Object relations theory, paired with the Enneagram, can make all the difference when coaching clients out of repeating old emotional patterns. By helping clients see how past relationships shape their present interactions, you can guide them to finally break free of these cycles. It’s about giving them the tools to rediscover themselves. 

 

“The Enneagram is a universal symbol; it can work as an integrator for multiple theories, including object relations. You can bring those theories, a whole myriad of ways of looking at the world, into the Enneagram, and it can help you or your client make sense of it; or, in this case, make sense of your relationship with the people in your life. Ultimately, the Enneagram enhances object relations by making it more digestible.” – Lucille Greeff, Chief Product Officer at Aephoria. 

 

What is Object Relations Theory?

Object relations theory, rooted in psychoanalytic theory, primarily stems from the work of Melanie Klein and later contributors like Kohut, Mahler, and Ogden. At its core, the theory explores how our internal and external worlds shape how we perceive and engage with others.

 

In psychoanalytic terms, “objects” refer to people or representations of people. In our early years the complex person who is “mother” is only a representation or mother-object imprinted in our inner world. Early relationships with the nurturing figure, the more authoritarian figure, and our family-system, form the foundation of how we see the world. As Lucille Greeff explains, these early interactions don’t only shape our drives (or instincts, to use Enneagram language) but also influence how we experience relationships throughout our lives.

 

Object Relations and Emotional Patterns

In early childhood, particularly before the brain fully develops the ability to see others in a multidimensional way, babies encounter their environment in more simplistic terms. 

 

For example, a baby’s interaction with its mother or primary caregiver may first be centred around feeding. If a baby is breastfed, its initial object might be the breast, and through repeated experiences, it forms internal representations of these encounters. This internal world includes snapshots – like photos – of key figures, such as the nurturing figure or an authoritarian figure, and the home or family environment.

 

However, these internal representations are not necessarily accurate or current. As we grow, we sometimes engage with others based not on who they truly are, but on the internal versions of them we’ve built up over time. 

 

Sometimes, we even project our experiences with early figures, like a parent or sibling, onto new people who remind us of them, without realising it. This projection can cause us to respond to people in ways that are more about our past experiences than the present reality. We don’t “make” these projections consciously, they happen. 

 

Object relations theory further suggests that there are three dominant emotional patterns, or “affects,” that arise in our relationships with these objects:

 

1. Attachment: We cling to what we have, often because it feels safe or comforting.

2. Frustration: We recognise how something should be, but it falls short of that ideal, so we’re left feeling dissatisfied.

3. Rejection: We push away or distance ourselves when our needs aren’t being met.

 

The Impact of Object Relations Theory

Consider an adult male in a relationship with his partner. If his relationship with his mother involved her consistently meeting his needs, he may expect his partner to fulfil those same needs without question. However, if he grew up accustomed to unmet expectations, he might project that frustration onto his partner, continuously dissatisfied because his expectations are not met.

 

In this scenario, the dominant emotion – whether frustration, attachment, or rejection – originates from early life experiences with nurturing or authoritarian figures. This emotional pattern then becomes a lens through which we interpret current relationships, often leading to distorted perceptions and expectations. 

 

By recognising this, we can start to unpack our reactions and engage more consciously with others rather than merely reliving the dynamics of our past.

 

The Connection Between Object Relations Theory and the Enneagram

Object relations is becoming a more common theme in Enneagram circles, with psychotherapists like Belinda Gore and Beatrice Chestnut integrating these concepts. It’s encouraging to see that more books and resources on object relations in coaching are emerging, allowing coaches to utilise them. The value when they do is clear.  

 

Object relations theory is dense and deeply rooted in psychoanalytic practice, which isn’t typically within the mandate of coaching. As coaches, we often avoid this territory due to its complexity and the psychological depth it requires. 

 

While deep psychoanalytic exploration may not be appropriate in coaching, being aware of these underlying patterns can prevent coaches from inadvertently reinforcing them. For example, helping clients recognise where they may be replaying old dynamics can lead to more conscious choices in their relationships and work environments.

 

“If I work with the Enneagram without the object relations view, then I might not see some of the representations of the self-object, other objects and the dominant affect as clearly. When you integrate other approaches with the Enneagram, it brings everything into more focus than they were before.” – Lucille Greeff.

 

How Early Object Relations Shape Future Relationships

When integrated with the Enneagram, object relations theory reveals how early childhood experiences with nurturing, authoritarian figures, and the environment can profoundly impact future relationships. 

 

Lucille Greeff highlights that each Enneagram type experiences these dynamics differently, leading to distinct relational patterns.

 

The Attachment Types (3, 6, 9)

The Attachment Affect Types – Enneagrams 3, 6, and 9 – are deeply influenced by their early experiences with attachment figures. They tend to “hold on” to relationships, jobs, or situations even when they no longer serve them. 

 

Early in life, these types form strong attachments to objects or people, and as adults, they strive to maintain stability by adapting or blending with their surroundings.

 

• Type 3 learns to blend in by shifting their persona to fit the environment, often losing touch with their authentic self in the process. They adapt to gain approval and maintain relationships, even if it means neglecting their true needs or desires.

 

• Type 6 focuses on safety and security. They adapt to their surroundings to ensure they remain protected, often staying in jobs or relationships to avoid uncertainty, even if they’re unfulfilling.

 

• Type 9 is driven by a need for peace and harmony. They merge with others to avoid conflict, often at the expense of their own individuality. This leads them to stay in relationships or situations that no longer benefit them, simply to maintain peace.

 

For example, a Type 9 might remain in a stagnant relationship or job for far too long, prioritising harmony and avoiding confrontation, even when it’s clear the situation isn’t meeting their needs. This is because they’ve internalised the belief that maintaining connection, even at the cost of their own desires, is better than facing disruption or conflict.

 

For these types, it’s essential to break the habit of over-adapting and to focus on internal stability rather than external validation.

 

The Frustration Types (1, 4, 7)

The Frustration Affect Types – Enneagrams 1, 4, and 7 – are driven by an internalised idealisation of objects or people in their lives. They seek perfection and hold an idealised version of how things should be, which leads to frustration when reality falls short. 

 

This dissatisfaction can colour their relationships, often creating tension.

 

• Type 1 holds an ideal of how things should be and becomes easily frustrated when others don’t meet these high standards. They can be highly critical, both of themselves and others, when things fall short of perfection.

  For example, a Type 1 may feel perpetually frustrated in a relationship, believing their partner isn’t meeting their high standards of how things should be done. This can create a dynamic where they are often critical or dissatisfied, even when things are objectively going well.

 

• Type 4 seeks emotional depth and uniqueness in relationships. They idealise a perfect connection, which often leads to disappointment when relationships don’t meet their expectations of emotional intensity or depth.

 

• Type 7 may seem more light-hearted, but they, too, experience frustration. They idealise the possibilities of the future and can become disillusioned when reality doesn’t align with their optimistic vision. This can cause them to disengage or dismiss challenges, as they continue to pursue their ideal version of happiness.

 

For these types, the key is recognising that reality can never fully match their internal ideals. By embracing imperfection and allowing more flexibility, they can ease the constant tension and improve their relationships.

 

The Rejection Types (2, 5, 8)

The Rejection Affect Types – Enneagrams 2, 5, and 8 – are shaped by early experiences of rejection. In response, they tend to avoid vulnerability by rejecting others first or keeping their emotional distance. 

 

Their internal strategy is to protect themselves from the potential hurt of being rejected again, leading to patterns of distancing or self-sufficiency.

 

• Type 2 rejects their own needs in favour of serving others. They give and care for those around them but avoid expressing their own desires, fearing rejection if they appear “needy.” This self-denial creates a dynamic where they rely on external validation while rejecting their own internal needs.

 

• Type 5 distances themselves emotionally to maintain their autonomy. They prefer to stay self-reliant and avoid intimacy that might overwhelm them. By keeping people at arm’s length, they prevent others from having the power to hurt or reject them.

 

• Type 8 actively rejects vulnerability, opting for control and strength to protect themselves. They prefer to be the one in charge, pushing others away if they sense any weakness or vulnerability in the relationship.

  For example, a Type 8 might quickly dismiss a partner or colleague at the first sign of emotional vulnerability, seeing it as a potential threat. They may push people away or dismiss relationships before they have a chance to develop, fearing the possibility of being hurt or disappointed.

 

For these types, the challenge is to allow themselves to trust others and embrace vulnerability. By recognising that rejecting others pre-emptively only reinforces their internal wounds, they can open themselves to deeper, more fulfilling relationships.

 

How to Help Clients Identify Their Unconscious Relational Patterns

“Using the lens of object relations in coaching helps the client to strengthen their inner observer,” shares Lucille Greeff. “This inner observer is a different part within me that watches how I go about things, and it helps me notice the patterns and see my experiences almost from a third-person perspective.” 

 

“Think of this inner observer – self-awareness – as a balcony that provides perspective on our life. And you need to do the work to strengthen it.” 

 

She recommends three methods:  

 

• Reflective Exercises: When a client feels triggered, encourage them to reflect on the situation. Use the Enneagram as a mirror, offering insight into their patterns without over-explaining theory. Helping clients see their own tendencies can be transformative.

  A key aspect of object relations is understanding how clients may project early relational dynamics onto current situations. If a client perceives their manager as overly critical, it might stem from past authority figure experiences. Rather than coaching at face value (e.g., suggesting a career change), it’s essential to explore whether the projection of early life experiences onto the current present experience is at play.

 

• Somatic Practices: Techniques like conscious connected breathing or holotropic breathwork can access deeper, unconscious patterns tied to early relational dynamics. These methods allow clients to process unresolved issues from past experiences, shifting the dominant affect at play. 

 

• Curious Questions: Use the affect patterns of object relations as a lens in coaching. This supports the client to notice how patterns of frustration / idealisation, attachment and rejection may be playing out. From noticing this, the agency of the client to change the affect present in the relationship, to reauthor and reframe becomes available. 

 

How to Start Working with Object Relations Your Coaching 

For coaches new to using object relations, Lucille Greeff suggests keeping things simple and focused. Instead of diving deep into theory, look for patterns in how your client relates to authority, belonging, and nurturing. This is where the deeper stuff happens, rather than in the individual events they bring up.

 

Lucille also advises against being overly theoretical. Keep it practical – offer small insights and let the client connect the dots themselves. Trying to teach object relations theory in-depth can actually backfire, making it harder for the client to engage and see themselves. 

 

When a client is triggered, it’s often linked to past wounds, so use that as a sign to explore whether these reactions might be tied to old family dynamics. Helping the client see this can unlock new perspectives on how their past is influencing their present relationships.

 

Lastly, shifting the roles they see themselves or others playing in their lives can make a big impact. 

 

“To paraphrase from Jennifer Garvey Berger: object relations help us see the simple stories we’ve created that play out in our subconscious. In those simple stories, there’s always a goodie (usually ourselves) and a baddie (usually the person who’s triggered me). But when we develop alternative stories that don’t typecast this ‘baddie’ into the role of the baddie, if I see them from the perspective that they’re the hero of their own story, then our view can shift, and we change the narrative.” – Lucille Greeff.  

 

We’d love to hear: what role have the Enneagram and object relations played in your coaching practice? What approaches or results have you applied and seen? Please share in the comments. 

 

Or, contact our team directly, and let’s continue the conversation. 

 

About Lucille Greeff

Lucille Greeff is a Chartered Organisation Development (OD) practitioner, facilitator, coach, team development specialist, and HPCSA-registered psychometrist. She has a degree in Political Science, a BA Honours in Psychology, and an MA in Development Studies, all from the University of Johannesburg. 

 

Lucille’s work focuses on personal, team, and organisational change and transformation, emphasising health and effectiveness, issue-centricity, and deep transformation. She is also a vision quest facilitator and uses wilderness-based leadership development and deep ecology work in her practice.

 

Connect with Lucille. 

Follow Aephoria on LinkedIn for more insights into the Enneagram, coaching, and leadership development.