Attachment: What’s it got to do with leadership?

I promised last week I’d share some of my previous work around attachment and why I think it’s a relevant point of reflection for leaders so I’m sharing an excerpt from my 2022 book ‘Leading Mindfully for Healthy and Successful Schools: Beyond the Traditional and Progressive Divide’

The Missing Link 

My teacher training spent plenty of time preparing me to deal with challenging behaviour. As a cohort we perversely- and sometime competitively- celebrated horror stories of who had suffered the most abuse at the hands of their students. In contrast to a mental health or social work training, this education provided little space or guidance to explore what the impact of this might be on our own wellbeing. Nor did it support us to understand how our own vulnerability might affect what happened in the classroom. Phillip Riley suggests that this is not unique to my experience, “experienced teachers know the power of these emotions in the classroom, but they are usually overlooked in teacher education courses”. He does on to say that “without an understanding of the raw emotions involved in teaching and adequate training in how to look after oneself and the students during moments of intensity, teachers are placed into intensely emotional environments ill equipped”​ (Riley, 2011, p. 324)​. 

It was not that there was a lack of preparations on relationships per se, much guidance was given on how to build relationships with students. It was just that this mostly involved how to engage with them around their interests, an approach that now seems rather short-termist. Introducing, for example a creative writing activity on Love Island or discussing the Arsenal result, rather than using the joy of the subject as a gateway to a shared passion. Nonetheless, I would argue that the real omission was that relationships were conceived of in a unidirectional way. That is, that the focus was getting the child ‘on board’, as opposed to actually relating to them. Moreover, what I as an individual brought to the table was considered irrelevant.  

Parker J. Palmer, a teacher and author, suggests that this way of thinking is a result of a bias in western thinking, which reduces teaching to a transactional and intellectual process ​(Palmer, 2017, p. 96)​. That is, learning it is something that teachers do to students rather than that they create together. Like Riley he suggests that the teacher- student relationship is dydadic. That is that it flows two ways. If we are willing to look at our own experience of relationships in the classroom there is a chance to gain self-knowledge and enrich the experience for both the student and the teacher. This work required to ‘know thyself’ is neither fluffy nor narcissistic but will serve us and our students well ​(Riley, 2011)​.  

I am not suggesting that the role of the teacher or leader is the same as that of their students. Teacher expertise and authority are vital. And I do not mean that teachers are responsible for students’ behaviour. Much of what happens in the classrooms is influenced by the culture and expectations of the school and the wider world as well, of course, the individual choices of the students. We can acknowledge that we as teachers bring our moods and experiences into our work and that this affects the nature of our relationships, without holding ourselves solely responsible. At times thinking gone too far on this. Unchecked, student centred approaches can disempower students and lead to unrealistic expectations of teachers. Some excellent work has been done in recent years to rebalance and ensure that the expertise and authority of the adults in schools is respected but this should never come at the expense of teacher reflection. 

To do this reflection, it is helpful to consider some approaches, which are drawn in under the umbrella of Interpersonal Neurobiology- namely attachment theory and polyvagal theory- in order to explore how an individual’s own experiences might shape their classroom and leadership practices.  

Attachment Relationships 

Riley proposes that an understanding of the human attachment system can shed light on classroom dynamics. (2011, p. 38). The proponents of attachment theory, Ainsworth and Bowlby (1991) suggested that attachment starts at birth and it continues to impact health, wellbeing, and relationships throughout life. An infant cannot survive without a parent and thus the goal of attachment is to keep the care-seeker close to its caregiver. This is referred to as its secure base. Babies have innate care seeking behaviours: crying; gurgling etc. and respond powerfully to faces. Equally adults respond to babies need for proximity by attending to these behaviours. The care-seeker will express separation protest if the distance between them becomes too great, by crying, tantruming or bargaining. Whilst these behaviours are innate, the attachment bond is learnt through repeated exposure and is therefore unique to the environment and relationships in which it emerges (Riley, 2011, p. 13). The nature of this affectional bond influences how the baby forms other future relationships, what is termed the Internal Working Model (Ainsworth and Bowlby, 1991).  

Ainsworth and Bowlby (ibid) categorised attachment styles into secure and insecure attachment. From there, they further sub categorised insecure attachment types into anxious, avoidant and disorganised. In a secure attachment, the caregiver is attuned to the child’s needs and responds consistently and predictably. This results in an Internal Working Model of confidence in both itself and others. The caregiver provides boundaries, care, and encouragement. They predict what the care-seeker needs, making the world a safe and secure place to explore. This allows the child to gradually develop their own independence. Crucially, this does not have to be done perfectly. In order to develop self-efficacy, the caregiver intuits how and when to let child struggle to achieve goals for themselves, what Winnicott ​(2002)​ terms empathically failing the child. 

If a child has had to fend for themselves too much, due to a lack of empathy or the situation the family finds themselves in, its explorations may become unfulfilling or dangerous. As a result, the child learns not to venture out and will lose curiosity towards its environment. If the caregiver is rejecting or unavailable, a child will attempt to minimise their unmet needs in order not to experience the pain of separation. In later life they may become distrustful of their own feelings and relationships with others and are more likely to become defensive to protect themselves from pain of not having their needs met. This is termed insecure avoidant attachment (sometimes referred to as dismissive or defensive) and has serious implications for the child’s cognitive and affective development ​(Riley, 2011, p. 511)​.  

Anxious attachment, sometimes referred to as pre-occupied, often occurs due to inconsistent or mis-attuned parenting. This can result in a fear of rejection, abandonment or clinginess and has a powerful impact on an individual’s relationships to themselves, their work and others.   

If a child has a caregiver who is unpredictable, sometimes available sometimes not, sometimes angry, sometimes loving, they may take on characteristics of both the anxious and the avoidant attachment. This form of insecure attachment, later classified as disorganised attachment, can unleash unprecedented harm on a young person’s Internal Working Model. This is because it cannot function in a protective way by predicting caregiver behaviours. As a result, their sense of self and others may be particularly unsteady.  

It is important to understand that separation protests are a normal, rather than pathological, response to environmental circumstances. Babies would very quickly die if left without a caregiver. However, separation behaviours can become maladaptive in new and safer environments. The notable thing about an angry response born of separation anxiety is it is directed towards the attachment figure ​(Riley, 2011, p. 17)​. Whilst the function of this behaviour is to reduce the likelihood of the caregiver moving beyond a comfortable distance, it can also lead to the caregiver and care-seeker becoming locked in an abusive dynamic. As a result, it may be difficult for a young person to have a ‘corrective emotional experience’ elsewhere. This is because the foundation on which other relationships are built are already insecure. 

Maladaptive forms of separation protest include hypervigilance, aggression, clingy behaviours and freezing. Insecure attachments have significant implications for the child’s brain development and relationships. Abusive and neglectful attachment figures routinely predict violence in later life (Appleyard et al, 2005). Not only this but it can cause inordinate amounts of pain and challenges in an individual’s relationships.  

Primary attachment style asserts a powerfully robust influence on subsequent relationships. However, more recent research suggests that the Inner Working Model is not static and can in fact change through the lifespan (Kobak & Hazan 1991; Bartholomew & Scharfe, 1994; Fonagy et al 1996). This is good news for teachers as knowledge of attachment is a valuable tool to explain, predict and modify maladaptive separation behaviours.  

Attachment in School 

School has the potential to provide young people such a corrective experience, through peers and/ or teachers. However, many of the dynamics that fuel insecure attachment are also exacerbated in the school environment. In a student-teacher attachment dyad many separations occur as a normal part of schooling. Whilst this is natural and beyond the control of both the student and teacher, each separation raises the possibility of separation anxiety and each reunion provides opportunities for either a confirmatory or a corrective emotional experience ​(Riley, 2011, p. 15)​. That is either one that challenges the Internal Working Model or reconfirms it. If both parties are securely attached to both home and school, they find that separations are not permanent, and that reunion can be a pleasure. This builds trust, self- efficacy and curiosity (ibid). If the child is insecurely attached, it may be that they spend time anxiously awaiting or fearing the return to school. Or they may try to connect with teacher as substitute attachment figure. Some of these behaviours may be more adaptive to the classroom setting than others. Insecurely attached students may need constant reassurance, or they may appear overly independent. Perhaps they settle well into routines, but overtime become rigid about following these rules and/ or demonstrate reduced curiosity (ibid), something that is vital for learning. On the other hand, they may be hypervigilant to threat and hierarchy. In the classroom you might see a young person constantly turning around, responding to everything going on and/ or seeking to assert themselves. Their anxiety could manifest itself in perfectionism, whereby they are never happy with themselves or their work and/ or are constantly seeking the approval of the adults in the room.    

That a school or individual teacher is able to offer opportunities for insecurely attached students to undergo corrective emotional experiences is extremely hopeful both for our student’s happiness and wellbeing and their capacity to learn. However, this cannot happen if the teachers’ themselves are not secure. Despite population studies indicating that 30-40% of people are insecurely attached, the impact of early experiences on how teachers approach their work is rarely dealt with in the educational literature ​(Riley, 2011)​. Discussions of attachment in school are often concerned with young people who have developed attachment disorders because of childhood trauma. However, leaders, teachers and students all have attachment needs.  

Studies indicate that attachment style is responsive to the environment, (Kobak & Hazan 1991; Bartholomew & Scharfe, 1994; Fonagy et al 1996). Even securely attached individuals behave in insecure ways in unsafe situations. Toxic school environments have the potential to make even the most secure teachers anxious or avoidant. However, good leaders also have the potential to extend corrective emotional experiences to their staff. Popper and colleagues ​(2003)​ have explored the similarities between transformational leadership and good parenting. Sections Two and Three will draw on this notion to consider how we might make school a secure base for everyone to attach to. First though, to know ourselves as leaders, we must consider how our own attachments histories impact our stress responses.  

Teacher Attachment  

Phillip Riley’s (2011) research suggests that attachment needs may have an impact on motivation to become a teacher. An insecurely attached child tends to seek out substitute caregivers to provide a “corrective emotional experience”. He proposes that if such a relationship happens to be with a teacher, it may influence a later decision to join the profession, as part of a wish to help others achieve the same successful outcome. It is also possible that they may be seeking to repeat their experience of felt security by staying in the classroom. In this case they would looking to receive rather than give security. Whilst this is a thesis rather than a universal truth, it is interesting to think about how unmet attachment needs and separation protest, on the part of the teacher might play out in the classroom. Then as teachers progress, if these needs continue not to be met, how they affect their leadership style. 

Teaching is a high stress and relentlessly relational profession, with a unique set of vulnerabilities. Accountable to many masters, teachers operate at the “dangerous intersection of public and personal life” ​(Palmer, 2017, p. 17)​ The teacher- student attachment relationship is complex. Teachers are caregivers to thirty odd students, all with very different needs. But they also have their own needs.  

Something both Palmer​ (2017)​ and Riley (2011) point to, but which is rarely spoken about, deserves some attention. Teachers have a uniquely vulnerable status in relation to their students. That is that a teacher needs their students to show a level of dependence on them to construct and maintain their professional identity. Whilst most students may be willing to perform this, some, due to their experiences in or out of school, may not. The need for the respect (or even love) of young people to maintain our status and identity is the unconscious backdrop to every classroom and so is the fear of losing it, of being exposed to their indifference, ridicule or judgement. From an attachment point of view this puts the teacher in the role of care-seeker as well as caregiver ​(Riley, 2011)​. 

As Palmer says, “many of us became teachers for reasons of the heart, animated by a passion for some subject and for helping people learn” ​(Palmer, 2017, p. 17)​. However, because of this daily act of vulnerability, which we are not adequately prepared for or supported in, many lose heart. He puts it aptly when he says: 

“I need not reveal personal secrets to feel naked in front of a class. I need only parse a sentence or work a proof on the board while my students doze off or pass notes. No matter how technical my subject may be, the things I teach are things I care about—and what I care about helps define my selfhood”.  

Teaching and leadership (in particular) is a vulnerable profession. If we do not handle ourselves with care then, much like a child without good enough caregiving, our ego creates survival strategies to protect us, some of which are counterproductive. 

Defences 

Where we are driven by a fear of our own ineptitude, the ego strives to make our performance slicker. We cover up and show off. These defences show themselves in many ways, whether that is putting up barriers in relationships or focusing our attention on evidencing progress for an external observer. The result of this focus on performance, is that our students and the teams that we lead learn to do the same ​(Palmer, 2017)​, be that copying each other’s homework, cramming for tests or putting on a show for a lesson observation. Riley argues that by behaving in this way we “ironically, may limit the chances of teachers and students developing the kinds of relationships that foster better learning, which would reduce the need to be defensive” ​(Riley, 2011, p. 46)​.  

Our defences particularly come up when we are threatened. When our relationships with our students, colleagues or other stakeholders are not secure, schools can become scary places. This fear might play out in our leadership and in the classroom in different ways. I will suggest some pattens of the insecure leader. They are stereotypes but which I am sure we have all met in our colleagues at some point or perhaps we even see echoes of them in ourselves.  

Insecure Leadership Pattens 

The insecure leader might be an ‘authoritarian’ who desperately needs to control their environment at all costs. Their approach is ‘do as I say, not as I do’. They require absolute control of their students and staff. This is not because that is the most effective environment for learning but because anything else would threaten their sense of self. They feel they must be in charge to be safe and when triggered they may become aggressive and find it difficult to back down.  

Equally though an insecure leader may pursue love and approval from their colleagues or students. In seeking this they may position themselves either as a ‘mate’ or as a ‘charismatic leader’. They find separation or rejection from their staff or students a particular challenge. The charismatic leader uses their personality to draw students or colleagues in and can build amazing relationships. However, being all things to all people is ultimately an unobtainable goal. Not only does this make life difficult for other staff by setting up unreasonable expectations, in the end they either burn themselves out or let people down. It is much better to build consistency and share the load. Classically the ‘mate’, also desperately wants to be liked by the students and so tries to befriend them. Depending on how interesting they are to the children, they may fall flat on their face or their approach might have a modicum of success in getting them onside. That is until, much like the Love Island strategy discussed earlier, the students realise that they are not actually their mate at all. This either, comes about because the teacher challenges them to think outside of their current experience and pushes them to do work or because they get frustrated with not being listened to and finally assert the boundaries with the child. 

Furthermore, some teachers may seek to befriend their students or those they lead but then become volatile if this is rejected or not completely on their terms. Perhaps this character, who both wants to be liked by and but also in control of those they are responsible for, is the most challenging one. It presents the same difficulties for a child as ‘disorganised parenting’ would. This inconsistency can be very jarring for young people and adults alike, particularly those with insecure attachment themselves, who need to maintain the integrity of their Inner Working Models at all costs.   

Know Thyself  

In all of these personas, the Internal Working Model (or ego) is influenced by our early experiences. Whether the teacher or leader wants to be liked, idolised or in control, they are playing out a set of separation protests that have resulted from a unique set of circumstances. This is very human, and teachers are first and foremost human. Even the most privileged of us will have faced some adversity. This shapes the way we seek out safety in both positive and negative ways. My intention is not to shame leaders for not being perfect or pathologise those who have unresolved trauma. Quite the opposite, if we can begin to think of teachers (us) as a people with needs, we can start to have compassion for ourselves. This in turn allows us to be attuned to and compassionate for those we lead. 

It is helpful to stop and reflect on where our own experiences and defences might place us in relation to the insecure archetypes.  You may recognise echoes of yourself in the ‘authoritarian’, ‘charismatic leader’ or ‘mate’. Whilst this insight, into our own vulnerability as teachers, might be confronting, this self-knowledge is a gift. Through acknowledging our histories and being honest about the fact that we all have the need to feel safe and secure, we can start to examine, with compassion who we are in in our leadership and then we can begin to find the tools to do it differently. As we come to know and accept our own vulnerabilities, they no longer have to rule us. Through gentle awareness, or mindfulness, we can explore our own triggers and reflect on how we might also trigger others. In doing so we move towards a healthier persona, that of the mature adult. A secure leader is one who holds the boundaries with love, respects the child’s or colleague’s autonomy and is not over identified with them. They are one who wants the best for their staff and students but does not need anything from back them for their own validation. They know that whilst they are not perfect but also that they do not need to be, they are already enough. 

It is likely that this will never be a fully finished project and it does not need to. It is difficult to be the secure adult day in day out, particularly in an education system that does not well support its leaders. Nonetheless, resourcing yourself by holding your inner, insecure child with love and understanding is a great place to start.   

Self- knowledge is the first part of this. Understanding how our own attachment experiences effect our relationships, our expectations, the meaning we attribute to things and our responses is a useful step. The aim is not to become egoless, but to begin to understand where you go under stress, the habits and pattens that play out, so you can track yourself and start to bring yourself back to a more mindful place. This is much like how, in a meditation practice, when you mind invariably starts to wander you bring yourself back to noticing your breath.  

Knaplan et al (1996) created the Adult Attachment Interview¹. I have adapted this as a starting point to consider your experiences and how this might shape your relationship with authority in the classroom (and in your leadership).  

Reflection tool: 

Find a quiet space and answer the following questions in your journal or diary. There are no right answers, just be open to what arises. Not every question may offer and insight and those that do may come in ways that surprise you.  

1. How would you describe your relationships with your parents or caregivers? 

2. When you were upset or hurt physically as a child what would you go to? 

3. What are your memories of separation in childhood? 

4. Where your parents or caregivers ever threatening in any way? If so how? 

5. How do you feel your relationships with your parents or caregivers have affected your adult personality? Is there anything that held you back or has had a negative effect? 

6. Were there any other adults to which you were close or that have had a significant impact on who you have become? 

7. Did you experience the loss of a parent or close loved one as a child? Have you lost other close people during your adult years? How has this affected you? 

8. What kind of relationships do you tend to have with your students? 

9. Is there anything in particular that you have learnt from your childhood that impacts you in the classroom? 

10. How would you describe yourself as a teacher? 

11. What kind of relationships do you tend to have with your students? Could you describe an example positive and negative relationship? 

12. Are there any particular students that you will never forget? 

13. Do you ever dream about your students? 

14. If you lead adults, how would you describe your leadership style? 

15. How do you respond under stress, including in the classroom? 

16. What are your ‘triggers’ and what calms you down?