial Wisdom (pp. 114–139). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
9. Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. Academy of Management Review, 20(3), 709–734. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1995.9508080335
McCullough, M. E., Pargament, K. I., & Thoresen, C. E. (Eds.). (2000). Forgiveness: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Neff, K. D., & Germer, C. K. (2013). A pilot study and randomized controlled trial of the mindful self-compassion program. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 69(1), 28–44. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.21923
Robbins, S. P., & Judge, T. A. (2018). Organizational Behavior (18th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Worthington, E. L., & Scherer, M. (2004). Forgiveness is an emotion-focused coping strategy that can reduce health risks and promote health resilience: Theory, review, and hypotheses. Psychology & Health, 19(3), 385–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/0887044042000196674
Opmerkingen