Complexities of personalities in working relationships
I’ve always been quite intrigued in human psychological factors at play in the workplace. Something that goes a bit deeper than simple personality labels. In particular, the dynamic between 1) myself as a ‘superior’ or line manager to the people I managed and 2) myself and that of my ‘superior’ or line manager. What’s driven this intrigue has been the thought that people are fundamentally complex, and not consistent – and seeing how this plays out in dreaded personal performance reviews. Different line mangers in different businesses had different views that did not correlate over time. And very rarely did I see a 360 review at play where the employee would assess their line manager. Is performance a one-way street? What if you thought your boss just really wasn’t superior? Maybe not quite a David Brent scenario but perhaps they had considerably less experience than you in certain facets. Performance reviews can be dangerous games all round and the worth of them must be questionable. You’re just as likely to develop a schism between two adults unless the relationship was a very good one to begin with. And that often depends on two personalities being compatible. It’s not as simple as measuring someone against a set of achievement-based objectives. You are essentially being judged on who you are by someone who is bringing certain psychological factors diametrically opposite to yours. I include myself when thinking about this as a manager and how tricky it has been to lead some very capable employees with some very tricky personalities. But that was just my view. No doubt theirs’ had a different take.
What makes a great boss?
When you think of great bosses that you have had down the years, what do you think are the leadership factors that made them great? Chances are that they (1) provided an invariably warm and supportive culture and (2) held high expectations for achievement while providing you with the support and coaching to do the job. If you fell short, you were probably coached without being shamed.
With that in mind how is it when I see many top company bosses, they are exactly the opposite of being a good line manger? The ones that make no effort to hide that they’re just not interested. The ones that bulldoze their way through people in their personal passionate march to the top and to get things done their way. Often leaving a wake of employee dissatisfaction and a culture of fear that is not exactly conducive to productivity. High flyers in organisations that have risen to the very top often appear as the archetypical Alpha types, with very high opinions of themselves and a lack of self-awareness. The types who have very high expectations and demand excellence but do not provide a warm and supportive culture. Or maybe you had a boss who was demanding and dictatorial, had a strong need to be admired and expressed strong disapproval toward others, while at the same time seeming erratic and anxious?
If we can take a dispassionate view as an outsider assessing the relational dynamics between personality traits, it might help us navigate the often-complex daily interactions we find ourselves in. Perhaps think yourself of the psychologist from Big Brother (if you remember that far back) assessing dynamics between individuals. It may help in fostering a better relationship whether upward or downward. There are certain psychology studies and tools that help in this regard. It was in this search to understand human psychology in the workplace that I came across attachment theory.
What is Attachment Theory?
Attachment theory was originally developed for understanding how children respond to their parents. This was extended in the late 1980s to explain all kinds of adult relationships. Psychologists are now exploring how it shapes our interactions in the workplace, as well as our attitudes to certain responsibilities.
There are four attachment styles. 1) Secure 2) Anxious-preoccupied 3) Dismissive-avoidant and 4) Fearful-avoidant. These styles reflect deep personality factors…the foundations on which thoughts, behaviours, and interpersonal relationships are built.
1. Secure
Those with the ‘secure’ style, tend to have a more stable sense of self, because during their childhood, their world was experienced as a ‘safe’ place. In the workplace, someone who is secure in their attachment will be comfortable managing their own time and won’t hesitate to come forward for help when they need it, rather than putting the head down and battling on through something challenging.
2. Anxious-preoccupied
The second style, ‘anxious-preoccupied’, describes someone who might be overly concerned what other people think about them. Those who might come across as defensive or guarded, due to their anxiety. This type of attachment can cause work-life balance to suffer, as it can lead to behaviours such as being unable to switch off outside of working hours due to concerns over performance. Some people with an anxious-preoccupied attachment style might place all their value in their performance, and so they might tie performance to their sense of self or self-esteem in terms of how others perceive them.
3. Dismissive-avoidant
The third attachment style, ‘dismissive-avoidant’ describes someone who holds themselves in high regard, but pays little consideration to others. These people have an extremely high level of independence, which can come across as arrogance, aloofness, and even an attempt to avoid people. They may struggle with emotional balance, and may not welcome feedback or changes to the workplace. These individuals will be less inclined to ask for support when needed. They’d rather doggedly keep going at something rather than asking for help.
4. Fearful-avoidant
The fourth attachment style, ‘fearful-avoidant’, tend to view both themselves and others around them in a negative light. Defensive, and unlikely to welcome working with others they’re more unlikely to easily form useful work allies.
Recognise your attachment style?
We may be able to recognise ourselves in this style matrix – as well as others that we manage or who manage us. How we combat these styles where they form strained relationships is for another day and blog post. It’s a complex minefield and certainly not my topic of expertise. I’m sure there are many other psychology theories and behavioural biases at play in any one work relationship moment. But it’s certainly helpful to be aware of why other individuals might be the way they are. And that your perception is not the reality. Which brings me back to those dreaded personal performance reviews. Is there not a better way of developing better and more productive relationships? Certainly, for managers, the onus is to ensure the recruitment process manages to get the right person and relationship fit in the first place.
[end]