Back in the late 1950s, Eric Berne introduced a model that suggests each of us operates from three ego states: Parent, Adult, and Child (PAC). These ego states surface in different situations and are influenced by how others present their own PAC states in response.
In an age of increasing AI use for creating sales collateral, leveraging a PAC transactional model can help create more effective sales environments. Especially ones where human nuance still outperforms automation.
Why adult‑to‑adult interactions matter most
Ideally, the transaction between someone selling an MSP service and someone looking to buy it should remain a continuous Adult‑Adult interaction. In this mode, information is shared factually and respectfully, without talking down to the buyer or trying to BTWB (baffle them with bullmanure) through overly technical language the seller knows the buyer will struggle to understand. That kind of approach may be intended to signal expertise, but it often erodes trust instead.
That said, Adult‑Adult communication is not always possible. Buyers may be unaware of key aspects of the services being offered, and the seller may need to step briefly into a Parent role to educate them in a supportive and constructive way. When this happens, the interaction temporarily becomes Parent‑Child, but it should return to Adult‑Adult as soon as possible.
It’s worth noting that an Adult‑Child interaction—where the seller speaks in a directive, authoritarian tone (“You will do this”) rather than a collaborative one (“Why don’t we try this approach?”)—is far less effective and often counterproductive.
Understanding the positive and negative sides of each persona
It’s acceptable for a buyer to occasionally drop into the positive aspects of the Child persona, especially when asking for clarification in areas where they lack experience. However, the seller must never enter the Child persona themselves. When a seller needs information from a buyer, it should always be handled in Adult‑Adult mode. Questions should be clear, purposeful, and appreciative, with thanks given when details are clarified.
During Adult interactions, sellers must also be willing to acknowledge when they are wrong. Transparency matters. If an error affects the deal, the seller should follow up promptly with corrections and any additional context needed.
Each ego state has both positive and negative expressions. The positive Adult is calm, logical, and responsive, listening carefully and contributing information that moves the discussion forward. The negative Adult shows up as dismissive or evasive, hiding behind phrases like “You wouldn’t understand” or “Trust me, I know what I’m doing” to avoid providing details or admitting uncertainty.
The Parent ego also has two sides. Positively, it reflects a genuine desire to support the buyer by ensuring they have all the information they need and by expanding the conversation into areas they may not yet have considered. Negatively, it becomes controlling, limiting the buyer’s input or pushing the seller’s agenda at the buyer’s expense.
There is very little upside for a seller operating from the Child persona. While the Child represents creativity, spontaneity, and enthusiasm at a psychological level, those traits rarely serve formal buyer‑seller negotiations well. In limited social settings, some elements may surface appropriately, but only if they align with the buyer’s behavior. A Child‑Adult interaction can quickly derail a deal entirely. On the negative end, the Child persona appears unfocused, disruptive, and unable to follow through.
Adapting to buyer behavior in real time
Most buyers are not aware of PAC transactional analysis, nor are they consciously choosing which ego state they are operating from at any given moment. The seller’s skill lies in recognizing the buyer’s current state and responding with the most effective persona.
As emphasized earlier, Adult‑Adult interaction should be the default. If a buyer slips into a positive Child mode, a brief and supportive use of the Parent persona can often guide them back to an Adult mindset. A negative Child response from the buyer, however, is far more problematic. This is similar to the “terrible twos” in children, where logic disappears and resistance takes over. In these situations, the best choice is often to pause, disengage, and revisit the conversation later.
Sellers should also avoid triggering the buyer’s Parent mode. When a buyer moves into Parent behavior, it typically signals that the seller has mishandled the interaction and the buyer is stepping in to compensate or “manage” the situation.
A Child‑Child interaction is almost always disastrous. Even when it’s positive on both sides, no real decisions are made and progress stalls. In the worst case, negative Child‑Child, the relationship devolves into something resembling a schoolyard argument. The only real “winner” is the sales manager who gets to intervene afterward.
Human sellers still have the edge
AI will likely continue to struggle with these nuanced, real‑time human interactions for some time. Sellers who rely solely on AI‑driven sales approaches may find themselves at a disadvantage. Those who understand and apply the PAC model thoughtfully can gain a meaningful edge.
This article offers a simplified view of Berne’s broader framework. For readers interested in exploring the model more deeply—including Berne’s breakdown of each persona into its own Parent, Adult, and Child subdivisions—I recommend his book What Do You Say After You Say Hello?
Photo: New Africa / Shutterstock
This post originally appeared on Smarter MSP.
