Why do I assume it's my fault whenever someone is upset at work?
Because you're running an old script called "I'm not OK — you're OK." It's one of four basic life positions people adopt, usually decided in childhood, that quietly filters every tense moment: there can't be anything wrong with them, so it must be me. The script isn't truth — it's a default setting you return to under stress. And it can be changed. The healthiest position, "I'm OK — you're OK," treats both of you as competent human beings: when things go wrong, nobody gets condemned; you acknowledge the problem and work through it. That single shift — from "whose fault?" to "what's the problem?" — is what stops upset customers making you feel bad about yourself.
The misdiagnosis: people treat the instant guilt as accurate perception — "I feel at fault, so I probably am." It's not perception. It's programming. The feeling arrives before any evidence does, which is exactly how you know it's a script and not a judgement.
The four positions
In my book Thriving Under Fire, I lay out the four basic life script positions, and you can hear each one in how people react to criticism:
I'm OK — you're OK. "There's a problem. Let's solve it, no matter how bad it is." No condemnation of self or other.
I'm OK — you're not OK. "If they can't appreciate good coffee, that's their problem." Nothing wrong with me; plenty wrong with the customer.
I'm not OK — you're OK. "I always get it wrong, especially with important people." The customer knows so much, so the fault must be mine.
I'm not OK — you're not OK. "Why do we even bother? They're just as screwed up as the rest of us anyway." Everyone's debased, including me.
If a customer's anger reliably makes you feel bad about yourself — even when you're doing your best to help — you've chosen "I'm not OK, you're OK" in that moment. Sobering to see. Changeable once seen.
Where scripts come from — and why they hold
These positions come from decisions made in early childhood, shaped by how much you were loved, encouraged and affirmed — or criticised, put down and blamed. Words did some of it; actions did more. And we hold the decisions so strongly for most of our lives because there was often hurt at the time they were made. That pain needs to be acknowledged, accepted and healed in some way before the decision can change.
Scripts are default settings: under stress, when you feel hurt, insulted or pushed, you snap back to them. In the book, a café owner describes exactly this — a rough evening at home where she could see herself blowing up, replaying her own father's stress reactions, and couldn't stop mid-flight. Two things helped her. First: for many people, just hearing themselves behaving like a victim or a critical parent is enough to prompt a shift. She caught herself out loud — "I don't want to be like this" — and the whole evening turned. Second, the longer arc: many past hurts heal within normal, everyday healthy relationships. Healing happens when we are loved and accepted by someone else — or when we make a new decision on our own and act on it.
Changing the setting
Three moves, none of them overnight:
Catch the script in the moment. The instant "it must be me" feeling is the tell. Name it: "There's the old script."
Answer it with the OK position. "I'm OK. They're OK. Something's gone wrong — let's solve it." Say it inwardly before you respond outwardly.
Don't panic about the past. You've lived a long time with these scripts and survived well. This isn't your life collapsing; it's a setting being noticed for the first time. Awareness plus repetition does the rest — and where the original hurt is heavy, a counsellor is a legitimate part of the toolkit.
And note the flip side: "I'm OK — you're not OK" feels stronger, but it's the same trap facing the other way. The armour of contempt costs you every relationship it touches. OK-OK isn't soft. It's the only position where problems actually get solved.
FAQ
Is "I'm OK, you're OK" just positive thinking? No — it's a working stance, not a mood. It doesn't claim everything is fine; it claims both people are competent to face what isn't fine. Problems still get named. People don't get condemned.
What if the other person really did behave badly? The position holds: the person is OK; the action is not OK. You can hold someone fully accountable for behaviour without demoting them as a human being — that's what keeps the conversation solvable.
Can I really change a script I've run since childhood? Yes. Awareness is the first mover — many people shift position just by hearing themselves mid-script. Deeper hurts may need acknowledging and healing, sometimes with support. The book's position is plain: the decisions were yours, and they can be re-made.
Why do I only collapse into self-blame with certain people? Because certain people — often confident, important-seeming ones — match the figures in front of whom the original decision was made. The script has a cast list.
Is "I'm OK, you're not OK" better at least for confidence? It feels sturdier and costs more. Contempt protects you from self-blame by spending trust, and teams and customers can smell it. It's the same fault-hunting game with the arrow reversed.
How does this connect to handling angry customers? Directly. From OK-OK, an angry customer is a competent person with a problem, and their anger is information — so you can acknowledge the emotion and solve the issue without either grovelling or hitting back. It's the stance underneath the APE Principle.
Key takeaways
Instant guilt is a script, not a perception. It arrives before any evidence.
Four positions: OK-OK, OK-notOK, notOK-OK, notOK-notOK. Only one solves problems.
Scripts were decided in childhood and defended by old hurt — and they can be re-decided.
Hearing yourself mid-script is often enough to shift position.
The person is always OK. The action might not be. Keep those separate and everything stays solvable.
Find where conflict is quietly costing you
Self-blame is one of the quietest drains there is. Measure it honestly — take the Leadership Energy Audit, and look closely at the identity strain area.
This post links up to the pillar: How do I overcome my fear of conflict as a manager?
John Faisandier is the founder of TUF: Thriving Under Fire and creator of the APE Principle. Since 1999 he has trained thousands of managers and frontline staff across New Zealand and Australia to handle emotionally charged situations at work. He is the author of "Thriving Under Fire: turn difficult customers into business success" and runs the Conflict Free Leadership program for managers.
