Your Attachment Wound Survey

It's that time of year again when organizations send out engagement surveys to take the pulse of their workforce. But before we tally up the results and start hand-wringing over disengagement, let's pause.

What do we actually think we're measuring?

What do we believe engagement is? Enthusiasm? Commitment? Extra effort? The proverbial extra mile?

Do we define it as an employee's relationship to the company, or their relationship to the work itself?

And most importantly, is our definition even realistic?

Depending on which report you read, 60-75% of employees are labeled as disengaged. We hold meetings about it. We strategize around it. We talk about "disengagement" like it's a compliance issue when in reality, we might just be measuring how much people are willing to perform exhaustion.

But let's go further.

What if we aren't just measuring the wrong thing? What if we're actually comfortable with what we see?

We expect exhaustion. We reward over-attachment. We build entire systems that prioritize overwork and fear-based engagement and call it "high performance."

In either case, with or without intention, are we actually measuring engagement? Or are we just keeping tabs on who's willing to sacrifice the most?

Dysfunctional Attachment Styles: What We May Be Measuring

What if "engagement" picks up attachment wounds in disguise (overcommitment, fear-based performance, and people-pleasing)? Meanwhile, employees with a secure relationship to work (the ones who set boundaries, work hard, and don't mistake stress for devotion) are often misread as "disengaged." We saw the response to "quiet quitting." It's in here too.

Now fair disclaimer: Therapists are some of the pros that dig into the root of this with humans. In this article, we're talking about behaviors and signals and how we might be reinforcing things. It's why we also want to talk about strong mental health practices and being trauma-informed.

Let's break it down.

Anxious Attachment: The Over-Engaged, Overworked Employee

This person looks highly engaged, but it's not because they're thriving. It's because they're terrified of being seen as dispensable.

✔ Always available: Answers emails at 11 PM just to prove commitment.

✔ Can't say no: Takes on extra work out of fear, not capacity.

✔ Self-worth tied to output: Feels guilty when they aren't overachieving.

✔ Reluctant to disconnect: PTO exists, but they'd rather "stay on top of things."

🚨 What companies mistake this for: Dedication, leadership potential.

🔥 What it actually is: Anxiety. These employees aren't just committed. They're also afraid.

✅ What secure engagement looks like instead: Employees who know their value isn't tied to exhaustion. Who work hard but don't perform suffering as proof of commitment. Who say no without fear of retaliation.

Avoidant Attachment: The Employee Who Once Cared (But Doesn't Anymore)

This person wasn't always disengaged. At some point, they cared (a lot). But when they saw effort wasn't reciprocated, they shut down.

✔ Minimal participation: Does the job, nothing more.

✔ Keeping work at arm's length: Avoids team events, leadership programs, and anything "extra."

✔ Skepticism toward leadership: Sees engagement initiatives as PR moves, not genuine culture shifts.

✔ Views work as purely transactional: Clock in, do the work, clock out.

🚨 What companies mistake this for: Disengagement, lack of motivation.

🔥 What it actually is: Self-protection. These employees disengaged because deep investment led to burnout or betrayal. Quiet quitting can live right here.

✅ What secure engagement looks like instead: A workplace where engagement isn't a setup for unpaid labor, where people contribute because they see actual reciprocity, not just corporate platitudes.

Disorganized Attachment: The Burnout Cycle Employee

This person is all in... until they collapse. They swing between overcommitment and total detachment, running on crisis energy. [Ahem. I have lived right here. And been profoundly rewarded for it. And done enormous amounts of work to recover.]

✔ Overcommitting, then disappearing: Jumps into projects full force, then burns out and vanishes.

✔ Takes on too much responsibility: Feels personally responsible for fixing systemic problems.

✔ Thrives in chaos, struggles in calm: Adrenaline is their primary motivator.

✔ Strong reactions to change: Every leadership decision feels like a personal betrayal.

🚨 What companies mistake this for: Passion, hustle, "true dedication."

🔥 What it actually is: A workplace relationship built on urgency, not stability.

✅ What secure engagement looks like instead: A culture where employees don't have to prove commitment through burnout, where work is challenging but not a test of endurance, and where taking a step back isn't seen as a red flag.

The Path Forward: Integration, Inclusion, and Stability Over Exhaustion

Instead of scrambling to fix disengagement, what if we asked better questions?

✔ Are employees' strengths actually being used? Or are we forcing "engagement" through mandatory enthusiasm?

✔ Do employees feel seen and valued without having to shout for attention? Or is engagement just a reward for performative hustle? As an example, you'll never get to belonging when your culture can't even discuss DEI. The best you'll get is compliance.

✔ Can employees set boundaries without fearing punishment? Or do we still treat availability as a virtue?

Because if engagement only exists when people are afraid, it's not engagement. It's control.

What We Actually Do About It

✅ Stop trying to fix people. FIX. THE. SYSTEM. If a plant is dying, you don't yell at it to try harder. You check the soil, the light, the conditions. Start there. Check who might be undermining your hope for healthy engagement. Check that values poster. Then read your survey comments again.

✅ Make engagement an outcome, not an expectation. If people are disengaged, it's not an attitude problem. It's a signal. What's not working? What's missing?

✅ Shift the focus from retention to sustainability. Not everyone will stay forever. Are people leaving stronger than they came in? If so, you've done your job.

Instead of obsessing over how many employees are disengaged, what if we looked at several buckets for where we are now and where we want to shift?

A. 30-40% of employees are exactly where they need to be. Engaged, productive, fulfilled. No intervention needed. I'd love to see this number be accurate for you and rising.

B. 30-40% need support, not shame. They don't need a pizza party. They need a real conversation about what is (or who is... prepare yourself) keeping them stuck, held back, or held down. This is the number that would move the needle for you in so many areas... if it went down.

C. 20% are disengaged. Some people do need a new role or a new job entirely. And that's okay. Not everyone is right for right now. What if you're just okay with this, work towards improving it, but keep your focus on that big shift from B to A?

That's the real culture shift. Not forcing engagement, but recognizing that engagement is an ecosystem, not an individual burden.

Because real engagement isn't about squeezing more out of people. It's about creating a workplace where people actually have enough to give.

Ready to build engaged ecosystems of healthy humans? Follow me, Linda Clark, for more on creating strong environments with roots that withstand challenges and building the conditions for culture and belonging to thrive. Or book a call and let's talk about what secure engagement looks like in your organization.