Being held

20/2/2026

‘Not every grasp is fear; some are gentle acts of faith.’ (Iyanla Vanzant)

Today, I ran a training workshop in Leading & Influencing Change for leaders and managers of organisations providing trauma-informed services for people dealing with emotional, social or mental health difficulties, learning disabilities, complex needs or domestic abuse. As always when working with such passionate and experienced professionals, I learned as much from the participants as I was able to share with them from my own insights and experiences.

One service manager prompted deep reflections on the notion of ‘being held’ and of holding others. There’s a very great difference between the experience of, say, being held in a supportive way such as being hugged gently, when invited, to ease anxiety or offer safety; and of being held forcefully, uninvited, as when finding oneself restrained or constrained by another against one’s will. The former can feel like Bowlby’s secure base and the latter like a violation.

Using ‘being held’ as a metaphor to explore relationships with team members at work, the manager shared how actions can be misunderstood. For instance, the manager who ‘holds’ a team member by overseeing their work (e.g. in the safeguarding arena) could be experienced as micro-managing, whereas her intention is to ‘support you in holding the risk.’ The relational skill is to hold with freedom of consent, clarity of intention and agreement on practice.

Are you leading people through change and transition? Curious to discover how I can help you? Get in touch!

16 Comments

Mohd Nadzrin Wahab

21/2/2026 04:52:42 am

The soul of humanity is screaming to be returned to the workplace.

Being treated like human resources is exactly why people stop being people.

Nick Wright

21/2/2026 12:25:30 pm

Well said, Mohd. You may find this short related piece interesting? https://www.nick-wright.com/blog/rediscover-the-human

21/2/2026 03:29:28 pm

Nick, thank you. This is exactly what I have been championing with my clients: commitment over compliance.

The focus on having Big Brother oversee every single detail, log every single mistake and turn every person into a number dehumanises people, takes away their agency and initiative.

It makes every action transparent and leaves no room for growth, only stagnation as no one is willing to experiment, innovate or even suggest changes.

I always prioritise education over regulation. But somehow organisations can't see the nuances of a human being, just the outline of a silhouette of one, which makes them all look the same.

21/2/2026 03:30:58 pm

Thanks Mohd. It's great to hear you are championing that with such insight and passion. Keep up the good work!

Kelly Forster

21/2/2026 12:28:59 pm

I love this, Nick. Being held often has quite negative connotations e.g.

In custody
In prison
To ransom
To account
In contempt
In suspense
Responsible
Up
Hostage

Being held in someone's arms as a loving embrace or as an act of protection is beautiful.

21/2/2026 12:29:45 pm

Thanks Kelly. So true.

Hannah Doyle

21/2/2026 12:34:17 pm

Powerful metaphor Nick. The difference between support and control really sits in consent and clarity. So important in trauma informed leadership.

Amir Qureshi

21/2/2026 12:35:16 pm

Your framing around consent and agreement on practice is critical. We don’t often talk about consent in workplace power dynamics, but perhaps we should. Even a simple “Would it help if I reviewed this with you?” shifts the relational tone.

Dr Leanne Murray

21/2/2026 12:37:58 pm

Hi Nick. This really landed for me.

In services supporting people affected by domestic abuse or complex trauma, staff are constantly “holding” intense stories, risk or emotion. When a manager steps in, even with good intention, it can easily feel like scrutiny instead of support. I’ve seen supervision spaces where oversight feels containing and others where it feels like interrogation. The structural elements might be identical with same forms and same policies. The difference is relational safety.

What you’ve described touches something fundamental in attachment theory. A secure base (as articulated by John Bowlby) is predictable, attuned and non-intrusive. It allows movement away and return. In contrast, forced holding removes autonomy. For staff who may carry their own trauma histories, that distinction is not subtle.

I also appreciate the phrase “support you in holding the risk.” That language communicates partnership rather than hierarchy. Perhaps the practice implication is explicit contracting. Naming the purpose of oversight. Checking how it feels. Repairing quickly when it lands wrong. Leading change in trauma informed systems is less about new models and more about these micro-moments of relational clarity.

Grateful you brought this into the conversation space. We need more conversations that go beyond policy into embodied experience.

Carlos Mendes

21/2/2026 12:38:25 pm

This is so real. I’ve definitely been the manager who thought I was helping, but actually was hovering.

The consent piece is huge.

Nathan Whitfield

21/2/2026 12:40:05 pm

I want to gently challenge one aspect. While the metaphor of holding is powerful, especially through an attachment lens, workplaces are not therapy rooms. There are regulatory duties especially in safeguarding. Sometimes oversight will feel uncomfortable or even activating. That does not automatically make it a violation. The risk in trauma informed discourse is equating discomfort with harm. Being 'held' in accountability can trigger old narratives of control, yes. But part of professional growth is building capacity to tolerate structured scrutiny. That said, I deeply agree that clarity of intention and explicit agreement changes everything. Saying, 'I am reviewing this because the organisation carries legal responsibility, and I want us both protected,' reframes the dynamic. Maybe the balance is this: leaders must be transparent about power, and staff must be supported to differentiate past from present.

Important reflections. Thank you for raising the complexity.

Aisha Rahman

21/2/2026 12:42:02 pm

Hi Nick. I love how this connects leadership to embodiment.

In trauma informed services, we talk often about co-regulation with clients. But managers also co-regulate teams. The tone of voice in supervision. The pacing of feedback. The way risk conversations are framed. All of that either tightens nervous systems or settles them. Your distinction between invited holding and forced holding speaks to nervous system choice. Choice restores dignity. Even small choices such timing of a review, how feedback is delivered or whether someone wants written or verbal input matter.

I’m also struck by how easily “support you in holding the risk” can be misread without shared language. That suggests culture work is essential. Teams need collective understanding of why oversight exists and how it will be practiced.

Thank you for modelling reflective leadership. These are the kinds of conversations that shift systems slowly but meaningfully.

Aisha Rahman

Michael O'Connor

21/2/2026 12:42:49 pm

Such a clear example of how language shapes experience. “Holding the risk” feels collaborative. “Checking your work” feels evaluative. Small shift but big impact. Thanks Nick.

Priyanka Shah

21/2/2026 12:44:47 pm

This metaphor is helpful, but also slightly uncomfortable for me. In my early management years, I equated strong leadership with tight control. I thought if I didn’t closely check everything, I was being negligent. Over time, I realised I was creating dependency. People waited for me to hold decisions instead of developing their own containment capacity. Reading this, I’m reminded that secure holding in the sense described by John Bowlby always includes eventual autonomy. The child ventures out and the adult team member should too.

In trauma informed organisations, especially those supporting individuals with complex needs, anxiety about risk is contagious. Leaders can either amplify that anxiety by gripping tighter, or metabolise it and redistribute it safely. Your emphasis on consent and agreement feels like the bridge. Oversight that is named, bounded and time limited feels different from chronic hovering.

This has prompted me to revisit how I contract supervision sessions. Am I inviting collaboration or assuming compliance? Thank you for offering a metaphor that exposes both our care and our control.

Eleanor Hughes

21/2/2026 12:47:13 pm

Hi Nick. I think there's something deeply systemic here. In trauma informed organisations, many practitioners are themselves survivors of adverse childhood experiences, coercive systems or relational ruptures. When leadership introduces tighter governance (often required by commissioners or regulators), the historical echo can be loud.

Your metaphor of being held touches this collective layer. A forced hold is not only about physical restraint; it is about removal of voice. That is why consent and clarity are not soft skills. They are structural safeguards against reenactment. At the same time, leaders carry statutory accountability. In safeguarding contexts, “supporting you in holding the risk” is not optional, it's a shared duty of care. The relational artistry lies in making power visible rather than pretending it does not exist. Naming: “I have organisational responsibility here. Let’s agree how I step in.” That transparency transforms the meaning of oversight.

This reflection feels especially relevant as more services claim a trauma informed identity. Without attention to these dynamics, we risk replicating control under a different banner.

Juliana Lindsay

21/2/2026 03:39:21 pm

I love the humanity and compassion in your blogs Nick. That's all too easily lost.

Being held

Leave a Reply.

Nick Wright

Archives

Categories

Being held

Leave a Reply.

​Nick Wright

​Archives

Categories

Nick Wright

Archives