The Whole Truth: Coping Creatively with the Dark Side of Therapeutic Practice

We are sitting down to dinner, like we do every night. My oldest son, home briefly from college, has reclaimed his seat to the left of me. Across from me sit my other two children, sweaty and satisfied by their after-school sports practices. The four of us chirp out a collective, “Thank you,” to my husband, the cook, for such a good dinner. We eat and talk and wind down our day.

Only moments before, I was finishing up one of those long, intense days, hour after hour filled with client struggle and crisis and touching connection. I had silently shooed my last client out the door, my thoughts becoming a bit frantic when I thought she was going to stop at the bathroom, further delaying my departure. I swooped out—lights off, sound machine off, alarm set—hurrying to get on the road that would take me to my daughter’s soccer practice just in time to pick her up.

Most days are like this. I dive deeply into my commitment to healing and helping clients. I work with their internal worlds, and willingly make contact with some of the most painful aspects of life. And, just as quickly, I rush up from the depths, back into daily living.

Today was more difficult than average. A long-term client came in with the news that she’d been diagnosed with an aggressive form of cancer. A 15-year-old who had been successfully using art as an alternative to self-harm arrived to session with a freshly cut X in her shoulder. I struggled to engage a new client—a sullen, depressed teen. I listened patiently to a client tell a different version of the same story about her frustrating husband. And I hosted a culminating art show (both celebration and termination) with the work done in treatment by my client, a recovering addict, for her and her large extended family.

Yet when I sit at dinner now with my own amazing family, there is nothing to say in reply to my kids’ inquiries: “How was your day, Mom?” I can’t give them details; everything is confidential. Besides, it feels impossible to convey the depth of pain and joy that my job delivers. And while I think they are actually asking, “How are you, Mom?” I haven’t even had the time to figure that out. Between racing out of the office to soccer practice pickup, and then home for dinner, there hasn’t been an ounce of room for self-reflection. And if I use the time at dinner to really see how I am, I know I will come up with confusing and disparate adjectives: drained, energized, discouraged, overwhelmed, fascinated, curious, amazed, sad. The truth is I’m full of joy and gratitude for the opportunity to midwife significant changes in so many clients’ lives. At the same time, I also have my fill of others’ pain, their traumatic stories, and the experience of feeling helpless in the face of intransigent symptoms. I know too well that, if I’m not careful, this visceral awareness of human tragedy can lead me to disconnect from even the most basic dinner conversation, or worse, cause burnout at work and alienation from family and friends.

Confronting the Dark Side

I’ve come to learn that what I once held true about my profession is in fact not the whole truth. Being a therapist is not only about being effective at helping clients reach their goals. Aspiring to help clients make significant changes, achieve their treatment goals, and improve their functioning is a worthy pursuit that requires a lifetime of work and experience, but effectiveness is only part of the story.

In 2009, psychologists David Orlinsky and Michael Ronnestad studied over 5,000 therapists’ experience and careers, and brought to light the double-edged nature that psychotherapeutic work embodies. They found that, while over half of the therapists studied feel they have effective practices that yield feelings of competence, positive relational interactions, and flow states, another quarter have what the researchers deemed a challenging practice. The therapists studied were equally likely to experience this stress across orientations, career levels, and licenses. But what is fascinating is that those therapists with challenging practices—who experienced professional self-doubt, frustrations, and difficult feelings—still reported high engagement and positive relational interactions. This challenges what therapists might assume to be true: either you feel good because you’re doing your job well, or you feel bad because you are not helping your clients effectively enough. In fact, it offers an alternate view of our work: that there really is a way to experience difficulty without being inadequate, a way to hold self-doubt without feeling incompetent. Orlinsky and Ronnestad’s research reveals that while it is important to increase effectiveness for the therapist’s sense of healing involvement and for the client’s satisfaction with the services offered, effectiveness alone will not mitigate the stress of the profession. “If we do pursue ideal effectiveness as our one and only buffer for professional stress, it seems we are setting ourselves up for burnout.”

When I started seeing therapists as individual clients, I began to hear how easily this stressful involvement can easily turn into shame. If we don’t figure out ways to cope with the difficult feelings that accompany our work, burnout and self-doubt can begin to interfere with our well being and cause emotional disconnection from our therapeutic relationship with clients.

I’ve heard the narrative many times. It goes something like this: “I’m a therapist; I’m supposed to be emotionally healthy. But every single day, hour after hour, I have the chance to feel like a failure. Whether or not I succeed in empathizing with my clients, I feel struggle and pain and tragedy. I’m supposed to be healthy enough to withstand it. If I don’t feel emotionally resilient and instead feel bored and unconnected, or dread seeing my clients, I am a failure. But I can’t be a failure, so I will cover it all up and live with shame.” It’s a closed narrative that doesn’t provide alternative reactions to feeling stress and uncertainty.

Orlinskey and Ronnestad’s study identified a dual coping strategy as the key to therapists’ ability to sustain themselves and to stay engaged in their work. Besides the development of clinical skills, the other aspect of coping had to do with self-reflection. In order to tolerate difficulties such as the distress of feeling powerless to affect a client’s tragic life situation, or needing to regulate intense feelings in order to establish the one-way intimacy of a therapeutic relationship, therapists need to use their creativity to see the problem differently and to “give themselves permission” to experience disturbing or difficult feelings.

When I was an intern twenty-odd years ago, my supervisors coached me to practice good boundaries, and they implied that any struggles I did have with my role as therapist or career choice were due to my lack of experience, my unresolved personal issues, or the fact that I wasn’t seasoned enough and didn’t know how to “leave it at the office.” In his book, A Perilous Calling: The Hazards of Psychotherapy Practice, Michael Sussman suggests that the original blank-screen approach to the therapeutic task has dangerously infiltrated modern practice: “Throughout the history of psychotherapy, the personhood of the practitioner has been all but ignored. Successive generations of therapist have received and, in turn, passed along a professional culture that often leaves little room for the clinician’s humanity.” My own experience as an intern mirrors Sussman’s warning: “I didn’t feel I was allowed to have personal feelings about my professional work as a therapist, but these feelings didn’t stop rising to the surface.” Yet, because I didn’t have a safe place to bring them or a way to work through them, I also couldn’t let myself acknowledge their looming presence.

According to psychologists John Norcross and James Guy, 75% of therapists complain that work issues spill over into their family lives. Norcross and Guy highlight the fact that increased work stress is related to decreased marital satisfaction: the emotional exhaustion of our work can leave us too tired to engage in family relationships. One might think that we therapists could just share our work drama and download to our spouses like any other stressed professional would. But confidentiality rules prevent this from happening. Besides, if we don’t understand that powerlessness and uncertainty are difficult feelings that we need to learn to allow, and instead feel inadequate for having these feelings, we are even less likely to be able to share with family or colleagues how very hard our work is.

Having weathered two decades of this amazing vocation, it’s only now that I am able to turn and look without shame or inadequacy at the shadow side of this work: the part that is painful and dark and that can become toxic, breeding isolation and disillusionment. I’ve been down that path where ineffectiveness led to powerlessness and shame, where the mask of clinical expertise and emotional stability prevented me from connecting to what was true for me, where I bought into the idea that difficult feelings were a sign of inadequacy. At one time, I thought that feeling effective was a true salve against this shadow side. I was so set on being helpful, I was willing to sacrifice almost anything. I didn’t know how to use self-reflection to process the trauma and intense emotion being poured into the core of me again and again. This is the side of my work that I don’t really want to share with my family, and the side that so few of my colleagues readily admit to experiencing.

Finding Support

Externalizing: Painting by Lisa MitchellRonnestad and Orlinksy found that quality of the work setting and available peer support are crucial in assisting therapists to cope with isolation and the sense of helplessness. This seems to be an obvious solution: a work setting in which supervision and peer support groups invite discussions about these issues. Given that the researchers found many therapists to value personal therapy as a tool that helps them engage constructively with clients and feel they are thriving in their work, it would seem like validating these messier and darker inner-world experiences should be a regular work practice among colleagues as well—not just one hidden away in the private realm of individual therapy.

Certainly, there has to be a time and place for this kind of activity. When working directly with clients, we need to exercise appropriate boundaries. We don’t want to be processing our internal experience to the exclusion of tending to our clients’ experiences. But even when I invite fellow therapists to talk about and reveal their inner worlds in a safe non-clinical setting, they have a hard time doing it without relating it back to some kind of analysis of countertransference. We are so good at trying to understand our clients that even the act of excavating our inner experience of being a therapist becomes another avenue for more insight about our clients. So often I hear therapists report a feeling like irritation, and then immediately justify their irritation with a countertranference explanation about how their client reminds them of a mother-in-law, for instance. I have to ask: when can your inner experience of irritation simply be a by-product of being a therapist?

If, as Ronnestad and Orlinsky’s research suggests, nearly half of therapists feel pressured, overwhelmed, anxious, and trapped at least occasionally in session, why don’t we take these feelings more seriously? Why can’t we be open about them with ourselves and with colleagues—collectively honoring both the light and dark of our profession? Can we allow our knee-jerk therapeutic use of self-analysis to slow down just a little so that we can look at ourselves without wearing our therapist masks?

Taking Off the Mask

Just last week, in an altered book workshop that I was facilitating, I saw how sharing this inner world and this double-edged experience can benefit all who participate. The group was mixed: therapists who had been in practice for decades, a few interns, and one trainee. I invited them each to make collages that represented what they carry for themselves and for clients in their hearts. It’s always amazing to me the level of depth therapists are willing to bring to this kind of nonverbal self-reflection. The heart images were powerful and raw. One woman made a weaving that juxtaposed operating room images with strips of wholesome nature scenes. Another took large nails and screws and attached them as if they were impaling the walls of her heart. Many had innocent images of children: smooth skin, wide eyes, swaddling cloth.

Embodied: Painting by Lisa MitchellIn the course of the workshop, I coached these therapists about the creative process. The start of any artistic activity is always fraught with some level of fear. Sometimes the fear is so high, especially for people new to art making in adulthood, that they may have difficulty starting because they are not familiar with this line between stressful involvement and full engagement. But it often just takes a nudge to begin. I like to remind folks that they don’t have to know how it will turn out; they just have to start with a color or a brushstroke.

For the therapists I have encountered in my workshops, the first step in an art-making activity can be hard for this reason, and yet the process mirrors one all therapists are familiar with. Beginning without knowing where our efforts will end up is much like beginning a relationship with a new client, or starting a session and finding that the treatment plan has taken an entirely different direction, and things are no longer as they seemed.

Even for experienced artists, this starting can sometimes be hard, but it is also exhilarating at the most passionate level. Artists know, when they start, that if they plan too much, the process is going to be stifled, boring, and probably not very creative. If that exhilarating feeling of anxiety before the unknown is present—better call the feeling “anticipation”—it is an indicator of newness and risk, which will inevitably bring discovery of the highest order.

During the training, when we shared our images, there was a collective sigh of relief. One therapist said, “Sometimes there is a jolt of pain in my heart—the sheer rawness of it all. Who do you share this with? I could never go home and show this image to my husband. He wouldn’t understand. It’s so hard to express it honestly for yourself. But then to show it other people—I have so much gratitude that there are others who can see this, hold this, and still not judge me as inadequate.”

The opportunity to view others’ experience in a visceral way normalized the more difficult feelings that the group members carried as therapists. Hearing everybody talk about their art and the experiences that it represented allowed participants to stop pathologizing these feelings. “Seeing others’ openness made the darker side of being a therapist feel more okay in a very powerful way.”

In another activity, I invited the group members to make art that represented the gifts that clients had given them. They first had to get past the fear of admitting that they did actually benefit from client relationships. Then, when they were able to see how much each person’s life had been touched and changed as a result of real, concrete lessons or ideas clients had taught them, they cried. They were so relieved to see that things were actually coming in rather than just going out. One therapist would never have pursued her dream of being a professor if her client hadn’t showed her that it was possible. Another therapist credits her client with the fact that she survived cancer due to an alternative treatment approach that her client mentioned. I credit one particular teen client for teaching me how to show teens respect, and I use it every day with my own children and with all of my other teenage clients.

At the end of the workshop, after they had all made art and reflected honestly about how the profession affects their lives positively and negatively, one of the interns said that it had been an amazing gift to hear that even the most successful and seasoned therapists have difficulties in their work. She hadn’t heard about the difficulties, hadn’t seen others struggling, and hadn’t been well informed about what to expect and how to cope. The older therapists talked about the sense of validation and belongingness that the honest art expressions and discussions had allowed.

When therapists collectively allow there to be a dual experience of light and dark, abundance and depletion, there is a sigh of relief—an acceptance of the whole truth. And self-blame, inadequacy, and shame simply dissipate.

The Therapist as Artist

In the course of my trainings and also my own personal and creative life, the analogy of therapist as artist continues to take on richer, more profound meaning. Not only do therapists have amazing inner worlds that they are constantly mining for ideas, inspiration, and sustenance; to be creative, therapists have to know that anxiety, overwhelm, and uncertainty are all necessary aspects of making their art. This speaks to the idea that therapists can experience growth and depletion concurrently in their work. Just as for an artist, the therapist’s main objective becomes hanging in despite uncertainty, treating the unexpected as opportunity, seeing things from new and different perspectives, and maintaining involvement even when things get stressful. In other words, staying in flow feelings, maintaining a relational manner, and employing effective clinical skills even in the presence of stressful involvement are the ticket to being a creative therapist and staving off burnout.

Operating from the artist’s perspective, therapists can recognize that stressful involvement doesn’t have to block healing involvement. Rather, it is simply a necessary accompaniment to any creative endeavor. As Carl Rogers pointed out, constructive creativity requires openness to experience and tolerance for ambiguity: “It means the ability to receive much conflicting information without forcing closure.” The process of absorption or being wholly involved is characterized by Rollo May as “intensity of awareness and a heightened consciousness.” With this creative encounter come neurological changes—quickened heartbeat, narrowed vision, diminished appetite, loss of time awareness—that mirror physiological reactions to anxiety and fear. May suggests, however, that the artist doesn’t experience this arousal response as negative, but rather as joyful. In the creative process, flow feelings and arousal—whether experienced as anxiety or pleasure—go hand in hand. They are a result of engaging in a creative process. One without the other is impossible. The goal is not to eliminate the anxiety, but to make sure that it doesn’t block the flow.

When therapists see that their work is truly creative in nature and realize that the act of working with clients requires all the same components of any creative act, there is a built-in context for coping. How else do artists and other creatives endure their daily grind? Who else but the most creative know how to hold disparate experiences and make something of them? “Just like an artist, a therapist must hold the experience of being fully, heartfully engaged to painful experiences.” A therapist has to strive to connect on a vulnerable and intimate level with the client, yet maintain a professional boundary so as not to become merged in the relationship. And, despite scary or frustrating situations, a therapist must maintain engagement and strive to stay in contact with the relationship at hand.

As therapists then, we must stay creative: flexible, engaged, committed, willing to hang out in the unknown and greet newness and possibility as it comes. Be open to the process. This is not a passive state—it requires active exploration, self-reflection, sharing, curiosity, fearlessness to look at the unknown, risk taking to express that which is ugly, negative, or difficult. This commitment to staying creative must start with finding a way to communicate that inner-world experience to people who get it—to express these feelings without having to stay in the role of therapist, and to be in the presence of peers who understand that this kind of expression—can be the very key to sustaining self in our work. And because the creative process teaches us to welcome anxiety and other difficult feelings, doing art with other therapists can be a source of continual renewal.

At the End of the Day

If the creative process brings us freedom and new possibilities, it also brings us beauty. So when things aren’t seeming that beautiful around the office, when high healing involvement is giving way to self-doubt, frustration, and boredom, I’m remind myself that stress and flow are not mutually exclusive. I keep up a dialogue with myself on a daily basis. The question that I constantly ask is one that author Michael Ventura asks: “Where is the beauty in my work? Where is the beauty in this client?”

The other day, while sitting with a new teen client, I found myself melting into that beauty. She was reading a poem that she’d written as part of her therapy homework assignment. I instantly saw past her self-harm and angry outbursts, and said a deep thank you for the beauty that my work allows me to see. It’s been a long haul—from those days of meticulously monitoring client numbers and celebrating results to stepping into the quiet, reflective relationship between authentic self and work. I think I’m finally embracing that long, beautiful journey—no shell around my heart needed.

In my work with other therapists, I continue to emphasize what Jeffrey Kottler says in his wise book, On Being a Therapist: “[As therapists] we are touched by [our clients’] goodness and the joy and privilege we feel in being allowed to get so close to a human soul. And we are harmed by their malicious and destructive energy.” Having that focus, and the creative means with which to process all that comes with our work, will allow me to sustain myself and others for the long haul.

So the next time I’m sitting at dinner struggling to cross the bridge between my personal and professional lives, I’m going to consider that “How was your day, Mom?” as an invitation to take stock of my inner canvas. I’ll remember that my work is a creative process and feel more freedom in my reply. If it was one of those days, I think I will tell the kids all those disparate adjectives—drained, energized, discouraged, overwhelmed, fascinated, curious, amazed, sad—without feeling bad about my work. And then I will simply say, with a smile on my face, ”It’s great to be home.”

Suggested Activity

Individually, or with a group of safe colleagues, get together to create a representation of ‘Your Doorway to Therapeutic Presence.” You can do this by using magazine images and computer paper. As you prepare, think, write, and talk about the transition that you make when you begin work in session—from the moment that marks the transition between being alone in your office to your first encounter with your client in the waiting room. Consider what you leave behind as you transition—thoughts of other clients, preoccupation with family issues, plans for the weekend, etc. And consider what you welcome—awareness, presence, compassion, openness to the unknown. We do this transition over and over again, all day long. Some days we do it without effort. Other days our responses to disturbing material in client sessions or personal tragedy cause the transition to be arduous.

As you consider your internal experience of this transition and the state of being on either side of that doorway of therapeutic presence, find collage pictures that represent your experience. For most, the feeling of being present with a client comes with pictures of broad landscape, nature, the representation of awe and the feeling of being at peace with the world. And, depending on the current life situations, the experience outside of therapeutic presence ranges from blissful faces of children to painful images that depict life challenges such as illness, death, and other real struggles.

When you are finished with your doorway, share it. Really—go ahead. This opportunity to allow yourself to be seen outside of your role as therapist by other therapists is the very thing that we are conditioned not to do. This is also one of the most important coping strategies that so many of the researchers suggest. Allow difficulties to be there, honor the intense experience, increase knowledge of self and the therapeutic process, and embrace therapy as a creative process.

References

Kottler, J. (2010). On being a therapist. Jossey-Bass.
Kottler, J. (2005). The client who changed me: Stories of therapist personal transformation (p. 1). New York: Routledge.
May, Rollo. (1959). The nature of creativity. In Anderson, H. (Ed.).Creativity and its cultivation (pp. 55-68). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers.
Norcross, J., & Guy, J. (2009, August 19). Leaving it at the office: Taking care of yourself.
Orlinsky, D., & Ronnestad, M. (2009).How psychotherapists develop: A study of therapeutic work and professional growth. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Rogers, Carl, R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. In Anderson, H. (Ed.) Creativity and its cultivation (pp.69-82). New York, NY: Harper and Brothers. 
Sussman, M. (Ed.). (1995). A perilous calling: The hazards of psychotherapy practice. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Ventura, M. Beauty resurrected: Awakening wonder in the consulting room.

Supervision of Executive Coaching

Last year I was tempted out of my retirement as a psychotherapist to provide supervision to a group of colleagues working with business executives. This was not psychotherapy but coaching, and my protests that I had never done any coaching or even read very much about it were overruled: they wanted me and they had every confidence that I would do a good job. I was flattered of course, intrigued too, and the extra money was welcome. So I began. Sessions were individual and scheduled to last an hour and a half, not the usual fifty minute hour. I met my supervisees just once a month. These parameters took some getting used to and I found myself having to take detailed notes in the session, something I had not done for years, simply in order to keep in mind who people were, what their place was in a particular firm, what work they were doing and who they related to. It was a steep learning curve and, more than once, I wondered whether I had taken on something of a monster. But I got used to it and developed a way of working that suited me. Interestingly, only one person out of the six I was supervising asked me at the outset what my model of supervision was. I was not expecting the question and answered without preparatory thought. I listen to what you tell me, I said, and, where appropriate, I shall say something. I admit that this is terribly vague but it is nevertheless accurate. I could have said something about attending to the currents and undercurrents in the material, or about the dynamics of relationships, or about the transactional nature of coaching. But I felt that that was too prescriptive and even, to some degree, false. I would do what I was good at and what I had done as a therapist, which was work out what I thought might be going on and seek out the best moment to make an intervention. This is not as straightforward as it sounds.

In supervision there are three levels of ‘what might be going on.’ What the coach/therapist and client are doing in the world outside, what material the coach/therapist chooses to bring to the session, and what is happening there and then in the supervisory relationship. The last is particularly important. One of the supervisees was someone I had met 20 years ago when we were both involved in training clinical psychologists but I had not seen since. He is a likable and charismatic person with an unusual background. At our first supervisory meeting, he said that, when he had heard I was to be their supervisor, he had told his colleagues how great I was and how he had known me for 20 years. My ears pricked up not just at the effusive compliment but the claim to have known me for 20 years when the truth was he had known me briefly 20 years ago, an important difference. I said nothing. Time would reveal whether his desire for special recognition would be important in the work as indeed it has proved to be.

The man who asked me what my model of supervision was suddenly quit. He came to one session and bluntly told me that he had decided to stop. It was not adding enough value and he was a busy man. I was filled with overwhelming anger. I felt the narcissistic wounding and I knew this was in part counter-transference, how I hated to be wrong-footed and made to seem a worthless minion. I waited a while for my feelings to lessen and then formulated my response. “You have sacked me,” I said, deliberately using that dismissive word, “and I am feeling quite angry at that.” Immediately, he acknowledged the peremptory way he had done this, apologising for it. The anger, which had been felt by both of us, was transformed and even though, he stuck to his decision to quit, we could spend the last session in productive work.

There are some who argue that supervisors have a responsibility to tell their supervisees what they are doing wrong or to suggest particular techniques to use. While there is a place for this, it is far less important that understanding and reflecting back. It is better for supervisees to find things out for themselves and unless something very bad is going on, the supervisor should not be directive. In a heated debate on supervision in the late 1970s, I vividly recall a distinguished psychoanalyst quietly saying, “Those who tell their supervisees what to do end up telling their clients what do.” He did not mean it as a compliment.
 

The Lake Wobegon Effect

How good a therapist are you?

Odds are, you think you’re pretty good. A recent study[i] of 129 therapists found that over 90% self-rated their psychotherapy skills at the 75th percentile or greater.  All of the therapists rated themselves above the 50th percentile.

In his fascinating new book on therapy outcome, Michael Lambert calls this positive self-assessment bias the “Lake Wobegon effect”. While it is true that the overall industry-wide effectiveness rates for psychotherapy are very good, our blindness to our weaknesses is dangerous.
 
Lambert points out that 30% to 50% of our clients don’t improve in treatment. Even more alarming, roughly 8% of clients get worse in treatment.  (Deterioration rates of children and adolescents may be as high as 12% to 24%.)
 
If all of us are above average, then who is causing the problems?  

Lambert cites a study in which 20 experienced therapists and 20 therapist trainees were asked to predict the progress of current clients in their caseloads. Of the 550 total clients, the therapists in the study predicted that only three were deteriorating. The actual number of clients who got worse was 40.

Notably, none of the experienced therapists predicted any of the clients in their caseload getting worse, even though they were reminded at the beginning of the study that the industry-wide average deterioration rate is 8%.

How can we fix our blindness towards our weaknesses?  The traditional method of addressing therapist deficits is supervision and consultation, but those only work when we can correctly identify which clients in our caseload are deteriorating.

Lambert proposes using an intriguing actuarial model, in which the clients’ session-by-session data on outcome measures is entered into a computer program. Using a large database of client outcome data, the program is able to alert the therapist when the probability of client deterioration is high. In his book, Lambert cites a few studies that indicate promise with this method.

Understandably, many therapists will be loath to make clinical decisions based on a computer’s calculations. But then how else do we overcome our self-assessment bias and seriously deal with the risk of client deterioration? Whatever tool we choose, this is an important question for our field to address.



[i] Walfish, S., McAlister, B., O’Donnell, P. & Lambert, M. Are all psychotherapists from Lake Wobegon?: An investigation of self-assessment bias in mental health providers. Submitted for publication.

The Tao of Direction: Structure and Process in Clinical Supervision

Most of my time in the hospital where I work is spent providing clinical supervision in psychotherapy. My supervisees are a mixed lot in terms of their training: doctoral students in clinical psychology, psychiatric residents and fellows, as well as bachelor-level line staff. Naturally, my style of supervision varies according to their experience and training, but not as much as one might think. Advanced psychiatric fellows who have completed their residency training and are pursuing postdoctoral studies sometimes get anxious about the stuff of basic psychotherapy: what to say next, what to do if a patient is mad at them, and so forth. On the other side of the coin, there are milieu therapists without any college training who can craft and implement therapeutic interventions stunning in their creativity and depth. There is no clear way to tell what sort of therapist a person will be from the degree and training they have—a counterintuitive truth reflected in the research which documents the lack of correlation between therapist training and therapist efficacy. The unpredictability of what kind of therapist a student will turn out to be is part of what's interesting about my job—the job of clinical supervisor.

There is, however, a great divide between the students that I supervise, a difference only minimally related to their training and professional background. This great divide is their need for, and comfort with, structure and process in supervision. It's a difference that is certainly echoed in certain stylistic differences between schools of psychotherapy (e.g., psychodynamic theory vs. CBT), and between certain professional tracks (e.g., psychiatry vs. social work). Despite these culturally encrypted differences, therapists from a variety of backgrounds fall into a variety of places along the structure-process spectrum.

One of the best examples of these differences comes from a course in psychiatric interviewing that I co-lead along with a psychiatrist who is also heavily involved in training. Some students have a hard time adjusting their diagnostic interviewing techniques to their client's developmental level. In other words, you can't really do a standard mental status exam with a six-year-old and expect to get much data. On the other hand, while a play session with a child can yield a tremendous amount of information, it is useless for assessment purposes if not driven by a fairly conscious and thought-out plan (examining social interactions, assessing whether the child is reacting to internal stimuli, formal testing, etc.). In the course of learning to teach the best method for assessing children, my colleague and I have to weigh what students need to offer the best approach for each client. For some, they need let go of the crutch of the History of Present Illness and Mental Status Exam in order to really listen to the child and catch the flow of moods and interactions. For others, they need clear direction and tools by which they might make sense of the child's often chaotic presentation. These are quite different needs, but both are the responsibility of the supervisor to understand and address with each supervisee.

In this paper, I will use the Chinese philosophy of Taoism as a metaphor for understanding these different needs, particularly approaches to clinical supervision. In traditional Chinese philosophy, universal balance is represented by the popular Tao symbol: a depiction of the contrasting forces of yin and yang in constant and creative symmetrical tension (see the symbol at top). “The aim of the sage, according to the classic text the Tao Te Ching, is to remain "centered in the Tao."”1 This is also referred to as the state of wu wei—literally, 'doing nothing', although understood as the state of balance that allows the operation of the principle of the Tao. In psychotherapy supervision, a similar creative tension exists between structure and process. The sage role in this case is fulfilled, of course, by the psychotherapy supervisor.

Creative Tension in Psychotherapy Supervision

The very discussion of supervision as a complex and multifaceted interaction may be somewhat surprising to many supervisees. In my experience, students frequently think of "supervision" as being entirely directed by the overall feel or personality of the supervisor, as in the frequent comment, "Paula is a good (or positive, bad, aloof, or intense) supervisor," as if there were only one form of supervision of which each teacher was capable.

As anyone who has spent some years as a clinical supervisor knows, there are a variety of schools of thought regarding the best form of supervision. These schools of thought are frequently related to the theoretical orientation of the supervisor, and the difference between and within these different philosophies can create a kind of dynamic tension within supervision. This tension is often embodied in contrasting comfort levels of student and teacher with different supervisory techniques, and can be thought of as occurring within a spectrum ranging from highly didactic and directional to highly exploratory and relational: the yin and yang of supervision.

Yang… Technique-based Supervision

On one end of the spectrum lies the pole of absolute structure. Let's call this pole the yang of supervisory technique. “In the yang mode, the supervisor and trainee approach psychotherapy supervision as a matter for technical instruction, in which the supervisor instructs the trainee in the technique of psychotherapy.” Supervision in this mode is dominated by a didactic approach, wherein the teacher instructs students in techniques and interventions. This may include instruction in the use of manualized treatments, specific techniques and theoretical points, assigned readings, and what to say and not say in therapy. The aim is to instruct the trainee in specific ways of doing therapy, and for the trainee to demonstrate increasing proficiency in this technique, as evaluated by the supervisor.

In this mode, student success is measured by the degree to which they adhere to the specific instructions provided by the supervisor. At worst, this technique-based approach results in humorless, dry, and rigid supervision that leaves students feeling as if their own ideas, personality, and technique have no value; however, it can be a great comfort. “I can remember a number of occasions when I wanted nothing more than for my supervisor to tell me exactly what to do.” These were generally occasions during which I felt insecure, out on a therapeutic limb, or in danger from an ambiguous or delicate situation with a client. Students especially yearn for direct guidance when confronted with crisis situations or confusing boundaries. Whenever the student is frightened by the natural ambiguity of the therapy situation, clear direction can seem like a safe port in a storm.

There may, of course, be times when a supervisee needs to feel assaulted by ambiguity in order to develop the toughness and resilience they need in order to do the work. However, prolonged duress never leads to growth, and for novice therapists, anxious therapists, and therapists in crisis, a good dose of yang supervision can be a very good thing.

Yin… Process-based Supervision

At the other pole lies what we might call the yin of supervision. “In the yin mode, the supervisor engages the trainee in an examination of the process of psychotherapy.” Supervision at this end of the spectrum is non-directive: the student is encouraged to express feelings about, and associations to, the clinical material. This may include frequent commentary on the parallel process that occurs in the supervisory relationship, as well as explorations into the student's state of mind and emotional reaction to both the therapy and the supervision. The aim is for the supervisee to explore, as broadly as possible, the experience of doing psychotherapy, and verbalize any of the unconscious conflicts or anxieties that impede their development.

In this mode, a student's success is measured by the degree to which the trainee demonstrates his or her own emerging therapeutic style. At its worst, process-based supervision can lead into a vague terrain that resembles a cross between poor psychotherapy and a social occasion. Students often complain of this happening, saying that their supervisors "always answer a question with a question." Although this may sound like an exaggeration, or even a joke, it is all too often a real assessment of their supervision.

In contrast to the rigidity of yang supervision, yin supervision risks leading to a feeling on the part of the students that they have literally learned nothing. However, when done well, this process-based form of attention can lead to the richest and most rewarding of supervisory experiences: those when the student begins to experience the pervasive nature of process which echoes through therapy, supervision, and other interactions. One of my most treasured memories of psychology internship supervision was my child therapy supervisor teaching me to return again and again to the process of play with my young clients, which led to my dawning recognition of the success of my interventions. In yin supervision, the process makes itself known.

Working The Yin-Yang Supervision Balance

Supervisors tend to find their own teaching style on this yin-yang spectrum based on their own training and personalities. Those supervisors who are more behaviorally oriented and solution focused tend to cluster towards the more structured side while those who are more psychodynamic and existential tend towards the more process-focused side. However, this general statement has a thousand exceptions: Robert Langs is as concerned with the precise structure of an intervention as a behaviorist, and the new breed of Zen CBT practitioners (like Jeremy Safran) are exquisitely attuned to process. The balance between structure and process varies within and between each school of therapy. Yet another wrinkle is the effect of the interaction between supervisor and student on this balance. I have been struck by the degree to which students, based on their own personalities, prior training, and the style of their supervisor, insist upon either more yin or more yang.

When I have supervised students in process-oriented, psychodynamically based programs, their most frequent request has been for basic and specific instruction in the craft of psychotherapy. “These students often complain that their training is long on theory and short on practical advice on what to say to the client.” Students can speak with great authority and insight about their own processes and anxiety regarding treatment, but sometimes have few ideas about dealing with a session that runs over time, taking a basic mental status exam, or confronting a parent in family therapy. In these situations I tend towards a concrete, detailed brand of structured supervision as shown in the following supervision with Steven.

Supervising Steven

Steven was a third-year doctoral student in clinical psychology, participating in the practicum program (which I directed at the time) in a large state psychiatric hospital. Steven was bright, articulate, and a pleasure to talk with. Early in the supervision process, he began to talk in articulate detail about his relationships with his patients and the feelings they evoked. He noticed and articulated precise, delicate points of countertransference, and related them to his own childhood and family experiences. Since Steven's love for process discussions paralleled my own, I was happy to engage in a sort of philosophical free-floating supervision. When Steven was assigned the case of an angry and highly verbal young patient with a history of serious acting out, he was initially excited at the prospect of conducting in-depth therapy. However, it rapidly became clear that his patient was unable to tolerate even mild explorations of charged issues and Steven became resistant to discussing the case. After a supervisory session in which Steven had difficulty relating the most basic, concrete details about his client's functioning, I realized that something was clearly amiss. I asked him to tell me, in concrete detail, what the session had been like. He admitted that he had little idea of how to proceed with the patient without angering him. I realized that Steven was not comfortable navigating the early stages of alliance-building with a client who was difficult to engage and that he needed some specific instructions. We talked in concrete detail about chair placement and session length and crafted several scripted interventions. Steven later told me that he had been embarrassed to ask such basic questions, but felt greatly relieved by my willingness to give him step-by-step suggestions for this client who had overwhelmed his knowledge acquired with much healthier patients.

In contrast, students from more experimentally based programs (like CBT or other manualized approaches) seem more confident in employing a variety of thoroughly researched and empirically validated techniques, but are not as able to verbalize their own sense of how therapy is progressing. These students are often paralyzed by anxiety when faced with situations that do not conform to the manual and have little understanding of how their own feelings about their clients play out in the course of therapy. With these students, I have found myself adopting a free-floating and exploratory approach to supervision, encouraging them to verbalize and explore their own experience of their treatment. Of course, this fits my preference for the yin supervisory style.

Supervising Gayle


Gayle, unlike Steven, was in her fourth year at a highly regarded research-heavy and behavioral-oriented doctoral program in clinical psychology. Working in a hospital setting made Gayle anxious but she was one of the better students I had ever supervised. She rapidly took to assessment and group therapy, particularly when working with manualized treatments. Gayle was a consummate professional—well-groomed, well-spoken, and in general, the stereotype of a successful lawyer or businessperson, not the typical doctoral student in psychology. I was impressed with Gayle, and perhaps more significantly, proud of Gayle. I suspect that feelings of pride evolve in all clinical supervisors, feelings sometimes evocative of parental pride, in particular towards promising, impressive students, and Gayle was nothing if not impressive.

As Gayle approached her third month in training with me, I noticed that she tended to be very reticent in taking on longer-term individual therapy cases. In her screening interview she had been direct in saying that her interest was not individual therapy, but I had assumed that she would show the same professional enthusiasm in this task as she had in others and would treat it as a challenge. After encouraging Gayle a number of times to take an individual therapy case and encountering her resistance, I realized that our structured and technical supervision sessions were not getting at the real issue. Despite my hesitation at the prospect of altering the pattern of a largely successful supervisory interaction, I set aside an hour of the supervision to talk, in an open-ended way, about her reluctance to take on individual cases. Although she was initially resistant to this discussion, I stayed the course, letting her set the pace and being utterly nondirective. Although the discussion ended up spanning three sessions of supervision, and included some lengthy periods of silence with which we were both uncomfortable, Gayle was able to finally discuss in detail her anxiety about her ambiguous and unstructured client interactions. With that admission, and my recognition that I had been exerting an unconscious pressure on her to maintain her 'perfect student' façade, we began the slow process of training her in individual psychotherapy. Gayle had needed some yin supervision that I had finally been able to supply.

Listening for Gaps in Supervisee Skills

In supervision, as in psychotherapy, the challenge is to allow the trainee to move beyond rigid adherence to structure or process towards a graceful transition along the spectrum depending upon what is most necessary at the time. In order for students to learn this graceful transition, we as supervisors also must take the same journey towards greater flexibility. Of course, we can't all be the best at every style and approach, but stretching a bit is in the interest of everyone, student and supervisor. For myself, this has involved a greater willingness to meet the student's need for greater structure by finding the kind of structure that I can endorse, which can be a great challenge, professionally and personally. This same stretching is necessary for those supervisors who do not naturally explore the process of therapy. To the extent that I have been able to meet the challenge, the key for me has been learning to listen more fully and deeply to what my students need, and this, in the end, may be the key to understanding and utilizing the Tao of supervision: the need for balance.

I remember a conversation I had with a student who was recounting her anxiety over whether or not she was sufficiently empathically attuned to her client. I responded by telling her that she was worried enough about that issue that she didn't need to focus on it at all; I certainly didn't have such concerns about it. Instead, I recommended that she focus on creating sufficient structure within the therapy to provide a safe container for her client. In other words, she should cultivate a safe place for exploration and understanding. She was putting all her energy on one side of the Tao of therapy. I tried to invest the other side with energy in order to achieve some balance. She knew that she was unbalanced—her anxiety told her that. Only by listening to her was I able to learn that as well and provide the right balance of supervision that she needed to keep growing in her work.

In Taoist philosophy, truth does not lie in one pole or the other, in yin or in yang. Instead, the task of the sage is to provide what is lacking for balance. “In becoming better supervisors, our job is to listen for the gaps in our students' skills, the aridity in the overly structured pedant, the looseness and fuzziness in the "touchy-feely" therapist, and to provide what is lacking”—not because the students need to become more like us, but because striving for balance is growth enhancing and valuable in itself.

When they think they know the answers
People are difficult to guide
When they know that they don't know
People can find their own way


Notes

1 All quotes from Tao Te Ching (S. Mitchell, trans.), HarperPerennial; 1991.