Attachment Styles at Work: How Childhood Patterns Shape Your Leadership
Your attachment style — the relational pattern your nervous system learned in childhood — doesn’t stay home when you go to work. For driven women, understanding how anxious, avoidant, or disorganized attachment shapes leadership, team dynamics, and career satisfaction is one of the most clinically important conversations we can have. This post covers the neurobiology, the patterns, and the path to earned secure attachment.
- The One-Syllable Meeting
- What Is Attachment Theory (and Why It Matters at Work)?
- The Neurobiology of Attachment at Work
- How Attachment Styles Show Up in Driven Women
- The Cost of Insecure Attachment at Work
- Both/And: Insecure Attachment AND Extraordinary Leadership
- The Systemic Lens: Why Workplaces Are Attachment Systems in Disguise
- How to Heal: Earned Secure Attachment Through the Work
- Frequently Asked Questions
The One-Syllable Meeting
It’s 6:47 p.m. on a Tuesday, and Elena, 35, director of strategy at a management consulting firm in Chicago, is on the Red Line heading home. She’s replaying the meeting for the third time.
Her managing director had listened to her entire recommendation — forty minutes of analysis, scenario modeling, a risk matrix she’d rebuilt twice — and said, “Hmm.” One syllable. Then he’d moved on to the next agenda item. Elena had nodded, gathered her materials, and walked out of the conference room with her face composed and her nervous system on fire. (PMID: 19928318)
Now, on the train, she’s texting two colleagues: How do you think that landed? She’s drafted and deleted a follow-up email to her MD twice. She’s replaying his tone, his posture, the precise angle of his head when he said “hmm.” She won’t sleep well tonight. She’ll prepare an even more thorough analysis. She’ll arrive earlier. She’ll be more.
This isn’t a performance problem. Elena is exceptional at her work. This is an attachment pattern — and it’s running her leadership just as powerfully as it ran her childhood.
What Is Attachment Theory (and Why It Matters at Work)?
Attachment theory was developed by John Bowlby, MD, British psychiatrist and research director at the Tavistock Clinic, who proposed that humans are biologically wired to seek proximity to a safe attachment figure under stress — and that the pattern of response they received from early caregivers becomes an internal working model for how safe proximity-seeking is in all subsequent relationships. (PMID: 7148988) Bowlby’s foundational insight, published across his three-volume Attachment and Loss series, was that this isn’t a personality preference or a character trait. It’s a biological system, as fundamental as hunger or sleep.
Mary Ainsworth, PhD, developmental psychologist at Johns Hopkins University and originator of the Strange Situation Procedure, gave us the empirical categories we still use today: secure, anxious-preoccupied, avoidant-dismissing, and disorganized attachment. (PMID: 5490680) Her landmark research demonstrated that the quality of early caregiving — specifically, whether a caregiver was consistently available, attuned, and responsive — predicted which category a child would fall into with remarkable reliability.
A term originated by John Bowlby, MD, psychiatrist and originator of attachment theory, for the mental representations of self, other, and relationship that a child builds from early attachment experiences. Internal working models function as unconscious templates that shape how a person anticipates, perceives, and responds in all subsequent relationships — including relationships with authority figures, peers, and direct reports in professional settings. Research by Mario Mikulincer, PhD, professor of psychology at Reichman University in Israel and co-author of Attachment in Adulthood, has demonstrated that these models operate automatically, outside conscious awareness, and are activated most powerfully under conditions of stress, uncertainty, or perceived threat.
In plain terms: Your internal working model is the software installed in childhood for “how relationships work” — and it runs in every 1:1, performance review, and conflict you have at work, whether you know it or not. When your MD says “hmm,” your nervous system doesn’t hear ambiguity. It hears the question it’s been asking since childhood: Am I enough?
Amir Levine, MD, associate professor of clinical neuroscience at Columbia University, and Rachel Heller, MA, translated this research into accessible behavioral profiles in their book Attached. Their framework makes the categories recognizable in everyday professional life: the anxious-attached professional who over-explains in presentations and compulsively checks whether her boss is pleased; the avoidant-attached professional who is brilliant in isolation but struggles to receive feedback without deflecting; the secure professional who can tolerate ambiguity, give and receive feedback, and repair ruptures without catastrophizing.
What’s missing from most discussions of attachment theory is the workplace. We talk about attachment in romantic relationships, in parenting, in therapy. We rarely name what’s obvious to anyone who’s watched a driven woman spiral after a lukewarm performance review: that the workplace is an attachment system, and your patterns run there just as powerfully as they run at home.
A 2025 systematic review by McConnell and colleagues, published in Frontiers in Psychology (PMID: PMC13018252), reviewed the relationship between adult attachment and mental health at work across multiple studies, finding that secure attachment was consistently associated with better emotional regulation, lower occupational stress, and higher job satisfaction — while insecure attachment predicted significantly elevated burnout risk and interpersonal conflict at work. This isn’t a marginal finding. It replicates across industries, cultures, and professional levels.
The Neurobiology of Attachment at Work
The attachment system isn’t metaphorical. It’s a biological motivational system with a specific neurological substrate. Stephen Porges, PhD, professor emeritus of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina and originator of Polyvagal Theory, has described the social engagement system — the ventral vagal branch of the autonomic nervous system — as the neural platform from which safe connection with others is possible. (PMID: 11587772) When the social engagement system is online, we can think clearly, communicate nuance, tolerate ambiguity, and access our full cognitive and creative capacity.
When it goes offline — when the nervous system reads the environment as unsafe — we shift into sympathetic activation (fight-or-flight) or dorsal vagal shutdown (freeze-collapse). Here’s what’s clinically significant: the anxiously-attached professional is often in sympathetic activation during professional interactions. She’s performing at a high level AND without the neural resources that would make that performance feel safe or satisfying. The monitoring, the replaying, the compulsive checking — these are the nervous system’s threat-detection system doing its job, in a context where there’s no actual threat.
A 2020 study by Yang and colleagues, published in Frontiers in Psychology (PMID: PMC7705218), found that insecure attachment — particularly anxious attachment — was associated with increased negative emotion and reduced leadership emergence, mediated by the emotional dysregulation that characterizes anxious attachment under stress. The study’s finding was not that anxiously-attached professionals were less capable, but that their emotional resources were being consumed by relational monitoring rather than available for leadership tasks.
A 2024 theoretical review by Ren and colleagues, published in Frontiers in Psychology (PMID: PMC11619274), examined the mechanisms by which attachment styles shape workplace self-regulation. The review found that anxiously-attached employees showed chronic hyperactivation of the threat-detection system in workplace relationships — particularly with authority figures — while avoidantly-attached employees showed hyperactivation of deactivating strategies (emotional suppression, self-reliance, dismissal of relational cues) that protected them from vulnerability at the cost of genuine team connection.
A clinical and research term for the process by which an adult with an insecure attachment history develops secure functioning through corrective relational experiences — typically in therapy, secure adult relationships, or through reflective narrative work. Documented in the research of Daniel Siegel, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA and author of Mindsight, and Mary Main, PhD, professor emerita of psychology at UC Berkeley, as a genuine neurobiological reorganization — not simply insight or intellectual understanding. (PMID: 31001926) The adult who develops a coherent narrative of their own attachment history, even an imperfect one, shows neural organization similar to individuals with secure attachment histories from birth.
In plain terms: You don’t have to have had a secure childhood to become a secure adult. The brain is neuroplastic. With the right relational experiences — in therapy, in coaching, in genuinely safe relationships — your attachment patterns can change. This is not self-help optimism. It’s neuroscience.
How Attachment Styles Show Up in Driven Women
In my work with driven, ambitious women, I see attachment patterns operating in the workplace with a precision that’s almost diagnostic. Let me walk you through how each style shows up — not as pathology, but as information.
The anxiously-attached professional is often the most relationally attuned person in the room. She reads the emotional temperature of meetings with extraordinary accuracy. She knows when her MD is distracted, when her peer is threatened, when her direct report is about to quit before the direct report knows it herself. This attunement is a genuine strength — and it costs her enormously. The cognitive bandwidth consumed by relational monitoring is bandwidth unavailable for strategic thinking. She over-explains in presentations because she’s managing her anxiety about whether she’s being understood. She can’t leave a conflict unresolved before bed because unresolved conflict registers as threat. She checks Slack at 11 p.m. not because she’s a workaholic but because the uncertainty of not knowing is neurologically intolerable.
Priya, 41, VP of operations at a healthcare company in Dallas, is the other side of this. Priya’s avoidant-dismissing attachment pattern in her professional life means she is extraordinary at the analytical work. She makes decisions quickly, doesn’t need validation, and can hold enormous complexity without visible distress. Her direct reports describe her as “brilliant but you never know if she’s satisfied with your work.” She gives feedback precisely and rarely. She never has lunch with her team. In performance reviews, she consistently marks “meets expectations” on relationship-building competencies and has genuinely never understood why that matters.
What Priya doesn’t know: her team’s most talented member resigned last quarter primarily because she never felt seen. Priya’s avoidant pattern protects her from the vulnerability of genuine connection — and costs her the team loyalty she’s been working to build. The avoidant professional isn’t cold. She’s defended. There’s a difference, and it matters clinically.
“All of us, from the cradle to the grave, are happiest when life is organized as a series of excursions, long or short, from the secure base provided by our attachment figures.”
JOHN BOWLBY, MD, British psychiatrist and originator of attachment theory, A Secure Base
A 2022 study by Wise and colleagues, published in Frontiers in Psychology (PMID: PMC8852889), examined the relationship between adult attachment style, organizational factors, and career satisfaction among employees across industries. The study found that secure attachment was the strongest predictor of career satisfaction, while anxious attachment was associated with significantly lower career satisfaction and higher emotional exhaustion — even when controlling for job demands and organizational support. The researchers concluded that attachment style operates as an internal resource that either buffers or amplifies the impact of workplace stressors.
A 2024 meta-analysis by Warnock and colleagues confirmed these findings across 27 studies: attachment anxiety was significantly associated with burnout, interpersonal conflict, and lower job performance, while attachment security was associated with higher engagement, better leadership outcomes, and stronger team relationships. The effect sizes were comparable to those found for personality traits like conscientiousness — suggesting that attachment style is a meaningful predictor of workplace functioning, not a minor variable.
The Cost of Insecure Attachment at Work
The specific professional costs of each insecure attachment pattern are worth naming precisely, because driven women often experience these costs as character flaws rather than as the predictable consequences of a nervous system doing what it learned to do.
For the anxiously-attached professional, the costs cluster around cognitive bandwidth and boundary-setting. The constant monitoring of relational temperature — Is my boss pleased? Did that email land wrong? Does my team respect me? — is genuinely expensive. It’s not neurotic; it’s the anxious attachment system doing exactly what it was designed to do: scan for signs of rejection and respond accordingly. The problem is that this system was calibrated for a childhood environment where rejection was actually threatening, and it hasn’t been updated for a professional context where ambiguity is normal and “hmm” usually just means “I’m thinking.”
The anxiously-attached professional also struggles to hold limits with direct reports or peers, because setting limits feels like potential abandonment. She says yes when she means no. She takes on the emotional labor of the team because someone has to, and she’s the most attuned person in the room. She makes leadership decisions based on what will be well-received rather than what is strategically correct — and she often doesn’t realize she’s doing it. This connects directly to the parentification patterns that many driven women carry from childhood: the role of the emotionally responsible one, the one who keeps the peace, the one who makes sure everyone is okay.
For the avoidant-dismissing professional, the costs cluster around team retention and leadership isolation. She is high on task performance and low on relational investment — and in the short term, this looks like strength. In the long term, it produces teams that don’t trust her, direct reports who feel invisible, and a leadership isolation that accelerates executive burnout. The avoidant professional often doesn’t realize how much her team needs her presence — not her output, but her presence — until someone she valued is gone.
For the disorganized-attached professional, the costs are the most complex and the most variable. Disorganized attachment — which typically develops in the context of early relational trauma, where the caregiver was simultaneously the source of comfort and the source of fear — produces the most unpredictable relational pattern. The disorganized professional is often the most charismatic and visionary leader in the room, and also the least predictable. She cycles between intense connection and abrupt withdrawal. Her team never quite knows which version of her they’re getting. The uncertainty itself becomes a source of team anxiety.
“Attachment security acts as a psychological resource that allows individuals to explore and engage with challenges — rather than defending against them.”
MARIO MIKULINCER, PhD, professor of psychology, Reichman University, Israel, from his organizational attachment research
A 2025 study on workplace attachment and meaningful work (PMID: PMC12122751) found that workplace attachment security was a significant predictor of entrepreneurial well-being and work engagement, while anxious and avoidant workplace attachment styles were associated with reduced sense of meaning and higher psychological distress — even among high-performing professionals. The researchers noted that the relationship between attachment and meaning at work was mediated by the quality of relational connection with colleagues and supervisors: driven professionals with insecure attachment styles were systematically less able to access the relational dimensions of work that make it meaningful.
Both/And: Insecure Attachment AND Extraordinary Leadership
Here’s the Both/And that I want to hold with you: you can lead exceptionally — brilliantly, even — with an insecure attachment pattern. Many of the most impactful leaders in history were driven, at least in part, by attachment insecurity. The anxious professional’s relational attunement is a genuine leadership asset. The avoidant professional’s capacity for independent thinking and decisive action is a genuine leadership asset. The disorganized professional’s visionary intensity is a genuine leadership asset.
The Both/And is: insecure attachment is running some of your leadership in ways that cost you AND it doesn’t define you AND it can change.
Jordan, 44, chief legal officer at a Series C biotech in San Francisco, exemplifies how disorganized attachment can manifest in leadership. When she trusts a direct report deeply, she gives that person access to her full thinking, her uncertainty, her process. When that trust is broken — or when she perceives it to be broken — she withdraws abruptly and without explanation. Her team calls this “Jordan’s reset.” They’ve adapted to it. What Jordan hasn’t yet seen: the reset perpetuates the disorganized pattern. The withdrawal that feels like self-protection is, from the team’s perspective, the most destabilizing thing she does.
Both/And: she is a superbly capable CLO AND the reset is a relational survival strategy that she can choose differently. Not because the reset is wrong — it made sense once, in a context where withdrawal was the only safe option — but because she’s no longer in that context, and she has more choices now than she did then.
The imposter syndrome that drives women in tech and law is often the anxious attachment pattern in professional costume: the chronic uncertainty that the capability is enough, the compulsive seeking of external validation, the inability to rest in the knowledge of one’s own competence. Naming it as an attachment pattern — rather than a personal failing — changes what’s possible. It shifts the question from “What’s wrong with me?” to “What did my nervous system learn, and what can it learn differently?”
This is the work that trauma-informed therapy makes possible. Not the erasure of the pattern, but its integration — understanding where it came from, what it cost you, and what you want to choose instead.
The Systemic Lens: Why Workplaces Are Attachment Systems in Disguise
Organizations are attachment systems. This isn’t a metaphor — it’s a neurobiological reality that our professional culture has systematically refused to name.
The relationship between an employee and her manager is, neurologically and relationally, an attachment relationship. The manager is the proximity figure. The manager’s availability, attunement, and responsiveness — or their unavailability, dismissiveness, and unpredictability — directly shapes the employee’s nervous system state, her capacity for creative risk-taking, her willingness to speak up, her sense of psychological safety. The driven woman who had an available, supportive, affirming manager experiences something neurologically like secure attachment. The driven woman who had an unpredictable, critical, or dismissive manager experiences something neurologically like relational trauma.
The systemic problem: organizations rarely name themselves as attachment systems and therefore take no responsibility for how leadership behavior creates secure or insecure organizational attachment. They extract the relational and emotional labor of human attachment systems — loyalty, belonging, motivation, discretionary effort — without providing the conditions that make those systems function: safety, predictability, attunement, and repair after rupture.
This is particularly acute for driven women, who are often simultaneously navigating their own attachment patterns AND managing teams whose attachment needs they’re expected to meet, in organizations that provide no structural support for either. The parentification dynamic — the pattern of being the emotionally responsible one in a system that doesn’t reciprocate — replicates itself with stunning fidelity in corporate hierarchies. The woman who was the emotional caretaker of her family of origin becomes the emotional caretaker of her team, her organization, her clients — and wonders why she’s exhausted.
The research on the psychology of driven women consistently shows that organizational culture — specifically, whether leadership behavior creates conditions of psychological safety — moderates the impact of individual attachment styles on performance and well-being. In other words: the system matters. A secure organizational culture can buffer the costs of insecure individual attachment. An insecure organizational culture amplifies them. The woman who is anxiously attached in a dismissive culture is carrying a double burden: her own nervous system’s hyperactivation AND an environment that confirms her worst fears about whether she’s safe.
Amy Edmondson, PhD, professor of leadership at Harvard Business School and author of The Fearless Organization, has documented how psychological safety — the belief that one can speak up without fear of punishment or humiliation — is the single most important predictor of team learning and performance. Her research is, at its core, attachment theory applied to organizational settings: the conditions that create psychological safety are the same conditions that create secure attachment. Consistent availability, responsiveness to vulnerability, repair after rupture, and the reliable message that you are valued even when you make mistakes.
How to Heal: Earned Secure Attachment Through the Work
The good news — backed by neuroscience, not self-help optimism — is that attachment patterns are not fixed. Daniel Siegel, MD, clinical professor of psychiatry at UCLA and author of Mindsight, has documented what he calls earned secure attachment: the process by which adults with insecure attachment histories develop secure functioning through corrective relational experiences. The mechanism is neuroplasticity — the brain’s capacity to form new neural connections throughout the lifespan.
What the research shows is specific and important: the adult who has developed a coherent narrative of her own attachment history — not a perfect history, not a resolved one, but a coherent one — shows neural organization similar to individuals with secure attachment histories from birth. This is what therapy does. Not just insight. Not just understanding. Neurobiological reorganization.
In individual therapy, the relationship with the therapist itself becomes a corrective attachment experience — not as metaphor, but neurobiologically. The consistent presence of an attuned, responsive, and reliable therapist provides the secure base from which to explore past relational wounds and build new internal working models. David Wallin, PhD, author of Attachment in Psychotherapy, has written extensively about how the therapist’s own attachment style becomes a variable in this process — and how the therapeutic relationship, when it’s working, is doing something neurologically similar to what a secure early attachment relationship does: it’s updating the internal working model.
In executive coaching with a trauma-informed lens, the work is different but related: mapping the leadership patterns, identifying their attachment roots, and building a different behavioral repertoire. The anxiously-attached director who replays every “hmm” can learn to distinguish between threat and ambiguity. The avoidant VP can learn to offer the relational presence her team needs without experiencing it as dangerous vulnerability. The disorganized CLO can learn to recognize the reset before it happens and choose a different response.
Susan Johnson, EdD, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Ottawa and co-developer of Emotionally Focused Therapy, has documented how secure attachment is built or rebuilt in adult relationships — including therapeutic and coaching relationships. Her research makes clear that the corrective experience doesn’t require a perfect relationship. It requires a relationship that is good enough — consistently available, responsive to rupture, and willing to repair. That’s what the therapeutic relationship offers. That’s what the right coaching relationship offers. And over time, that’s what the nervous system begins to expect.
The Fixing the Foundations program was built specifically for driven women who are ready to do this work — not the surface-level productivity optimization that most executive coaching offers, but the deeper relational reorganization that changes how you lead, how you love, and how you live. If you’re ready to understand your attachment pattern and work with it differently, reach out to connect with our team.
If you’re a driven woman who recognizes herself in Elena’s train-ride replay, or in Priya’s brilliant isolation, or in Jordan’s reset — you’re not broken. You’re running software that made sense once. The question isn’t whether you can change. The neuroscience is clear that you can. The question is whether you’re ready to.
Q: What’s the difference between anxious and avoidant attachment at work?
A: Anxious attachment at work shows up as hyperactivation of the relational monitoring system: over-explaining, compulsive checking for approval, difficulty tolerating ambiguity, and setting limits that feel like potential abandonment. Avoidant attachment shows up as deactivation: emotional self-sufficiency, difficulty receiving feedback, reduced relational investment with the team, and a preference for task over connection. Both are protective strategies developed in response to early caregiving environments — neither is a character flaw.
Q: Can I change my attachment style as an adult?
A: Yes — and this is one of the most important things neuroscience has established in the last two decades. Attachment patterns aren’t fixed at childhood. Through corrective relational experiences — in therapy, in secure adult relationships, through reflective narrative work — the brain reorganizes. Daniel Siegel, MD, calls this earned secure attachment, and the research is clear: adults who develop a coherent narrative of their own attachment history show neural organization similar to those with secure attachment from birth.
Q: How do I know which attachment style I have?
A: The most reliable way is through reflective work with a therapist who specializes in attachment — because attachment patterns are most visible under stress, and a skilled clinician can help you see patterns you can’t see from inside them. Pay attention to how you respond when your boss is ambiguous, when a direct report disappoints you, when you receive critical feedback, or when a colleague withdraws. Your nervous system’s response in those moments is your attachment pattern in action.
Q: Is my attachment style affecting my team’s performance?
A: Almost certainly, yes — though the mechanism differs by style. The anxiously-attached leader may inadvertently create a team culture of approval-seeking and conflict-avoidance. The avoidant leader may create a team that performs well on tasks but lacks the trust and psychological safety needed for innovation and honest feedback. The disorganized leader may create a team that’s highly loyal in good periods and deeply uncertain in difficult ones. The research consistently shows that leader attachment style shapes team psychological safety, which shapes performance, creativity, and retention.
Q: Can therapy actually change something as deep as an attachment pattern?
A: Yes — and this is the most important clinical answer I can give. Therapy, particularly attachment-based and psychodynamic approaches, is one of the most powerful contexts for earned secure attachment. The therapeutic relationship itself provides the corrective experience: a consistently available, attuned, and responsive relationship that updates the internal working model. This isn’t metaphorical. It’s neurobiological.
Q: How do attachment styles show up in the manager-direct report relationship?
A: The manager-direct report relationship is neurologically an attachment relationship — the manager functions as a proximity figure, and the direct report’s nervous system responds to the manager’s availability, attunement, and consistency accordingly. An anxiously-attached direct report may seek constant reassurance from her manager. An avoidant manager may struggle to provide the relational presence her team needs. A secure manager creates conditions of psychological safety that allow the team to take creative risks, give honest feedback, and recover from failure without catastrophizing.
Q: What’s the difference between earned secure attachment and just working on self-awareness?
A: Self-awareness is necessary but not sufficient. You can have complete intellectual understanding of your attachment pattern and still be activated by a one-syllable “hmm” from your MD. Earned secure attachment involves a deeper reorganization — not just knowing about your pattern, but having the relational experience that updates the nervous system’s expectations. This is why therapy is different from reading about therapy. The corrective experience has to happen in relationship, because that’s where the original pattern was formed.
Related Reading
Bowlby, John. A Secure Base: Parent-Child Attachment and Healthy Human Development. Basic Books, 1988.
Levine, Amir, and Rachel Heller. Attached: The New Science of Adult Attachment and How It Can Help You Find — and Keep — Love. TarcherPerigee, 2010.
Wallin, David J. Attachment in Psychotherapy. Guilford Press, 2007.
Siegel, Daniel J. Mindsight: The New Science of Personal Transformation. Bantam Books, 2010.
Johnson, Susan M. Attachment Theory in Practice: Emotionally Focused Therapy (EFT) with Individuals, Couples, and Families. Guilford Press, 2019.
McConnell, D., et al. “The relationship between attachment and mental health at work.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2025. PMID: PMC13018252.
Yang, Y., et al. “Too Insecure to Be a Leader: The Role of Attachment in Leadership Emergence.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2020. PMID: PMC7705218.
Ren, Q., et al. “Attachment and self-regulation in the workplace — a theoretical review.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2024. PMID: PMC11619274.
Wise, R.M., et al. “Career Satisfaction and Adult Attachment Style Among Employees.” Frontiers in Psychology. 2022. PMID: PMC8852889.
Mikulincer, Mario, and Phillip R. Shaver. Attachment in Adulthood: Structure, Dynamics, and Change. 2nd ed. Guilford Press, 2016.
WAYS TO WORK WITH ANNIE
Individual Therapy
Trauma-informed therapy for driven women healing relational trauma. Licensed in 9 states.
Executive Coaching
Trauma-informed coaching for ambitious women navigating leadership and burnout.
Fixing the Foundations
Annie’s signature course for relational trauma recovery. Work at your own pace.
Strong & Stable
The Sunday conversation you wished you’d had years earlier. 20,000+ subscribers.
Annie Wright, LMFT
LMFT · Relational Trauma Specialist · W.W. Norton Author
Helping ambitious women finally feel as good as their résumé looks.
Annie Wright is a licensed psychotherapist (LMFT #95719) and trauma-informed executive coach with over 15,000 clinical hours. She works with driven, ambitious women — including Silicon Valley leaders, physicians, and entrepreneurs — in repairing the psychological foundations beneath their impressive lives. Annie is the founder and former CEO of Evergreen Counseling, a multimillion-dollar trauma-informed therapy center she built, scaled, and successfully exited. A regular contributor to Psychology Today, her expert commentary has appeared in Forbes, Business Insider, Inc., NBC, and The Information. She is currently writing her first book with W.W. Norton.
