1. Analysis of the foundational research underlying the Egogram
The Egogram is grounded in Transactional Analysis (TA), a framework introduced by psychiatrist Eric Berne in the 1950s. Berne described human personality in terms of three ego states: Parent, Adult, and Child [1].

Building on Berne's work, his colleague John M. Dusay developed the Egogram in 1977 as a method for measuring the energy distribution across an individual's ego states [2]. The Egogram visualizes the following five ego states as a graph to analyze an individual's personality tendencies.

CP (Critical Parent): The critical, rule-enforcing dimension of the Parent
* In some texts, this is referred to as "Controlling Parent"
NP (Nurturing Parent): The caring, supportive dimension of the Parent
A (Adult): The rational, fact-based ego state
FC (Free Child): The spontaneous, expressive dimension of the Child
AC (Adapted Child): The compliant, socially adjusted dimension of the Child

The original Egogram involved intuitively drawing a bar chart to represent energy distribution across the five states. Over time, a quantitative approach was developed, giving rise to the questionnaire-based Egogram.

Questionnaire-based Egograms have also been developed in Japan. In the 1970s, Sugita et al. [3] and Iwai et al. [4] each created their own instruments. Among these, the Tokyo University Egogram (TEG), developed by Ishikawa et al. in 1984, is particularly well known and continues to be widely used in corporate training, psychological counseling, and medical settings [5].

Traditional Egogram assessments were designed without making a clear distinction between daily life and the workplace. In practice, however, many people behave differently in professional contexts than in their personal lives — consciously or unconsciously shifting their ego states in response to the situation. There were also concerns that when applying the Egogram in business contexts, the interpretations — being based on everyday life — were difficult to apply directly.

To address these limitations, we developed the Business Egogram: an instrument specifically tailored to professional settings, designed to clearly identify each individual's strengths and areas for growth at work.

Drawing on prior research, a team of clinical psychologists, certified public psychologists, and active business executives with knowledge of the Egogram collaborated to develop 10 questions for each ego state.

• 【CP (Critical Parent)】 The capacity for discipline and accountability
  • 1. I point out others' mistakes without hesitation when necessary.
  • 6. I consistently meet deadlines.
  • 11. I believe rules should always be clearly defined and followed.
  • 16. I always care about the quality of my work.
  • 21. I often find myself thinking "this is how it should be done."
  • 26. Once I commit to something, I see it through with a strong sense of responsibility.
  • 31. I tend to take a strong sense of responsibility for work I am trusted with.
  • 36. I hold firmly to my professional principles.
  • 41. I always notice when someone is not following the rules.
  • 46. I tend to feel frustrated by the way others work.
• 【NP (Nurturing Parent)】 The capacity to support and empathize
  • 2. I regularly check in with others to ask if they need any help.
  • 7. I think my facial expression is generally calm and approachable.
  • 12. I listen to others with genuine empathy and care.
  • 17. I listen empathically when colleagues share work-related concerns.
  • 22. I make a conscious effort to create an atmosphere where people feel safe to speak.
  • 27. Others often tell me I am easy to talk to.
  • 32. I offer words of encouragement to those who have made mistakes.
  • 37. I check in on others' wellbeing and physical condition.
  • 42. I pay close attention to how junior colleagues and subordinates are doing.
  • 47. I am attentive to the stress levels of those around me.
• 【A (Adult)】 The capacity for logic and judgment
  • 3. I analyze the causes of problems calmly and objectively.
  • 8. I make decisions based on facts rather than emotions.
  • 13. I can quickly come up with multiple possible solutions.
  • 18. I tend to think logically rather than emotionally.
  • 23. I actively seek out the knowledge I need for my work.
  • 28. I think through likely risks and scenarios in advance.
  • 33. I am able to explain things clearly and logically.
  • 38. I am good at persuading others.
  • 43. I am comfortable with numerical analysis and data processing.
  • 48. I weigh risks against returns when making decisions.
• 【FC (Free Child)】 The capacity for flexibility and creativity
  • 4. I feel excited by new work and challenges.
  • 9. I want to work in an environment where there is humor and lightness.
  • 14. I am able to stay positive and bounce back even after a setback.
  • 19. I find myself smiling often while I work.
  • 24. I approach my work with genuine curiosity.
  • 29. I am good at brightening the atmosphere around me.
  • 34. I enjoy generating ideas freely.
  • 39. I enjoy casual conversation and small talk with my team.
  • 44. I am drawn to work that involves variety and change.
  • 49. I enjoy work that brings me into contact with many different people.
• 【AC (Adapted Child)】 The capacity for adjustment and cooperation
  • 5. I often adjust my position to align with those around me.
  • 10. I tend to prioritize workplace harmony over my own opinion.
  • 15. I am content working without a managerial role.
  • 20. I prefer working as part of a team rather than independently.
  • 25. I sometimes hold back my thoughts even when I have something to say.
  • 30. I am always conscious of how I am perceived by others.
  • 35. In discussions, I tend to defer to the other person's opinion.
  • 40. I accept criticism even when it feels unreasonable.
  • 45. I sometimes apologize even when the fault is not mine.
  • 50. I usually stay quiet about my own opinions in meetings.

i. How Scores Are Calculated

Responses are recorded on a 3-point scale.

Yes = 2 points / Sometimes = 1 point / No = 0 points

Each ego state (CP, NP, A, FC, AC) consists of 10 questions, giving a score range of 0–20 per state. Scores are evaluated across the following three levels.

0–8: Low

9–14: Moderate

15–20: High

ii. How Types Are Determined

Each of the five ego states is rated across three levels (High, Moderate, Low), producing 243 possible combinations. From these 243 patterns, 31 distinct types have been identified. Each type has been given an accessible name, and the strengths and areas to watch — both within and outside the organization — are described for each.

• CP-Dominant　Specialist
• CP-Low　Flexible
• NP-Dominant　Empathetic
• NP-Low　Neutralist
• A-Dominant　Analyst
• A-Low　Intuitive
• FC-Dominant　Innovator
• FC-Low　Pragmatist
• AC-Dominant　Team Player
• AC-Low　Pioneer
• P-Dominant　Mentor
• P-Low　Risk Taker
• C-Dominant　Energizer
• C-Low　Advisor
• M-Type　Humanist
• W-Type　Strategist
• N-Type I　Supporter
• N-Type II　Backbone
• N-Type III　Smart Supporter
• Reverse N-Type I　Achiever
• Reverse N-Type II　Master
• Reverse N-Type III　Creator
• U-Type I　Executor
• U-Type II　Passionate
• U-Type III　The Helper
• Trapezoid I　Open Leader
• Trapezoid II　Confidant
• Trapezoid III　Creative
• Flat-Low　Consistent
• Flat-Mid　Balanced
• Flat-High　MVP

In addition to the type-based results, each ego state score is evaluated across five levels with an individual explanation of its characteristics. The criteria for each level are as follows.

Very Low: 0–7

Low: 8–10

Moderate: 11–13

High: 14–16

Very High: 17–20

For each level, strengths and areas to watch are described.

For each of the 31 types, the results include a description of approximately 2,000 characters covering key characteristics and areas to watch. These descriptions were developed based on prior research and the clinical experience of the authors.

This assessment has not undergone examination of its factor structure or statistical verification of reliability and validity. Please note that it is not an academically validated scale suitable for research or clinical evaluation purposes.

The following literature was consulted in developing this assessment.

[1] Berne, E. (1961). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. Grove Press.

[2] Dusay, J. M. (1977). Egograms: How I see you and you see me. Harper & Row.

[3] Sugita, M., et al. (1979). On the new Egogram Checklist (ECL). Journal of Transactional Analysis, 4(1), 28–40. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)

[4] Iwai, K., et al. (1977). Clinical application of the questionnaire-based Egogram. Journal of Transactional Analysis, 2(1), 3–13. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)

[5] Ishikawa, A., et al. (1984). TEG (Tokyo University Egogram): Manual. Kaneko Shobo. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)

Additional References

Shigeta, C. (2004). Build great relationships: A practical guide. Chukei Publishing. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)

Shigeta, C. (2003). The development and practice of Transactional Analysis in Japan. Kazama Shobo. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)

Stewart, I., & Joines, V. (1991). TA today: A new introduction to Transactional Analysis. (Trans. M. Fukasawa). Jitsumu Kyoiku Shuppan. (Originally published in Japanese translation.)

Dusay, J. M. (2000). Egograms: How I see you and you see me (Rev. ed.). (Supervised by Y. Ikemi; Trans. S. Niisato). Sogensha. (Originally published in Japanese translation.)

Tokyo University School of Medicine, Psychosomatic Medicine Department, TEG Research Group. (2006). New edition TEG II: Commentary and egogram patterns. Kaneko Shobo. (Originally published in Japanese; title translated by the authors.)