To Be Met as a Person at Work

The Effect of Early Attachment Experiences on Work Relationships

Nicola Neath, Una McCluskey

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2018
• Topic: Psychology
• eBook ISBN:
  9780429674716
• Subtopic: History & Theory in Psychology
• Index: Psychology

This book provides an account of how the "Theory of Attachment-Based Exploratory Interest Sharing" (TABEIS) and the practise of Goal Corrected Empathic Attunement (GCEA) was used in a university setting to support staff. It works in three ways; firstly, it raises attachment theory, one of the pillars of self-understanding, into a central place in terms of reflecting on and learning from the dynamics of business and organisations. Neath explores how well this attachment theory sits with other theories of self and relationships such as transactional analysis and the person-centred approach.Secondly, it is an account of how Neath took an application of McCluskey's theory "The McCluskey Model for Exploring the Dynamics of Attachment in Adult Life" to the University of Leeds, with learning points made along the way, exploring the practise of a therapeutic-style of group facilitation, and reflection on good practice for professional adult learning and teaching techniques. Thirdly, it acts as a handbook for anyone wishing to replicate Neath's work and includes feedback from participants both during and after the training process. It will appeal to those new to training, counselling, organisational developers and those wishing to enjoy and see the potential of the work of McCluskey.

Chapter 1
The application, theory and why try it

Exploring the dynamics of attachment and their effect on wellbeing and creativity at work

McCluskey’s hypothesis is:

If careseeking is effectively regulated through an interaction with an exploratory caregiver this can then promote the exploratory system in that person.

My aim was to explore whether leaders, managers and employees could become interested in the underlying dynamics of the way in which they behave towards other people when they are under stress or frightened. Also, I was curious if they would become interested, and curious about themselves, in how they respond when others approach them in fear-driven or stressed states.

Outline of the Theory of Attachment Based Exploratory Interest Sharing (TABEIS) in the workplace

This theory offers a framework to explore the notion “that as a matter of course we all work in jobs that require us to respond to the needs of others, have our own needs, and often don’t create the conditions to support our own personal and psychological development” (McCluskey and Gunn, 2015).

According to attachment theory (there will be more description of the development of attachment theory later in this chapter), experiences of careseeking and caregiving have their roots in infancy and shape our expectations and responses to careseeking and caregiving in adult life. My project was to explore how these manifest themselves in our working patterns and relationships. Heard and Lake developed a theory based on our biology about what enables wellbeing, and they constructed the idea of a restorative process which becomes active when faced with a threat to our survival or perceived survival. My plan was to use the theory that they had developed of attachment based exploratory interest sharing (TABEIS), subsequently applied and operationalised by McCluskey. At the heart of McCluskey’s work was the process of goal corrected empathic attunement (GCEA) (McCluskey, Roger, and Nash, 1997; McCluskey, 2005; McCluskey, 2005a). If we regulate our affect, the systems of careseeking and caregiving can be appeased and leave us biologically and emotionally more equipped and free to work and communicate well with our peers. McCluskey’s research provided some support for Heard and Lake’s understandings of biologically based goal corrected interpersonal systems. The work that McCluskey asked those who came on her courses to do was to consider these ideas in an exploratory way. To explore is to wonder (and to wander), not to judge or criticise, not to diagnose but rather to find what is there to find. Clearly the terms “careseeking” and “caregiving” were going to arouse some reactions in a work setting but I decided to deal with those as they arose.

The theory suggests these systems work together as a single process to contribute to and maintain maximum wellbeing (McCluskey and Gunn, 2015). By taking this into the workplace I was asking participants how they saw this theory and this approach applying to them at work, and indeed if they could.

We know working with others can be a scary business; our competence, and our skills in role and with each other are constantly put to the test. We bring with us our unique histories, myths and family structures. Sometimes this causes great disturbance in our “selves”, our bodies and our minds. We may not recognise our own needs, and we may not tune into the way we impact upon the needs of others. Left uncared for too long, unassuaged needs push us to the brink of fear. We fear for our survival (this might mean losing our job), we may over or under compensate for the situations in which we find ourselves. We may get caught up in dominant/submissive dynamics in relation to colleagues, team members and those for whom we are responsible. We may work too hard, or not enough. We may find ourselves going around in circles spending hours not achieving very much. We may become ill and forced off work, or become ill and remain in work. Both absenteeism and presenteeism are challenging features of the modern workplace. Our ancient systems trigger ancient responses, our past haunts us in the present, and our natural fear hinders us because we don’t know how to heed it anymore. If we can consider these biological systems and catch the unassuaged needs before they trigger fear we may help each other stay healthier in work, or go appropriately off work for recuperative periods of time to heal and recover in order to get back into the fray.

This pilot was pitched at certain potential participants selected by my training colleague, to avoid unconscious bias on my part. It was pitched to help participants consider various factors which affect performance and their own wellbeing; to consider the way they worked with others through a new lens, offering a different way to review their impact on their immediate teams and stakeholders, and on the organisation, and vice versa.

It was delivered as a collaborative learning opportunity; collaborative in that each person’s contribution was recognised as valid and important, each person’s exploration offering the potential of learning for others. For instance, asking the questions: am I the same as or different from someone else, and in what ways? What might this mean for me? A chance to bring real case studies under a new scrutiny and develop reflective practise skills, providing a fresh way to think about their own needs and expectations. For McCluskey and I, a chance to get a fresh look at the hypothesis and our thinking.

We were clear this pilot was a further development of the approach taken by the staff counselling and psychological support service using different psychological perspectives to enhance professional work and leadership skills. So, it had a broader frame within which it could comfortably sit.

Recruitment involved me meeting with each of the participants to give a brief outline of the McCluskey approach. I explained the organisation had an internal staff counselling and psychology support service, which could be accessed to support participants should the process cause any unhelpful emotional or psychological disturbance. I explained while the systems were to be presented in a group setting it was not group therapy. This is also the way McCluskey describes her work, as “courses” not therapy. It is however evident to McCluskey and myself that these courses nevertheless often seem to have developmental impact which may include therapeutic effect; either way having a positive effect on how they manage their relationships. After recruitment was completed the course was delivered to nine participants over nine sessions of two-hour group meetings over the period of time between April and October 2015.

Group structure

Recruitment of participants was conducted by working closely with a colleague from our Organisational Development and Professional Learning unit (OD&PL). This colleague circulated the outline of the course to various members of staff, but actual participation in the group was by my invitation. I asked all interested participants to commit to all the group sessions, and I asked them to be willing to provide review and feedback of the course after its completion.

I organised meetings or phone calls with each participant individually first before we started. This introductory contact was an opportunity for me to outline the intentions of the course and gauge their fit for it. They got to meet me and ask preliminary questions. The final nine were selected through these conversations. Attachment work is relational, therefore, it seemed only fitting to start on a relational footing. The group met for nine sessions with as many participants as were able to attend on each date. Sessions were mainly at no more than two week intervals; however, I made a mistake by not having all the dates set at the outset. When we tried to set the outstanding dates, congested diaries meant some sessions had greater gaps between them than I was really happy about, but these pragmatics impacted upon the planning. This become the first learning point, it is a simple one and I would have fared better to have remembered it (LP1) – it is much easier to have all dates set prior to the course commencement. Different intervals between sessions have different impacts – at two weeks it feels very much like a structured taught course, more than two weeks moves the experience toward a more reflective practice/action learning set nature. The longer gaps also required greater work from the participants to hold the new model in their minds, not conducive to application at this early stage. In hindsight, having established a strong connection with the participants compensated for my mistake in some ways as they were willing to be as flexible as they could to attend. To rerun this without such a connection could easily reduce attendance. I initially set up a system to bring anyone who missed a session up to date by inviting them to a one-to-one session with me. Whilst this offered them a good chance to gain the didactic input it became evident from the pilot that actually the group and shared learning was more important to the participants than just having didactic input from me. This became LP2 – participant application and exploration in group and cross learning gave the course greater impact than just my teaching and coaching. Additionally, it offers us here a parallel bit of application; if the number of people requiring one-to-one became overwhelming, I would have struggled, which would not have been good modelling of caregiving to myself.

Session one was designed as an opportunity to meet each other as equals interested in the course, to consider what they would like to get from it and what the plan of the next sessions would be. In principle, it was deliberately not for people to ferret out how important they were in the organisation by dropping in job titles, thus avoiding activating a fear-driven dominant/submissive culture from the outset. I explained this directly to them. I asked they respect the approach and not head off after the session to find out who they all were. I couldn’t guarantee they weren’t guessing or already familiar, of course, but they certainly appeared to be respecting this principle. This is a principle used in the McCluskey approach which I happily replicated. However, it aroused their curiosity as most of my participants were used to presenting themselves as their roles not as themselves. The session also functioned to outline the rules and boundaries of the course, the history and genesis of the theory and an outline of the remaining sessions and the session structure. This included explaining the reflective activities I was asking them to complete in between sessions.

Sessions two to eight: each session focused on one of the biological systems involved in the instinctive restorative process (as defined by Heard and Lake), the subjects of: careseeking, caregiving, sexuality, exploratory interest sharing with peers, the personal system for self-defence, the internal supportive or unsupportive environments and the personally-created external supportive environment (home/lifestyle). In each of these sessions participants had an opportunity to review their progress, a short didactic input from me on the biological system to be explored, with time put aside for discussion of their observations and their integration of these ideas at work. Specific time to identify what people were learning, discovering and applying to their own ways of being, operating, thinking and feeling, was allocated in every session; this is a key aspect of the McCluskey approach.

Session nine was a summary session, reflecting on the course impact, on themselves, their teams, their ways of working and was very important for managing their wellbeing. It became a summary stop in what turned out to be an ongoing process, and the review was also an opportunity to establish if there was an interest in any rolling ongoing activity for the group.

I will explain each session in detail later in the book.

The theory

In an evolutionary, heritage or genealogist type of style, McCluskey and other attachment practitioners seem to take considerable pride in making explicit the legacy of the development of the theory where other psychological theories may only reference and nod to the key figures. One of the advantages of paying detailed homage to the minds that have gone before is that you make explicit the splits in theoretical development and you can bring the theory right up to date in the room with the people who are your collaborative pioneers. This is a wonderful way to help people take ownership of their place and inventiveness in the development of thinking (LP3). Whether this is done deliberately or not it has powerful impact, as it locates the work we do together in the thinking and the ongoing genesis of attachment theory. I was also operating in a knowledge economy, where legacy and clarity are currency.

However, whilst it might be possible to reference every great mind that has contributed to the evolving form of attachment theory, we are not going to do so here in this book: it has been laid out explicitly elsewhere in other texts for that purpose. I realise this may upset some readers who might feel especially bereft without more reference to say, Freud. Certainly, no offence is intended here but we really do wish to give the time and space to this application and therefore to references that most apply to this application.

As an integrative practitioner and philosopher, I do not see the thinkers below as the only great contributors who have had impact on attachment theory. However, I hoped that understanding the particular impact of some of the figures, ones that made particular landmarks, could give my participants structure and landscape to this theoretical history.

Based upon what I have learnt from my own study and my work with McCluskey, I introduced this theory by headlining a few key figures. Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) developed ideas about self (Freud, 1923). Charles Darwin (1809–1882) developed ideas about the evolution of systems to deal with the world and hierarchical pecking orders (Darwin, 1859). In the 1930s Human Ethology is developed by Irenäus Eibl-Eibesfeldt, who considered the study of human adaption, survival, character and its formation (Keller, Scholmerich and Eibl-Eibesfeldt, 1988). I didn’t talk about, but should have also mentioned these next three influential scientists, my thanks here to Butler who kindly reminded me they should be included. Walter Bradford Cannon (1871–1945) published his book “The Wisdom of the Body” describing the fight or flight response in 1932. The fight or flight response is our autonomic instinctive biological response to real or perceived threat (explained in more detail in Chapter 6). It is typified by a burst of adrenaline, causes psycho-physiological change and the experiences of anxiety through to terror in mobilised or immobilised manifestations. Cannon built upon the notion of an “inner world” coined by Claude Bernard (1813–1878). Bernard theorised that body systems function as they do to maintain a constant internal biological environment – which he called the “milieu intérieur”. Both scientists expounding the then revolutionary idea that our bodies self regulate. It was Cannon who consequently encapsulated this idea in the term “homeostasis” in a paper he produced in 1929 called “Organization for Physiological Homeostasis”. Homeostasis is recognised as the ability of our bodies to organise themselves to maintain an equilibrium. And we should also wish to include Aristotle (384 BC–322 BC) and his earliest ideas on perception and a concept that the whole may be greater than the sum of its parts.

William Ronald Dodds Fairbairn (1889–1964), a Scottish psychiatrist and psychoanalyst brought explorations of our intent to form supportive relationships born with components of personality hotwired in (Fairbairn, 1952). He expanded notions on splitting, defence and repression from early hurts, ego and self-to-self as well as self-to-other (objects theory). He theorised that our primary motive was to form supportive relationships; this was a key difference to Freudian theory at that time. John Macmurray (1891–1976) contributed ideas about the essentially relational nature of human beings. Thomas Kuhn (1922–1996) influenced by, amongst others, the philosopher Ludwig Wittengenstein, made some excellent elucidations on the nature and cause of paradigm shifts. Relevant here are aspects of his work that included exploration and statements about how paradigms become a dominant frame through which we make sense of the world. These paradigms often then become self-referencing theories; theoretical revelation and shift occurs when perception, experience, and cognition of anomalies drive forward the motivation to form a new paradigm (Kuhn, 1962).

John Bowlby (1907–1990), a psychiatrist asked by the World Health Organisation in the 1950s to look at how to support children affected by homelessness because of World War II – stated that adult mental health was adversely affected by separation and loss in childhood, through his work he deduced that we have two instinctive complimentary goal corrected systems. These systems, amongst other functions, enable affect regulation.

Mary Ainsworth (1913–1999) worked with Bowlby, and expanded the knowledge of place and sense of security as essential for survival, exploration, and play. It was Ainsworth who brought the notion of security as a secure base to Bowlby; this is often attributed to Bowlby who of course used the idea. It was Ainsworth who brought the idea from a hypothesis presented to her by her lecturer Blatz (1940). Both Ainsworth and Bowlby could instantly see the biological and emotional sense in the hypothesis of a secure base being needed before an infant moved into exploration.

We will come back to some of these philosophers, practitioners and theorists later on in the book.

The birth of goal corrected empathic attunement (GCEA)

Brian Lake (1922–2007) qualified in medicine, and later in life worked as a psychiatrist and psychoanalytical psychotherapist. During the 1950s he was employed as ship’s doctor on the RMS Queen Mary sailing from Southampton to New York City. On board, he developed an acute interest in the internal organisation of the ship in terms of crew and passengers and seriously began to study, at first hand, organisational dynamics. When the volume of passenger travel changed from sea to air in the 1960s Brian left the Cunard Company and joined his brother Frank, also a psychiatrist, who had established the Clinical Psychology Association (CPA). This was a massive movement within the Church of England aimed at introducing clergy to insights from psychology. Brian parted from his brother when Frank began to move into more controversial practises which Brian felt there was less evidence for at that time, such as birth trauma. This was very new territory. Instead, Brian sought analytic experience and training for himself from the p...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• List of figures
• About the authors
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction: exploring the dynamics of attachment and their effect on wellbeing and creativity at work
• 1 The application, theory and why try it: exploring the dynamics of attachment and their effect on wellbeing and creativity at work
• 2 Introducing GCEA and TABEIS for the workplace
• 3 The session structure
• 4 Careseeking
• 5 Caregiving
• 6 Self-defence and fear
• 7 Interests and interest-sharing with peers
• 8 Sex and sexuality in the workplace
• 9 The internal environment
• 10 The external environment
• 11 Final session, review and the application in practise
• 12 Conclusion to the pilot
• 13 Feedback from participants and what happened next
• 14 The integrated person: theories of people at work
• Appendices
• References
• Index