Lifestyle

Work Couples Therapy

Work Couples Therapy

What exactly is a couple? The most popular answer would be: two people involved in a romantic relationship. However, that “romantic” label eliminates many non-romantic couples who are also in relationships. It’s normal to assume that couples therapy is only for romantic couples, but there are others who might also benefit from the experience. These people can be coworkers, cofounders, writing teams, bandmates, best friends, sisters, brothers, roommates, and other people involved in relationships who, while not the traditional client base for couples therapy, can also be in need of and benefit from the work and approach of traditional couples therapy.

My practice includes couples therapy with work couples. This started with my work with writing teams, which started with my experience as a working screenwriter working alongside writing teams. I never developed a writing partnership on my own when I was a screenwriter, but the experience of working with writing teams as a writer naturally led me to work with writing teams as a therapist. Now this part of my practice has expanded to include business partners and co-founders in different industries. Sometimes these couples have deep roots of friendship, often including the experience of growing up together, going to college together, or some other kind of background that preceded their business partnership.

What’s the point of couples therapy? To learn how to experience more happiness in our relationships. Which sounds like it would be great for all kinds of couples, not just romantic ones. Of course, one aspect of romantic relationships that many romantic couples see as representative of the state of their relationship, and a battleground for their issues of conflict and communication, is sex. That’s not to say resolving issues related to sex is the key to couples therapy, but that this is an issue our work couples do not have to deal with (or they do, in which case they just crossed the line into traditional romantic couples therapy).

I see both romantic couples and work couples, and much of the work is similar, but the main difference is that work couples don’t share a bedroom (or do all the stuff that romantic couples do in the bedroom). This means that romantic couples often experience a greater amount of intimacy than work couples, but that doesn’t mean that work couples don’t have intimate relationships. They do. And one of the ways I work with work couples is by increasing their experience of intimacy with each other.

Intimacy means different things to different people. For many people intimacy means being physically intimate. However, physical closeness (sex) is not intimacy. Physical closeness (sex) can, however, help create intimacy, which is traditionally defined as feelings of closeness fostered by emotional connection and support. Sex can make us feel incredibly intimate with our partner, but there are other ways of increasing intimacy between partners besides sex. Like what, you ask? Like the following: Being honest about feelings. Sharing emotional history. Talking about hopes and fears. In short, being vulnerable. It is this kind of vulnerability that is the hallmark of increased intimacy and happier relationships, and something we strive for in romantic couples therapy, but something we don’t always consider when thinking about ways to improve our work relationships.

Here’s how that might work: A work couple might come to me with issues related to frustration with each other’s behavior. This behavior might be affecting their work in a negative way, and be worth resolving in order for their business to succeed in the way they want it to. They will often come into therapy with complaints about each other, and conversely with justifications for why they act they way they do, and cause their partner to complain about them.

The work here for me is not so much to pass judgment on who is right and who is wrong and what the right way to proceed is. It is more about getting curious about each partner’s behavior and the reasons for it. I’m not some business guru who can get two co-founders on the same page by creating a relationship business plan for them to follow. I’m a therapist who wants to know why one partner’s behavior seems to trigger the other partner, leading to conflict that makes it difficult for them to support each other.

This usually entails moving away from the interpersonal communication issues and digging more deeply into the emotional history of each partner. Sometimes there’s pushback on this. “Why are we talking about my childhood? Who cares what my mom’s mom was like? What does my parents’ divorce have to do with the business?” The reason we get into this kind of deep dive is because we want to learn where each partner learned to act the way they do in their current relationship. One partner’s frustration with the other’s aversion to risk taking might be lessened by learning that their partner’s father was an alcoholic gambler who lost their savings and put their future in jeopardy.

Through this act of sharing intimate details about childhood and parental relationships we might move from a frustrated “I don’t get why my partner can’t do X or keeps avoiding Y” and toward a more supportive understanding of “I get why this issue triggers my partner and how I can change my behavior to help them.” It is this kind of intimacy and understanding that strengthens relationships, and which is often harder to achieve in work relationships. The bedroom setting of romantic relationships, the opportunity for pillow talk, the way physical intimacy (sex) can lead directly to emotional intimacy—these all present opportunities for romantic couples to create the intimacy and understanding that strengthens relationships in ways that are not available to work couples.

Thank goodness for practitioners of work couples therapy, I say, as it provides a place for all couples, regardless of romantic status, a place to work toward happier relationships.

To find a therapist, visit the Psychology Today Therapy Directory.



Source link