The Name Is Bond, Interpersonal Bond: On Couples Therapy, the Shame Compass, and Workplace Dynamics
Many managers and employees wish they were better at asking for what they need and listening to criticism. Doing so comes from a safe place of realistic confidence and healthy working alliances.
To enhance collaboration and relationships at work, it’s essential to grasp the intricate nature of interpersonal dynamics, embrace diversity, practice empathetic communication, and skillfully address conflicts.
Today, we report more stress at work, often from poor relationships or interpersonal problems that thwart our spirit and impact.
So, we decided to explore what we can learn from research on the interplay of attachment styles, interpersonal bonding, and shame from how relationship therapists help others 1) ask for what they want and 2) listen to criticism.
This is an abridged version of an August 26, 2023, article by Doctor Daven Morrison, MD, on lessons for the workplace from relationship therapists: asking for what you want and accepting critical feedback.
Please meet our workplace stress candidates.
Before we dive in, consider the following scenarios:
“Hey, just tell me what you want!”
An established regional manager, Trevor, and a rising young leader, Henry, are at an impasse. Henry is impatient with Trevor’s lack of clarity. To himself, Henry muses: “If only you would say what you want to have happen, I will do it.” But Trevor knows that setting the direction too clearly will remove the complexity and the challenge of solving the problem, undermining Henry’s development.
“Why doesn't anybody care but me?”
At a family practice, three physicians work in the facility in a staggered fashion, sharing staff and clinic space over the week. Sarah finds the staff discouraged, and shared spaces are often a mess. She tries to engage and psychologically support her discouraged staff throughout the day. As she does, the mood brightens, and her team typically jumps in with her to get the “shop cleaned up.” Privately, she wonders what’s happening when she’s not in the clinic.
“Can’t you see I’m drowning here!”
Tina had just made senior manager at her consulting firm. As she progresses, she struggles to get the people resources she needs assigned to her project. She is overwhelmed with inexperienced team members whose work is subpar and could, if unchecked, irritate the client. Up against time and deliverables, she often loses her temper, her team retreats, and she is ultimately removed from the project.
In each of these scenarios, there is frustration and disappointment caused by unmet expectations. But it is not about technical competence, external challenges, or lack of know-how, despite what it may seem.
The name is Bond, Interpersonal Bond.
All three cases are interpersonal problems. The fundamental challenges of working together or bonding explain them. Are they damaged goods? Should we terminate and rehire? No, with curiosity and experience, each of these “people” problems has the potential to be resolved in positive ways. This doesn’t mean there isn’t danger or risk. These are significant problems. They each have the potential to disrupt the relationships so severely that work will be negatively impacted or terminated.
Interpersonal relationships are inherently complex due to the interplay of various psychological, emotional, and social factors. Individual differences in personality traits, upbringing, and life experiences contribute to diverse perspectives and communication styles. We all come from different backgrounds, experience life differently, and rely on different coping mechanisms to deal with the world’s challenges.
When we add the dynamic nature of emotions into the mix, such as varying moods and sensitivities, the level of complexity increases as these factors significantly influence how people interpret and respond to each other.
Being seen and being included is at the core of working relationships. Power dynamics and strong emotions lie beneath exclusion and inclusion. Adding in the supervisor increases the complexity. Sarah creates a feeling of motivation that likely flows from a sense of connection and inclusion she generates when she is in the clinic. In contrast, Tina struggles.
Working in Hierarchies
Tina, Trevor, and Sarah all work in worlds with hierarchies. There are bosses and subordinates. The relationships are the source of hope and frustration. How each one fits in relationship to the boss is critical.
The Leader-Member Exchange (LMX) concept pertains to leader-team relationships in the workplace, suggesting that leaders often form distinct relationships with each member of their team, leading to the development of “in-groups” and “out-groups” based on the quality of these relationships. In-group members enjoy trust and receive more job resources, such as attention, support, and opportunities for career development, compared to members outside the group.
Now, everyone would love to be in-group, right? However, depending on an individual’s attachment style, patterns of relating to others formed in early life, the quality of LMX inevitably changes as well. Consequently, bond-forming behavior affects workplace productivity.
Attachment styles — secure, anxious, and avoidant — impact how effectively employees interact with their leaders and colleagues. Attachment styles also impact how we respond to stress, which can be corrosive to the best relationships at home and work.
Beyond the latest workplace tips on addressing motivation, crucial conversations, or team building, there is an essential general understanding of people who can help anyone at work diminish the distress in our three cases and others such as these. Clear and concise, this understanding helps us navigate effectively.
The predictable problem of unpredictability
To be as effective at mastering their world as they are (for example, adapting to complex technology), humans must work together. From unloading a truck at a distribution center to executing open heart surgery, our work is much easier — and often only possible — when we have help.
To get help, we need to be able to get along. To do that, we must be predictable and capable of recognizing the patterns in others. In other words, we must see how others are predictable. This comes from very early experiences in our lives, and some of us were fortunate enough to have caregivers who were predictable enough. Others had caregivers who were unpredictable and confusing or absent. There ranges correlate to our relative sense of comfort and security with others.
Lessons from nature illustrate how important a sense of connection is. If you have ever grieved, you can appreciate the sadness of an animal calling out for its mate and hearing no response. This is also true in the young and the vulnerable with a death: there is sadness on either side of the parent-offspring dyad who call out, and there is no response.
More mundanely, all of us can remember that moment of panic in a grocery store, at a restaurant, or in a mall where we could not see, feel, or hear our family. These alone moments can be terrifying for children at certain ages and all of us at certain times.
We know much more about healthy and unhealthy progression through school and social life and general happiness in adulthood.
Workplace relationships add layers of complexity. Individual combinations of personal and professional goals within a workplace can lead to conflicts of interest and divergent priorities. Hierarchies in organizations can also create power differentials that affect how individuals interact and communicate: rules and policies apply differently to those in power than those directly reporting to those in power.
Additionally, competition for resources and advancement can strain relationships and engender rivalries. Decision and monitoring rights can get confusing in teams.
Finally, we all work with different styles and have different preferences on how we collaborate and engage with others, and all of these differences affect how we interact with others and, ultimately, how we bond. Often we don’t focus on investigating with family and friends the provenance of our styles and stories about ourselves and others — perpetuating patterns of behavior and regretting outcomes at home and work.
One big (un)happy family
Understanding the interpersonal bond is actually a critical focus in one discipline: family therapy.
Family therapy is different than typical therapist-patient therapy. Much of the therapy language at work has come from this 1:1 relationship. Couples therapy explores the challenge of understanding two people in conflict. The goal lies not in supporting and helping one person to be stronger and more adaptive; the goal in therapy for couples (families and groups, too) is in the relationship: the interpersonal bond itself!
Recently, an accomplished clinician in couples therapy, Art Nielsen MD, put forth in a paper [1] the two most important challenges he has seen in couples over a career spanning four decades. They tie directly to the common workplace challenges seen in our cases:
1. How to ask for what we want
2. How to accept critical feedback
Both of these challenges of couples therapy are clearly evident at work — and the challenges get provoked in explicit and implicit ways.
The first might evoke asking for what you want, such as promotions, salary increases, and other benefits such as vacations or paid time off. But what else? Of course, we want promotions and raises. But what do they represent psychologically? Beneath the requests are things we want that cannot be measured, like belonging and respect. And this is what makes it hard to ask.
The second might bring up one of the perennial headaches is the performance review, which is unpopular with nearly everyone. Yet, despite the relatively frequent bestsellers demanding that performance reviews be eliminated, they will always be required for documentation for development and rehabilitation. One of the reasons why these conversations are dreaded is the fear of being rejected and feeling that we disappointed.
The fears — and shame — underneath it all
Clinicians identify four main factors that get in the way of our asking for what we need in a dyad:
Destructive fears — unspoken fears of an ask harming the other person undermine the asker with self-doubts, leading to the request being diluted or unspoken. Multiple studies have shown this is a more significant concern for women than for men.
Heightened sensitivity — in anticipation of past patterns recurring and not being rewarded as they feel they deserve, the asker sabotages by making a request in an offensive attacking manner. Then, the request is again diluted and has an insult within it. This leaves both sides hurt and disappointed.
Unexpectedly enraged — like tectonic plates that get stuck in their mind, when the moment comes to ask, the person flies into a rage because they cannot believe an ask must be made. Ironically, the critical emotion mismanaged here is not anger but rather shame (which we discuss below).
Emotionally blind — for those unaware or inattentive to the emotions in themselves or others, the ask can be awkward or even insensitive, unnecessarily provoking the other person.
There are several more of these examples. For the complete list, see his paper but for our purposes, recognize the essential elements of vulnerability and dependence provoked in asking. Emotionally, one of the most important dynamics to consider is the sense of self-esteem and its cousin, self-consciousness.
The Shame Compass
Navigating these two requires tolerance and mature management of the central emotion: shame. In one model of emotion, shame serves as a healthy and constructive signal. It is an internal signal that guides us. Shame serves an adaptive social purpose: giving clues as to whether or not we are included or about to be excluded.
One of the most practical models for understanding when shame is maladaptive is the shame compass [2]. The four points to the compass in Figure A directly correlate to not only the challenge of asking for what we want but also dealing with critical feedback.
If these are the maladaptive ways of managing shame, what are the adaptive ways? Lessons from couples therapy therapists can help us here as well. Nielsen talks about the importance of frustration tolerance as well as healthy self-esteem and a sense of capacity to self-validate. Being productive at work and having a healthy relationship with your supervisor and teammates reinforce this.
Another model developed by Jerry Lewis, MD, enables an audit of all interpersonal tandems. He followed couples from engagement onward. Those who formed strong families had shared characteristics [3]:
· Tolerance exists in both partners for time together and time apart;
· Conflict exists but does not become chronic;
· All emotions are fully expressed;
· Subjective reality is appreciated and respected;
· Power is shared; and
· Problem solving is highly evolved.
Although these may not all be possible in the workplace, they are important as they relate to appreciating the autonomy and separateness of the boss and the subordinate. These are also guidelines to help address when there have been problems. We can reflect on whether ignoring these factors led to the chronic problems in our cases.
When one reads the list, the idea that power is shared stands out. This is clearly not the case in structured hierarchical organizations. Or is it? Ask the local police chief or Public Works director whether they think they have the power or not. The wise leader will note: “it depends.” As the doctor appears to know, part of her ability to lead well is to appreciate that power is shared and that acknowledging the need and dealing with critical feedback will support her. What of Trevor and Tina?
The goal is always realistic confidence.
Let’s turn to self-esteem and consider how self-esteem exists on a continuum. There is low esteem and high. Either extreme can be a problem. A good manager would like the subordinate to be in a healthy range.
From the vignette, we might conjecture that Trevor is overconfident and Tina is more self-conscious. She might be on the left of the continuum in Figure B, while Trevor is more likely on the right. Individuals skewing towards humility may respond to reversals with depression, shame, and deed. Individuals at the other end of the continuum might tend to narcissism, arrogance, and egomania. Managers must help individuals move from the extremes to the safe/healthy zone with guidance from the shame compass in Figure A. If reports go too far on dismissing data, reign them with it. If they are too far in dismissal, share what’s good about them. [The concept behind the SHAPE is Setting Humility And Pride Effectively.]
If so, and revisiting the shame compass, Tina will be more likely to dismiss herself, and Trevor will be more likely to dismiss the data. Tina will be more withdrawn and diminutive, while Trevor will be more confident and aggressive (attack the other), or charmingly unaware (avoid). See Figure C.
Helping Others (and you!) “Get what’s wanted”
Work is not couples’ therapy. For example, it’s difficult to be candid in toxic environments, or even in more healthy ones, where the perception of organizational politics alters how safe people feel and how much honesty they perceive. However, it can be helpful to:
- See the emotions of asking as data (thinking beyond Emotional Intelligence) [4] and notice how and when our co-workers rally to do the common work together as the team did with Sarah.
- Be attentive to the emotions of shame behind the defensiveness. Often anger is met with reflexive mandates to “anger management” programs. This is a mistake as this mandate adds to the distress and shame, which are the emotions the person needs to understand better.
- Appreciate that fear may play a role. Given a larger organizational context can heighten distrust in organizations, the underlying fear in Tina and Trevor needs to be identified and managed.
- Understand that your style needs to be flexible. For Trevor, a manager might want to: 1) be clear that the clarity problem is Trevor’s to resolve; 2) encourage him to be more self-aware as it relates to his demands; 3) . be alert to his tendency to resort to charm and or change the conversation; and, 4) be prepared for him to be unexpectedly enraged. Tina’s supervisor might 1) encourage and support her interest and quality work; 2) reinforce her standards on behalf of the client; and, 3) help her refrain and refocus her requests for help and avoid negative self-talk and “destructive fears.”
- Consider how technology might be impacting bonding. Be aware that the absence of being in the room will make us vulnerable to being “Trevors” or “Tinas,” and imagine how hard it may be for them to articulate an ask in a fast-paced virtual world of text, email, slack, etc. Then, appreciate how they will not be ready to hear and much less incorporate negative feedback dispensed at a distance (“out of zoom, out of mind”).
As we return to our work lives, remember the shame compass. Think about what lies behind the behavior of the Trevors, Tinas, and Sarahs of the world and how to promote realistic confidence and healthy working alliances.
This post, written by Carin-Isabel Knoop, Daven Morrisson, MD, and Antonio Sadaric, Ph.D., builds on our August 3, 2023, post on the impact of mental health apps and our August 12, 2023 piece on how technological dependency and artificial intelligence affect empathy and connection.
Main references:
[1] Arthur C. Nielsen (2023) “Asking for things and listening to criticism: Two fundamental challenges in intimate relationships and targets for couple therapy,” Psychoanalysis, Self and Context, 18:2, 262–280, DOI: 10.1080/24720038.2023.2183209
[2] Nathanson D (1992) Shame and pride: Affect, sex, and the birth of the self. New York: Norton.
[3] Lewis, J (1979), How’s Your Family? A Guide to Identifying Your Family’s Strengths and Weaknesses. Brunner-Mazel.
