Suicide During the Holidays . . . Not So Much!

We've all heard it on a local or national television or radio station, "And when we return after the weather, we'll examine the tremendous increase in suicide during the winter holiday season."

Well that's great, except for one small thing: It doesn't exist. In fact, the direct opposite is true.  The suicide rate generally hits a peak during April and May.   The National Center for Health Statistics placed November and December as the months with the lowest daily rates of suicide.

All major holidays with the possible — notice I said possible — exception of New Years have lower suicide rates than other days of the year with Thanksgiving and Christmas posting extremely low numbers.  Now you will invariably think I am wrong because on Christmas Day some poor soul will take his life and the media will showcase the suicide on the front page of the newspaper. Chances are you will also see it as the top feature story on the local five o'clock news. Keep in mind, however, that if this tragedy occurred on any day that wasn't on a holiday the story would appear on page 54 of the paper next to the classified ad for a Basset Hound in search of a home . . . if the story appeared at all.

The adept therapist will conduct suicide assessments everyday of the year.  Key clinical hint: If you wait until you hear Elvis singing Blue Christmas to start asking client's if they feel suicidal, then you've endangered the lives of your clients for approximately the first 340 days of the year.

It’s Over Now: Termination and Countertransference

The Dreaded Phone Call

Recently, a client of mine left the following message on my voicemail: “Hi Melissa, I just wanted to let you know I won’t be coming to my appointment tomorrow. I’m feeling fine now. I’m not coming back, but thank you for all your help. I’ll call you again if I need you.”

Of course, I called her back. It’s the age of caller ID, though, and not surprisingly, she did not pick up. Nor did she return my call, despite my delightfully supportive message wondering if we might at least have a wrap-up session.

Clients cancel appointments and leave therapy prematurely for all kinds of reasons. It’s not the first time I’ve been left by a client and it won’t be the last, but, admittedly, it had been a long time since I’d given much thought to endings.

The world of modern psychoanalysis does not put termination near the top of the training agenda. Most everything is looked at as a resistance to treatment. I like this a lot, actually—first because it puts the focus on studying the client’s unconscious, and second because it then puts the focus squarely back on mine. And it encourages studying emotional communications and unconscious obstacles to treatment with curiosity and interest, which is profoundly soothing to the part of me that tends toward self-attack and self-doubt. Looking more deeply at the challenges that get in the way of the work continuing is a good way to help the work continue.

Frankly, termination is not really at the top of anyone’s list in terms of training. In fact, much of the information out there focuses mostly on professional ethics, process, and client rights. There’s not a whole lot about what we therapists are left with when clients leave after a planned termination process, let alone when they drop out of sight without so much as a good old-fashioned goodbye.

“When clients leave suddenly, we have little recourse, but big feelings.” We pull out all of our training nuggets to help us try to understand what happened. We can figure that maybe they got what they needed; we can look back to the last session to see if we may have hit the wrong note; we can wonder if perhaps they are protecting themselves from something, or protecting us by leaving abruptly or without discussion. Perhaps they are protecting us from their rage, their hopelessness, or their discontent.

And we can think about our patients’ characters, history, patterns of functioning. Our clients might be letting us know finally how they have felt, being left in their lives—frustrated, discounted, ignored, worthless, abandoned or powerless, perhaps—which is often how therapists feel when clients leave without warning or discussion. They give it to us good over the psychic airwaves. Abrupt exits from treatment can be jarring, aggressive or even mean. The emotional communication is powerful, and while it can give us valuable information about the client, it also can be a window into our own psyches.

Therapists Have Feelings, Too

For good reasons, we therapists don’t often like to admit that we have feelings towards clients, let alone strong ones. We may be ashamed or embarrassed of our reactions, or even afraid—especially when we feel injured, abandoned, angry or stung.

Yes, of course we study the countertransference: we know we can go far enough, at least, to notice a feeling and give it a nod, to guess at where it comes from and maybe how to use it in session, for the benefit of the client. But beyond that, we hedge. Though we feel, deep down we think that we should not actually feel anything—not unless we are sure it’s in the best interest of the treatment. Not unless we have our professional head on—our dignified, composed, contained persona.

After all, we are trained to focus on the client, even when studying such ideas as subjective countertransference, when the emotional communications of the client trigger unconscious, unresolved conflicts in the therapist. For instance, when a client says that the therapy is not helpful, if the therapist has the impulse to be self-attacking or self-doubting, she may personalize the feelings, feeling anything from anger to hurt to worthless. And she may collude with the client’s desire to leave to avoid having to feel all those bad feelings.

Strangely enough, the fear that a client may leave, is, in some instances, really an unconscious wish—especially if that client brings us too many hard-to-bear feelings, or if we are burnt out or frustrated, or fear we are doing a bad job. And it’s possible that sometimes clients are onto something in us. Clients are often sensitive to emotional communication from us as well. Sometimes we may be sending the message that they are not wanted in some way. They may need much assurance that we are trained to welcome all their feelings, and help them do the same.

One client I work with wanted to stop coming because he imagined he was inconveniencing me with his weekend appointment. Another wanted to stop because she was fearful of how big her anger was. She believed I was frightened of her. Good discussions with these clients not only headed off ending the treatment, but led to all kinds of insights into their character, wishes, life experiences and patterns. And while it may be tricky to study the transferences, when it comes to endings everyone fares better when we do.

In the phone supervision groups I run, we talk a lot about termination. We debate all the ways to prevent abrupt exits, and avoid being stuck holding the bag of bad feelings. We talk about ways to help clients stay, to deal with difficult feelings differently. We discuss the merits and drawbacks of ongoing evaluation tools, professional protocol, policies, and termination letters. We wonder about preparing for discharge right from the start, checking in at each session to see how things are going in the therapy, having billing policies or not having them. But I think it’s also defensive driving. We do need to act ethically and we do want what’s best for our clients, but we do not want to be hurt. We do not want to be left. “Many of us do not think we are supposed, or allowed, to feel anything genuinely and deeply when it comes to our clients, and we most certainly don’t want to feel all the feelings that being left drudges up.” Some of us will do whatever we can to prevent bumping into abandonment, and its steadfast companion, inadequacy.

We can’t always attribute these feelings to the transference alone. Many desires are shared among therapists: to do good work, to sustain a solid income, to feel effective and accomplished, and, when possible, appreciated.

Therapists do lose sleep over these things. Our fears may get triggered when clients leave under any circumstance, but all the more so when they ditch us without so much as a “see ya.” Even planned and successful terminations can leave a therapist with a host of feelings, from loss to fear to doubt—especially if the therapist is not convinced it’s best to terminate, or does not feel that he has a real say in the decision, or if the client is leaving for external reasons like moving away or scheduling conflicts (and even these could potentially be worked out).

And if our practice is less than full at the time, or our personal finances are not what we’d like them to be, we may bump into financial fear. The fact of our business is that our livelihood is very much tied into getting and keeping clients. Many therapists fear their own financial hunger and, in an effort to prove they are not acting on their own desires, may join clients’ treatment-destructive resistance, and help them to go. I’ve seen therapists do this in a variety of ways, such as sending termination letters, bills, not returning calls when clients cancel or quit via voice message or email, or agreeing to termination without asking if the client would like the therapist’s thoughts on the decision or if the therapist has a say.

“In fact, in letting clients leave without attempting to discuss things, we may be rejecting them, or colluding with a pattern of rejection in their lives.” For some clients it may be therapeutic to help them stay; they may be relieved that they are wanted and not so readily let go of.

That’s not to say that we can’t ignore the unconscious if we’d like to, or that we don’t have and enjoy good endings, or feelings of satisfaction over good sessions and good therapeutic relationships. But let’s face it: in the volleying back and forth between occasional grandiosity and occasional inadequacy, clients who go AWOL can tip the slide downward for us fast.

"Am I Losing It?"

It’s hard to know when our feelings are safe and when they are on the edge. A friend of mine was recently angsting over some terribly good erotic feelings she was having for a client. She took it to supervision where her supervisor said lightly to her, “If they are not interfering with the therapy, enjoy them.” This permission to feel freed my pal up considerably. The erotic feelings faded and the work continues to be successful.

One therapist friend of mine says, “I feel like an emotional prostitute sometimes. I get to roll around in the all the intense feelings and then I get left alone in the chair.”

“That’s what we get paid for,” says another friend of mine. But we are so dedicated to staying contained, to reining in our feelings and our fears, that we may be cheating ourselves, not just protecting ourselves, the client or the work. What do we think will happen if we let ourselves go haywire? Not, of course with a client, but by ourselves or amongst our peers, in our supervision or personal analysis?

One colleague of mine did actually have his analyst go berserk on him. Upon my colleague saying that he would be leaving therapy soon (after 15 years and much good work) the analyst seemed to blow a gasket. He yelled, he screamed; he said that my colleague was in denial, was sick, did not even know how sick he still was. He told him to get out of his office immediately. Ungrateful lout!

When I first heard this story I hardly believed it. Perhaps my colleague friend was making it up. Perhaps he heard wrong or exaggerated, or even dreamt it? After all, this seems to be every client’s nightmare—and maybe every therapist’s. Would we really go crazy and let loose on a patient? Most likely not, but to that end, if we don’t allow ourselves to feel what we feel toward our clients, we may be missing out on a lot of good information that would benefit everyone.

But since many of us nurturers are not at all immune to self-attack, accessing our feelings may be easier said than done. Especially when clients leave us, we can be quick to accuse ourselves of all kinds of evil (especially if we ourselves are going through something difficult in our personal lives). Perhaps we really are (only and always) money-hungry, self-seeking, self-gratifying, selfish, poorly trained do-gooders? Or the opposite. What about our gift?! We most certainly could help them if they would just cooperate and let us! Why don’t they want this help? “It must be me” is the quiet tugging somewhere in our brains.

Maybe we are burnt out? Maybe we are losing our touch? Or losing touch? Maybe we are not actually helping anyone at all anymore. Maybe everyone is going to leave us. Maybe we need more training, a different approach, another certification. Were we not paying attention? Should we have been more confrontational, or less?

There may be some use in asking these questions, but it seems to me that we healers and helpers will go after ourselves in a schizophrenic loyalty to our trade before we will let ourselves have all our feelings about our clients.

Sometimes therapists tell me that they want to get rid of clients, especially the ones that are mean or demanding or frustrating, or boring, or are not making the progress they’d like them to make. On some level it’s hard for us to accept (and help clients accept) that talking itself is progressive and that we must be vigilant about not being too demanding of our clients or devaluing of our good ears.

After unpacking feelings with a therapist I work with who gives homework and advice frequently to clients, we came to understand how frustrated she feels in certain sessions—hence her urge to be more directive. While she continues to pride herself on giving resources, she is paying more attention to the words of one her patients who recently yelled at her (in itself a testament to their good relationship), “Would you stop trying to help me so much!”

Speaking Up, Pushing Back

A favorite story of mine is about an analyst I know whose patient called to cancel and “take a break” from therapy because she had to have surgery on the day of their appointment and would need a while to recover. The analyst asked if the surgery could be rescheduled for another day. At first take, this sounds ridiculous. Most of us would most likely offer up oohs and ahhs and “let me know how it goes.” But not this analyst: she works on the assumption that nothing is more important than the therapy and she does not want to give anyone’s unconscious the idea that being sick and needing surgery is ideal. She says by valuing the therapy above all else she is messaging the unconscious that it’s not okay take out difficult feelings on the body. Better to talk about them, learn to tolerate them, and live well.

The patient got angry at first. All kinds of aggression came out toward the therapist, albeit tentatively, about how the therapist was insensitive, mean, ridiculous, and odd. Funnily enough, though, the patient called back a few days later to say that the surgery was no longer necessary and she could keep her appointment.

Of course, we don’t attack someone’s defenses straight out, and sometimes a duck’s a duck, but it is interesting to consider how tightly or not we hold onto to the importance of valuing our sessions. Though we don’t always know how they will be received, our responses do send emotional messages. And since we therapists have to swim every day in the sea of a hundred feelings, we sometimes, unconsciously, may seek to avoid them by going along too readily with people’s disappearing acts.

Sometimes people really are not interested, ready, motivated enough, or are just too frightened to be in therapy. Do we forget that we have to go so very lightly sometimes, even for a while, to help people become real clients? In an informal survey among my clients who have had prior therapy, most tell me that they left without actually discussing their exit with the therapist. Some felt pushed. Many felt misunderstood and not helped, or they disliked the therapist’s style or something the therapist said. Very few recall discussing their concerns and feelings with the therapist before leaving.

A friend of mine, however, came to me for advice after doing just that. She felt her therapy was no longer helping her grow in the direction she wanted to go. She discussed it with her therapist and they agreed she should make a change. She changed, but felt that her new therapist was somewhat mean in his demeanor. She was thinking of canceling and not going back, but, reluctant to make yet another switch, she asked for my thoughts. I suggested she tell the new guy that she thought he was mean, which, bravely, she did. And in response, he told her she was right—he was mean sometimes.

My friend felt enormously relieved. It turns out her father was quite mean, but whenever she had tried to tell him so as a child, he denied it. In overcoming her fear of saying what she felt directly, and having her response validated and not denied, she believes she has made significant progress. She has decided that it’s okay to have a faulty therapist. She now takes great joy in pointing out each time she feels the therapist is being mean, and helping him to address it. And, she tells me, he is getting better. She is curing him.

The Failure Complex

When I supervise new professionals, I often find them to be blunt about their feelings, and I find myself encouraging them to say everything in supervision, and to become interested in their words and actions in sessions. When new therapists tell me, “He was so rude! I can’t stand him!” or “I’m furious with her,” I am delighted and respond by steering them toward curiosity about why they feel this way and what they may learn about the client and themselves. Seasoned professionals who I work with seem to hold back more, and are relieved to be reminded that they can have all their feelings, that clients are difficult (we ourselves may be difficult as clients), and that experience and expertise don’t negate our own need to feel our feelings and talk about our work.

And few outside the profession really understand this, I think: the constant meteor shower of feelings we encounter in our offices, this psychic holding we have to do of everyone’s feelings. Some of us fear that perhaps, even if a feeling is an inducement, we may act on it. Unfortunately, some of our colleagues do act on inducements–sometimes little ones, sometimes big ones. The number one complaint before ethics boards is for sex offenses, boundary violations. Acting on feelings. Most of us guard these borders vigilantly. “We know that erotic transferences in the treatment room are normal, and can be dealt with gently, with words and care and no action.” We may fear them, but we know they occur.

But murderous feelings? Rage? And abandonment and inadequacy? One analyst I know calls it her “Failure Complex.” Over her many years of experience she has learned that she will not be able to help everyone, that some clients will leave or punish her even when she has not made a mistake, because that’s what they do to survive. She knows that when clients leave and don’t say goodbye, it feels just like when she was a kid and her father would stop talking to her for days on end, blaming her for his reactions. She had no control over this feeling then, and felt for years that anything that happened in the treatment was her doing, her mistake. The psychic umbilical cord tying her to her father was like a straight shot back to her feeling like a lonely, misunderstood ten-year-old. Even with all her advanced training, she still wound up back there in the pit of that despair and rage. She berated herself for that, too.

After some time though, she says she has come to feel better. Her dad was just being her dad, she tells me now. And her clients are just being her clients. And she is just doing what she knows how to do. She wears it all a little lighter now.

I like the modern analysts’ idea of helping clients to say everything—at their own pace, of course—and I especially enjoy it when it translates into therapists being able to say everything in our own supervision and therapy. As another therapist I work with says, “I like to let my fear flag fly! Talking about my own stuff builds my resiliency, and then I can stay the course.”

From the Heart

Many seasoned therapists agree that part of staying the course means checking in with the client now and again, to see how the therapy is going, either with evaluation tools, or by helping clients to say everything to us about the therapy itself, and that doing so goes a long way toward preventing abrupt exits. But we have to be willing to bear our own discomfort, and keep our support systems active. When we do this, we are better able to negotiate the blurry line between discharging our own feelings in session and making good clinical interventions.

A few years ago I sat before a panel of professionals who run a regional referral service. I was hoping to be added to their referral network. I came in with my CV and my suit and took my seat. They asked a bit about my background, and then asked me what modalities I use. When one of the interviewers spoke up and asked, “What do you do with difficult clients?” I was quiet for a minute.

“I listen and I love them,” I said finally. “And I help them to talk.”

I do get referrals from them now, but I recall at the time feeling terrified. Who says that? I really was poised to talk about my training and about interventions and skills, and the things that we do that bring recovery and healing, but that’s what came out. Love. (I suppose I could have said that I get frustrated and I tolerate it. Either might be true at one time or another.)

“Here’s what I think keeps us up at night: the idea that we are not supposed to speak from the heart, the soul, or the depths of our psyches.” We may be so tied to what we think we are supposed to be, to know, to feel and to do, that we are afraid of what we really feel. And while most of the time we don’t have intense feelings for or about clients, certain clients and situations fire us up more than others (a nod to transference), like being left without a chance to know why, to heal something, or to at least say goodbye.

On top of this, many therapists imagine a domino effect: first a bad session, then one client leaves, then another, and then the unemployment line. Much as we might like to be, we are not at all immune to worry, doubt and insecurity. Even the most experienced clinicians have moods that are directly tied in to the state of their practice.

An old friend of mine who lives her life by her 12-step program likes to tell me that finding serenity, pleasure and contentment means practicing the ability to bear discomfort—that it’s ten ways to Tuesday. Whatever your discipline, training, experience or knowledge, success and satisfaction are about feeling what you feel (good and bad) without doing harm. We do get emotionally walloped once in a while in this business. Chalk it up to transference, to regression (ours and our patients’), or call it a bit of temporary psychosis when feelings get too intense.

One analyst I know continues to call her dropout patients every now and then. She leaves messages just saying hello or asking how they are. She told me that many years ago she used to worry that they would think she was just after their money or out to build up her practice. And maybe so. (“Why shouldn’t everyone make money and prosper?”) But now, she says, she thinks it’s just good practice to let clients know we are still interested, available, and open to a connection. She has a thick skin when it comes to rejection: it’s all grist for the mill. Pointedly, she tells me that some of her dropouts do return to treatment, happy that she had continued to hold open the door and hold onto the idea that they and the work were worthwhile.

Our work is fluid, frightening, fantastic, and filled with blind spots all at the same time. But I think that therapists sleep better when we allow ourselves to feel everything, to talk about everything in the company of good peers, and to find comfort in the idea that we really are not alone, no matter how crazy we sometimes feel. We can be interested, curious, and confident that we’ll be okay—and we can pass that freedom on to our clients, enriching the experience for everyone.

I am not suggesting that we never agree that it’s time for therapy to end or to pause. Certainly, there is a season for all things. But more often than not, if we are really honest, most attempts to leave treatment have some deeper meaning. And if we go along with the surface material, especially if we are only mildly in touch with what we ourselves feel, we may be helping our clients to miss out on the benefits of a meaningful therapeutic experience.

What if Its All Been a Big Fat Psychotherapeutic Lie?

In the early 90's I developed a classroom exercise to teach my students an important academic lesson. This is one of those experiential exercises where the professor feels holier-than-thou because he or sheknows the outcome in advance. First, I placed the students in groups of two's and asked one of the students to play the part of the helper while the other played the part of the client who tells a real or fictitious problem.

Next I pulled the helpers into the hallway. During the first trial the helpers were merely instructed to give the clients advice, suggestions, ask lots of questions, be extremely directive, and provide psychological interpretations. There was absolutely no empathy, warmth, or relationship building . . . I repeat no relationship building.  This session was a strict Rogerian's worse nightmare.

I then gave the helpers and the helpees about a five or ten minute session together. I then pulled the folks playing the helpers out in the hall once more and explained that during trial number two they were forbidden to give any advice, interpretations, or suggestions. They were also told not to ask the person playing the client any questions. Instead, they were merely instructed to be totally nondirective, paraphrase, reflect, and make statements that conveyed a high degree of empathy. Using the same partner with the same problem, the students were given another five minutes together.

Next using a scale of 0 to 100 (in which 0 is terrible, 50 is average, and100 is perfection) the students playing the part of the client were going to rate their helpers. Needless to say, I knew that the clients would rate their helper higher during trial two; except for one thing: it didn't happen!  The ratings for the first session devoid of empathy were significantly higher.  In fact, it was a blow-away landslide in favor of the directive approach. Say what?

I mentally scratched my head and made a joke out of the whole experience, convinced the results in this class were merely an anomaly. "Listen," I told the class, "I knew you guys were strange, but I didn't know how strange." I then explained that exercises in class often do not parallel what transpires in the real world of therapy.  Secretly, I also told myself that these were undergraduate students that most likely didn't do the interventions correctly.

There is only one problem: I have now been doing this experiential exercise (switching the order of the trials) for approximately 17 years and I can't remember a single trial when the relationship building non-directive approach won when I looked at the results for the entire class! And while no self-respecting researcher would be impressed by my experimental rigor, they would be impressed by my N; over 1000 individuals have now participated in my therapeutic scenario. Since the aforementioned first trial I've added grad students, probation and parole officers, guidance counselors, therapists in training seminars, and therapeutic supervisors, to the rank of participants.

How can this be? Many, if not most, research studies insist empathy is the most important trait for a counselor. I nearly always use what I consider a Rogerian, person-centered, non-directive, heavy on the empathy approach during my initial sessions with a client even if I plan to switch to more directive interventions during subsequent sessions. Heck, it has to be true, it says so in most counseling books, including some I have penned! So what is the explanation for these seemingly contradictory results?

1. Well, there's the rationale (or should I say rationalization?) I've been giving to my classes and in seminars for years now; simply that students and workshop participants are not like real clients and this exercise would turn out differently if we used real clients. In other words, the folks in my classes or seminars are training to work in the field or they are working in the field and therefore believe in suggestions and advice . . . no empathy necessary! The problem with this explanation is that often students are real clients, otherwise we wouldn't have college and university counseling centers.  In the case of therapists, many do seek treatment from other helpers. Indeed, if my armchair experiments are on target then relationship building, non-directive, empathy laden initial sessions, should not be used with those in the field or folks planning to go into the field.

2. Students, grad students, or helpers in the field don't really know how to perform person-centered, Rogerian slanted interventions. Maybe it's just too complicated. Although this is theoretically possible, the eminent psychologist Ray Corsini once told me that Rogers confided in him that he could teach anybody to do client-centered therapy in two weeks.

3. The paraphrasing, reflecting, and rating responses on an empathy scale paradigm we use to teach this approach actually bears little or no resemblance to what Carl R. Rogers was actually doing with his clients. Hmm that's certainly conceivable. Or . . .

4. What if it has all been a big fat psychotherapeutic lie?

As for me, well at this point in time I guess I must admit that despite a wealth of experience and knowledge, I remain a psychotherapeutic agnostic. You decide.

Methinks Jay Haley Hit the Bulls Eye

My client began her session with an interesting saga. In an attempt to improve her health she began each day by ingesting a nutritional drink that was loaded with nearly 100 superfoods. Since I personally take enough vitamin and mineral supplements a day to capsize a small battleship, I was all ears. Unfortunately, my client lamented that the supplement seemed counter-productive. That is to say, instead of having unlimited energy, she was nearly falling asleep at the wheel on the way to work. The client was quite savvy when it came to nutrition and therefore hypothesized that the product was excellent, but it needed more protein.  In other words, the high carbohydrate formula was the problem.

Truth is always stranger than fiction and the very next week — as if the supplement company had a bug or a webcam in my office — they released the identical drink in a high protein low carb version. Problem solved? Well to use the oft-quoted phraseology of our times: not so much. The client reported that she was dragging through the morning just as bad as ever. Her dilemma was solved quite by accident when one day she discovered she was out of her superfood protein drink and thus she began the day with a banana and a slice of white devitalized bread and a low-tech multiple vitamin. (Sheer blasphemy, incidentally, for nutritional zealots like myself or my poor client.) The verdict: She had boundless energy and felt terrific. After that day she continued with the banana/bread regiment with excellent results.

Along these same lines another client was telling me about how he became very serious about his golf game.  The golf pro felt his swing was sound but he almost fell over laughing when he saw my client's antiquated clubs. The pro promised to set him up with some serious equipment. The irony, however, was that his his golf game suffered markedly when he began using the new high-tech, super high price tag, custom fit clubs. My client became somewhat obsessive and in the years that followed and he secured club recommendations from golf pro after golf pro and purchased set after set to no avail. Finally, one day, just as a joke, he pulled out his early 1970s aluminum shafted clubs and shot the best round he had in years.  He decided to stick with the zero tech clubs of yesteryears and his game continued to improve.

Like most therapists, I have literally heard hundreds of stories like this including:
• Men who gave their wives flowers or compliments based on the recommendation of some self-improvement expert, an Oprah approved bibliotherapeutic work, or a well-credentialed psychotherapist, and the relationship deteriorated.
• Parents who followed the behavior modification instructions to reinforce their child's behavior and saw the behavior stay the same or perhaps get worse.
• Clients who were told to wear orthotics in their shoes to take their comfort to a whole new level and now had pain in their feet or legs that never existed prior to wearing the devices and
• People who jogged extremely long distances every day to "do something good for themselves and to ward off old age" and now look considerably older than their peers (yes, there is even some scientific research that seems to be backing up this one) . . .  to name a few.

So what in the world is going on here? At least for me, the riddle was solved in an instant when I attended a lecture of Jay Haley's several years before he passed away. An audience participant asked Haley to spell out what caused most people's discord and Haley remarked, "The solution to the problem is the problem." I'll leave it up to historians of psychotherapy to discern whether Haley really came up with this on his own or whether he lifted the idea from the great Milton H. Erickson or perhaps Gregory Bateson.

In any event, the key point is that often, the very strategies that the client is using to make his or her life better are at the root of the problem. But I ask you: How often as therapists do we investigate this dynamic? In all probability, it is not nearly enough. We like it and get excited when clients seemingly do good things. Nevertheless, the message to take back to the therapy room is that something that appears positive is not always positive. The protein shake, the orthotics, and giving a spouse flowers could be the culprit. Most of us would never suggest that the client give up the protein shake, or perhaps stop complimenting a spouse. Instead, many therapists will gloss right over these behaviors and look elsewhere for the root of the problem. In essence, The solution to the problem — even when it appears to be a good one — can the problem. Jay Haley hit the bull's eye. Now it's your turn.
 
 
 

How Therapists Fail: Why Too Many Clients Drop Out of Therapy Prematurely

Depending on which study you read, between 20 and 57 percent of therapy clients do not return after their initial session. Another 37 to 45 percent only attend therapy a total of two times. Although many factors contribute to premature client termination, the number one cited reason by clients is dissatisfaction with the therapist. The problem of the “disappearing client” is what Arnold Lazarus has called “the slippery underbelly to the successful practice of psychotherapy that is almost never discussed in graduate programs or medical schools.”

As clinical supervisors of interns at a university community clinic, we are painfully aware of the high rate of client dropout, and thus the idea for our book How to Fail as a Therapist was born. What we found in doing the research for the book is that high dropout rates are not just common amongst interns, but are equally prevalent among experienced therapists regardless of training and clinical orientation.

When clients drop out early, everyone loses. We clinicians lose a chance to help someone in need and our wallets and reputation suffer as well. The consequences for clients are even more dire. Those clients who drop out early display poor treatment outcomes, over-utilize mental health services, and demoralize clinicians.

Now the good news (after all, therapists should be optimistic): there are a number of well-researched strategies which have been proven to reduce dropout rates and increase positive treatment outcomes. For example, in one study a simple phone call to confirm a client’s first appointment resulted in a two-thirds reduction in dropouts. Unfortunately, it is often labor intensive to seek out and review much of the relevant research because it is scattered throughout the literature–a journal article here, a chapter in a book there. And, unfortunately, most mental health clinicians, with and without a PhD, rate reading research as a very low clinical priority.

Thus, a major task in writing the book How to Fail as a Therapist was to assemble, organize and condense the vast body of research addressing therapeutic effectiveness. Of the 50 therapeutic errors described in the book, here we present five of the most common ones made by clinicians–both beginners and “master” therapists.

The “Infallibility Error”

One of the most distinguishing characteristics of therapists who have low dropout rates is that they actively seek feedback–both positive and negative–regarding the effectiveness of their clinical work. On the other hand are those therapists who believe that after years and years of study, comprehensive exams, postgraduate supervision, and licensing exams, they do or should have all of the answers to clinical matters. So when their clients voice concerns about their progress, or worse yet, when they drop out or deteriorate under the therapists’ care, there is a tendency to avoid accepting responsibility for committing a possible therapeutic error. It is easier to point the finger elsewhere: “maybe the problems were too severe”; “the patient was not ready or willing to change”; there was too much transference operating.” The possibility for rationalization and denial is endless. These explanations, even when partially valid, may soothe the ego, but they protect clinicians from engaging in an honest and comprehensive exploration of what might have gone wrong in a particular case.

A group of interns were asked to describe a case in which a client of theirs terminated early in therapy. One intern described the case of a 10-year-old male client, who had been referred by his teacher because he seemed disconsolate over his parents’ divorce. When, in the first session, the intern probed about the effect of the parents’ separation, the client became emotional and wanted to change the subject. The intern persisted, however. The client stood up, tears falling, and refused thereafter to return to therapy. The supervisor responded to the case presentation by emphasizing the need for therapists to be very cautious during early sessions, particularly when eliciting difficult material from clients. Before the supervisor could get very far, the intern interrupted by stating: “I am already discussing this case with my other supervisor, so I probably shouldn’t get input from both of you.”

Clearly, this intern was desperate to avoid facing the possibility that he did not handle the case as delicately as perhaps he should have. None of us really relishes the idea that we may have blundered, but if we deny this possibility, we deny ourselves the chance to grow as clinicians.

One way to avoid the infallibility error is to seek feedback from clients who have dropped out prematurely. Arnold Lazarus describes in his book, Multimodal Behavior Therapy, how he has gained great insights by writing “early terminators” and suggesting that they come in for a “feedback session” for which he doesn’t charge. In one such case, a client reported that she felt the therapist had not been sympathetic when she was recounting the loss of a beloved pet. The therapist apologized for the insensitivity and the client decided to continue in therapy.

One crucial statistic to keep is mind is that the majority of clients who drop out do so after the first or second session. Thus, we must elicit client feedback, positive and negative, early on to head off any misunderstandings or negative feelings about the therapist, the therapeutic process or the therapists. Clients can be asked directly at the end of the first session if they feel therapy is on track and if they feel liked, understood and respected. “Asking for direct feedback may feel a little awkward; however, a little awkwardness is better than losing a client before he or she can be helped.”

The “Pathology Orientation” Error

In the field of psychotherapy, the term “The Bible” has become synonymous with the publication known as Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. This definitive compendium of emotional disorders was first published in 1952. Since that time, the Manual has gone through a number of revisions (four major and several minor ones) and has continued to add new diagnostic categories. In addition, it has really bulked up over the decades, growing from a mere 138 pages at the outset to over 800 pages in its most recent incarnation.

Currently every student entering the field of psychiatry, psychology, social work or counseling is required to virtually memorize the DSM-IV-TR, and thus professionals in our field have greatly increased their knowledge base of diagnostic criteria, demographics and prognoses of emotional disorders. Alas, these advances have a downside as well: it has created an overemphasis on pathology to the near exclusion of what is healthy, resilient, and capable in the clients that we treat.

At the same time that the fields of diagnosis and assessment were becoming more sophisticated, an alternative view of human potential was also advancing. Theorists such as Carl Rogers, Abraham Maslow and Victor Frankl were among the forerunners of those who tended to take a broader view of the client, looking beyond pathology toward human capability. Milton Erickson’s work, which emphasized client resources, was in the vanguard of this new perspective.

Following Erickson’s lead, a number of other clinicians and researchers have explored the idea of utilizing client strengths as a resource in the treatment of emotional problems. Narrative Therapy avoids the exclusive focus on problems and pathology by instead exploring clients’ alternative stories–occasions in which healthy, productive behaviors were enacted instead of the usual counter-productive responses.

Ryan was described as “incorrigible” by his teachers. He spent as much time in the principal’s office as he did in the classroom. His main transgressions revolved around aggressive and bullying behavior. Ryan’s counselor applied a narrative approach by first asking Ryan about his “problem story”–the things that get him in trouble. They then gave a name to his problem story–“Mr. Trouble.” In addition to gathering the nasty details of his misbehavior, the counselor also inquired about occasions when a different Ryan, a kinder Ryan, surfaced. The question itself seemed to shock the 10-year-old. However, after reflection he confessed that on occasion he had shown care to his younger brother when he was ill, or was lonely and needed a playmate. The counselor then asked follow-up questions to explore the way “Kind Ryan” felt after demonstrating care to his brother.

“What did you think of yourself for being helpful to your brother?”
“How did your brother respond to your help?”
“What did your parents think of you?”
“What does it say about you that you show care to your brother?”

Unfortunately, despite the advent of “positive psychological” approaches to therapy, we have been programmed to look more at what clients are lacking and less at client strengths. Most intake forms have a space in which the client’s clinical diagnosis is supposed to be entered. To avoid the pathology orientation, we need to expand the initial interview to include a thorough assessment of clients’ skills, talents and resources. We need to know what challenges they have surmounted, what kinds of accomplishments they have attained, what special abilities they have developed. When therapists and clients shift their focus from the pathologized victim to the heroic victor, therapy becomes a much more creative and productive process.

Emphasizing Therapeutic Techniques Over Relationship Building

One of the best things about attending continuing education seminars is learning about the latest therapeutic interventions. And every year or so, such new “breakthroughs” arrive—EMDR, DBT, ACT—you name it. We rush home from the seminars, and can hardly wait for the first patient that we can try out our newfound knowledge on. Many of these innovations do have credibility, but there is one glitch in all of the focus on techniques. Decades of research have consistently demonstrated that the most powerful predictor of positive therapeutic outcome depends less on what type of therapeutic interventions you employ, and more on what kind of therapist-client bond you develop.

An intern related to her ever-patient supervisor that she had been learning about the use of “paradoxical intentions” in her advanced counseling class. She was hoping to try out this new dramatic technique with one of her clients, and did so with a patient during their very first session. The patient had returned to school after a recent divorce, and complained of being totally overwhelmed. She couldn’t get herself to do any homework and was no longer the organized housewife she used to be–failing to do even the simplest of chores like laundry or dishes. The intervention the intern tried was to “ join the symptom” and prescribe the homework assignment to do “absolutely no work at all this week,” then report back at the next session about how this went.

Unfortunately, there was no next session–the client was never heard from again. The lesson here is one that is all too commonly missed: the therapeutic relationship trumps technique. To be more precise, no other single factor affects therapy outcomes more than the quality of the client-therapist relationship. Although exact percentages of therapeutic effect are difficult to ascertain, one study did attempt to do just that. After reviewing over a hundred outcome studies, Lambert and Barley1 derived an estimate of the relative contribution of the myriad factors which have been studied in outcome research. Surprisingly, the specific techniques employed by therapists (cognitive, psychodynamic, etc.), accounted for only 30 percent of therapeutic outcome. However, the quality of the client-therapist relationship predicted results 40 percent of the time.

In the case discussed above, the paradoxical intervention might have proven effective in the long run, if the therapist and client had developed enough rapport and a trusting relationship before implementing the approach. The tendency to rush into the therapist tool kit and resolve the problem quickly is of course exacerbated by the current emphasis on brief or time-limited therapy. Suffice it to say, this bottom-line, time-is-money orientation is not always in the patient’s best interests. Relationship building begins with the first hello and handshake. In fact, in one study of medical doctors, the handshake was cited by patients on an exit questionnaire as the most positive factor in the office visit.

One of the best (and least utilized) methods to ensure that the therapist and client are on the same page is to employ a relationship assessment tool such as the Working Alliance Inventory developed by Horvath and Greenberg. This user-friendly tool predicts with a high degree of accuracy whether or not a client is at risk of dropping out of therapy. It also points to the areas of disconnect which can be addressed sympathetically with the client.

The Homework Assignment Trap

Providing clients with opportunities to apply what they have learned in therapy is one of the keys to therapeutic effectiveness. This makes good sense, given that clients spend only an hour or two per week in therapy and 165+ hours in the real world. So it would stand to reason that the majority of therapists would regularly utilize out-of-session activities as part of their therapeutic arsenal. However, the sad truth is that the majority of therapists report never using such assignments. Why would there be this disconnection between what the research shows and what most therapists do?

What the research doesn’t show is that creating homework assignments that clients actually comply with is a tricky business–and there are a multitude of therapeutic errors that can interfere with the process.

A case history will help illustrate:

Dr. Doom was working with Sabrina, whom he diagnosed as socially phobic. Sabrina had particular difficulty in her college classes, worrying excessively about bringing attention to herself. To avoid the possibility of embarrassment, she always arrived early to class, sat in the last row, and never raised her hand. After several weeks of therapy in which he gave her no assignments, Dr. Doom decided it was time for action and suggested that Sabrina arrive five minutes late to her next class meeting. At her next session, Sabrina at first told her therapist that she forgot to do the assignment but later admitted that she was able to comply with the first part of the assignment–being late–but could not muster the courage to actually enter the classroom, so she ended up cutting class.

Was Sabrina’s case just another example of client resistance, lack of commitment, or lack of readiness to change? In fact, a careful analysis of the approach the therapist used reveals several therapeutic errors that greatly decrease the likelihood of compliance.

Unilateral Assignments (“Here’s what you need to do…”)
For starters, Dr. Doom “decided” on his own, without input from his client, that it was time for action, and then he chose what that action should be. This one-sided approach helped guarantee noncompliance. Just as the entire therapeutic process should be collaborative, each assignment needs to be arrived at by a joint meeting of the minds. Thus, the term “assignment” is not really appropriate at all because it connotes one person doing the assigning and the other person complying. Far better are concepts such as “experiments,” “activities,” or “tasks.” Therapists certainly can take the lead in developing possible strategies, but clients must be encouraged to provide their input and feedback as the tasks are developed. Clients who feel they have participated in the process of generating the activity are more likely to attempt it, complete it, and maintain whatever they have learned from it. Leaving the client out of the decision-making process increases the likelihood that the task may be beyond the reach of the client’s capabilities. In this case, suggesting the client arrive late to class was an attempt to hit a home run with one pitch instead of moving gradually toward the ultimate goal.

Failing to Prepare Clients for the Assignment
All too often, clinicians employ a “take two aspirin and stay out of drafts” approach to therapy. That is, they act as if mental health work is identical to the medical model in which clients ask the all-knowing physician for a diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment recommendations. In reality, most therapy clients need information about the efficacy of specific interventions. In the course of Dr. Doom’s assignment-giving, he neither sought Sabrina’s input nor gave her even a clue what this fear-inducing activity was supposed to accomplish. What might have seemed obvious to the therapist was probably not at all clear to the client. For those with phobias such as Sabrina’s, education about the efficacy of gradual exposure should have preceded any specific homework recommendations.

Failing to Provide Backup Support to Increase Compliance
As any therapist quickly learns, just because clients say they will perform an activity outside of session, this does not mean they will actually follow through with the commitment. Getting clients to comply with homework (even those assignments they have helped design) is about as difficult as getting students to complete school assignments on time. Understanding this, successful therapists utilize a wide array of approaches designed to overcome the numerous obstacles to completing out-of-session activities.

1. Use Post-it notes. At the conclusion of a session, suggest that the client write down the assignment and then post it at home in a convenient location. The therapist should also make a note of the assignment so it can be reviewed at the next session.

2. Encourage the client to tell a trusted individual about the task, asking the friend to check back and see how the assignment is going. This person should not be a guilt inducer or have any vested interest in the activity other than the welfare of the client. Typically spouses, children, and parents are not useful choices.

3. Determine whether the client has a buddy who is also willing to engage in the desired activity. This can be especially helpful with assignments such as increased exercise or attending classes or support groups.

4. Frame the assignments as a way to learn about oneself while trying new things. Emphasize the possibility of enjoying the opportunity to develop new skills that could be beneficial for a lifetime.

5. Leave little or nothing to chance by carefully clarifying the how, when, and where components of the assignment.

6. Do a thorough assessment of any an all obstacles which might prevent the client from following through with the assignment. Make no assumptions. For example, one client committed to doing an online search for employment during the week. However, an inspection of barriers revealed that the client had never used the internet and in fact did not even have an internet connection for his computer!

Underutilizing Clinical Assessment Instruments

Assessment tools, used early in therapy to measure the type and intensity of the initial problem and occasionally during the course of treatment, can aid in treatment effectiveness, client morale and reduction of termination by resistant clients.

Despite this, clinicians by and large are often skeptical about the value of utilizing assessment tools. For example, one clinical supervisor described a case where a postdoctoral intern was not following agency policy to administer a well-known and highly validated instrument. The trainee stated that she did not “believe in” the assessment because it was not particularly useful and took a lot of time to score–despite the fact that the specific instrument had proven its validity and utility in dozens of studies.

There are a number of factors that contribute to the effectiveness of utilizing assessment instruments:

1. The therapist gains information from a source that allows comparisons to other clients regarding the severity of the problem.

2. Repeating the test at periodic intervals can help demonstrate to the therapist and client whether treatment is being effective.

3. If the results indicate improvement, positive expectations are reinforced. If there is no improvement, the client and therapist can adjust the treatment approach appropriately.

4. Clients tend to see assessment utilization by the therapists as an act of caring, and it enhances client regard for a clinician’s expertise.

All of this and more–and yet clinicians often ignore assessment tools like the plague. Two common reasons for the underutilization of these instruments involve the perception that they require a lot of time to take and score, and that they cost an arm and a leg. To counter this problem we have compiled a list of short, easy-to-score tests which are in the public domain–meaning they are free for the taking. (These are listed at the end of this article.)

While utilizing assessment tools is a good starting point for improving therapeutic outcome, there are two other factors which can enhance their use. First it is crucial to explain to clients that just like medical doctors, therapists utilize assessments in order to pinpoint possible problem areas. Lastly, results of assessments should not be kept secret from the client. It would seem quite odd if your medical doctor did not provide any feedback after a patient had a series of tests such as blood work or X-rays. Similarly, several studies have shown that an open discussion of the results of psychological tests enhances therapeutic outcome by increasing client engagement in the therapeutic process.

A Final Note

All clinicians have no doubt experienced something like the following scenario: You provide your client with some helpful information–“for all the reasons we have discussed, maybe now is not the time to start a new romantic relationship”; your client nods his head in agreement; and at the following session the client announces that he has fallen head over heels in love. The helpful information somehow went in one ear and out the other. Our hope in writing this article and the book upon which it is based is that it will actually impact clinician behavior, that readers will not just nod their heads in agreement, but also put one or two concepts into practice.

To help clinicians move beyond the conceptual to the behavioral involves some self-assessment. This assessment involves taking a few minutes to answer the following questions: What is your clinical batting average?—or conversely, what percentage of your clients are dropping out prematurely? What type of clients are the dropouts? What is it about those clients that makes them more difficult to work with? What type of clients do you tend to do well with?

Addressing questions such as these enables us to take stock of our clinical strengths and weakness and can help us locate the therapeutic errors we may be making with clients – errors such as the ones discussed in this article. This in turn can lead to the implementation of new therapeutic practices and better outcomes for clients and ourselves.

Public Domain Assessment Tools

Following is a list of just a few of the many public domain assessment tools available:
Depression: Center for Epidemiologic Studies. Depression Scale (CES_D)

Eating Disorders (Anorexia Nervosa): Eating Attitudes Test (EAT)
Social Anxiety: Fear of Negative Evaluation (FNE)
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: Impact of Event Scale – Revised (IES – R)
Substance Abuse (Alcohol): Michigan Alcoholism Screening Test (MAST)

While utilizing assessment tools is a good starting point for improving therapeutic outcome, there are two other factors which can enhance their use. First it is crucial to explain to clients that just like medical doctors, therapists utilize assessments in order to pinpoint possible problem areas. Lastly, results of assessments should not be kept secret from the client. It would seem quite odd if your medical doctor did not provide any feedback after a patient had a series of tests such as blood work or X-rays. Similarly, several studies have shown that an open discussion of the results of psychological tests enhances therapeutic outcome by increasing client engagement in the therapeutic process.

1Lambert, M., J. & Barley, D., E. (2001). Research Summary on the therapeutic relationship and psychotherapy outcome. Psychotherapy, 38, 4, 357-361.

Duped and Recouped

A Business Venture

As a young therapist in a solo practice, I routinely met a colleague for breakfast and peer supervision. I arrived at the neighborhood deli to find my former group therapy instructor waiting for me; his broad, toothy grin and Pacific-blue eyes were electric with anticipation. We had met during my doctoral studies.

I laughed. “What’s up?” “I thought you’d never ask!” blurted a very excited Jeffrey Kottler.

He then proceeded to explain that he had answered an ad for a clinical therapist. When he went to the interview, he convinced the clinic owner to sell him two-thirds of a Blue Cross–approved outpatient psychiatric clinic (OPC). Jeffrey and another therapist/ friend would operate its satellite, located in a busy Detroit suburb. This was a rather significant coup since there was a moratorium on the opening of any new clinics and the only way to own one was to purchase an existing clinic for a great deal of money.

“What?” I screamed. “Why didn’t you ask me to be your partner?” “I thought you were so happy in your little practice that I didn’t think you’d consider…” “Well, I do consider,” I interrupted petulantly. “Your other friend’s out; I’m in!” I declared.

And in that split second, Jeffrey and I committed to each other with complete trust and confidence to be partners in this venture. Were we merely trusting souls by nature, or was there something in our training as therapists that encouraged us to blindly trust people without reservation? Perhaps it was a shared personality trait that drew us into the profession originally and, likewise, into this partnership wherein we simply trusted what others say and how they characterize themselves.

There we were, Jeffrey and I, about 30 years old, masquerading as businesspeople, skipping due diligence, moving the satellite to new digs, signing a lease, buying furniture, hiring support staff, and interviewing dozens of therapists for positions in our new enterprise. We decided to hire only those professionals who seemed to be not only good clinicians but also fun people to hang out with at work.

We each paid a significant amount for our share of the business and began billing Blue Cross and other insurance companies for services rendered. Eventually we hired close to two dozen other therapists to work with us, all of whom met our criteria. In purchasing the clinic, we also inherited a few therapists and Dr. Jolly, our medical director. Dr. Jolly seemed competent enough and awfully amiable. What did we know?

Two months later, Dr. Jolly was caught soliciting sex in an airport men’s room. That was obviously the end of him! But the euphoria of owning our own business carried us through that initial setback. We justified our lack of judgment by claiming that we didn’t actually hire Dr. Jolly. And there were certainly other concerns to distract us.
The most pressing concern was the apparent snag in the money flow from Blue Cross to our third partner and then to us. With each passing week, we became increasingly more anxious about our bottom line.

Our daily calls to the partner, who was handling our billing, were met with sympathy and reassurance that these delays were quite normal in the industry. That seemed logical to us. After three months without payment, we suggested to him that we meet with Blue Cross to try to expedite the cash flow. “No!” he stressed emphatically and cautioned us that contact with Blue Cross would trigger an unwanted audit, which typically resulted in disastrous consequences. He asked us just to remain patient because his bookkeeper was receiving treatments for a brain tumor, immediately eliciting our sympathy.

At the end of the fifth month without payment, Jeffrey and I decided to take decisive action and confront this man who sold us the clinic. Alas, we discovered that all along he had been billing Blue Cross fraudulently. It also turned out that he didn’t actually own the clinic he sold us! It had all been a scam. We poured our hearts out to the executive at Blue Cross who agreed to hear our case, admitting that we had been duped but convincing him that we were honest and trustworthy professionals who were only trying to help people. Much to everyone’s surprise, he rewarded our honesty by assigning the provider number to Jeffrey and me. We were the first recipients of a new authorized clinic in many years.

Trusting souls that we were, we got back on our horses and rode into the sunset believing that enough had happened to us for a lifetime. At last we must be safe from all future peril. And now that we had lost our innocence, we were much better prepared for dealing with unexpected chaos running and operating a clinic. Little did we realize that our innocence and gullibility to deceit had only just begun.

Over the next year, we fired another medical director for inappropriate sexual conduct with his patients. Our part-time book- keeper was caught in a sting operation soliciting sex in a freeway men’s rest stop. One therapist went to jail for fraudulently billing Blue Cross; another therapist went to jail for practicing with a forged license and the malpractice insurance of a dead person; and still another therapist made an out-of-court settlement with a female patient with whom he had been having sex in the clinic after hours.

As therapists, Jeffrey and I erroneously thought that because we were skilled diagnosticians and experienced clinicians, we were inherently good judges of character. Yet time and again, we were duped by people we trusted. In truth, I think we projected onto everyone we encountered our own need to believe that all people are basically good. We refused to imagine that we were actually vulnerable.

It took at least three earth-shattering fiascos before I actually began to consider that I was somewhat responsible for the series of misfortunes that were raining upon us. For a while I became hypersensitive because I no longer trusted myself. I was suspicious of everyone around me, fearing that there were secrets lurking behind the facades of those I thought were loyal friends and colleagues. I was actually paranoid waiting for another shoe to drop. It was like walking through a minefield every day. I hated the feelings and retreated to my office where, ironically, I felt safe in interactions with my patients. After all, I expected them to have secrets under the surface and to be less than authentic with me since they were struggling to be authentic with themselves.

I had a very difficult time accepting that I was unable to fore- see the consequences of my gravitational pull toward people who would eventually fail my litmus test. My rose-colored glasses now had a double edge: While it had been wonderful to always see the good in people, I realized that I had been ignoring signs of trouble to preserve my need for everything to be okay. Challenging my inner belief system shocked me to the core. I had to ask myself, What am I supposed to be learning from these painful and frightening experiences?

To make sense of this episode in my life, I resorted to the only path I thought would yield any answers, self-exploration. And the first question to ask myself was, “What am I getting from this turmoil?” In every fiber of my being, I know that in all of us a self-healing power exists. I just had to figure out why it was so important for me to be telling myself that everything will be okay. After a rather difficult and circuitous route, I realized that the childhood trauma of having a terminally ill mother was the motivation to adopt the mantra everything will be okay. No matter what happened in my life, during childhood or during the years as a clinic owner, I had to believe that everything would eventually be okay. So when each betrayal occurred, I quickly resumed my position as sentinel for my inner belief system and continued to guard the hell out of it.

The personal lesson in all of this is not in the failings of judgment but rather in the repetition of the failings. If I had ruminated on each betrayal and become stuck in the quagmire of details, I would not have heard my inner voice beckoning me to attend to a significant piece of unfinished business. My echoing mantra held the key to the reason for it all. I was duped over and over because I needed to find my own place in the drama.

Once I acknowledged my role, I no longer felt vulnerable or paranoid. My trust in the basic goodness in people returned. I was again unafraid of the goodness of my own heart. In truth, I have made only a very slight change in myself; I am no longer surprised when my expectations for others are dashed. But I consciously refuse to surrender my eagerness to seek the best in people. In the end, I would rather suffer the occasional betrayals than cut out my own heart.

The many episodes of being duped during my ownership of the clinic resulted in an amazing gift to me as a therapist. I learned to help my patients honor their own inner voices. I became better able to observe the ways they guard their inner beliefs and became better skilled at diagnosing why. Ultimately, I learned that, inherent in the repetition of turmoil and struggle, there is always an unfinished piece; when addressed, confronted and honored, calm and balance can be restored.

Jeffrey’s Personal Commentary

Reading Nancy’s story about the trials and tribulations we experienced during our sojourn as clinic directors reminded me of how deeply I buried this chapter in my life. Over the years I’ve talked about the incredible lies, deception, manipulation, intrigue, and immorality that took place under our roof. Like Nancy, I blamed myself for my naïveté and innocence, and for our collective inclination to believe the best in people, even in the face of contradictory evidence. As psychologists, we deluded ourselves into thinking that because of our sensitivity, caring, and clinical acumen, we could tell when people were trying to fool us.

I felt both surprised and moved by Nancy’s confession and acceptance of responsibility for our plight. Nancy describes what she considers “the key to the reason for it all,” as if there was a single mistake or misjudgment on her part that led to the debacle and serial betrayals. Yet in my version of the narrative, or at least my remembrance of what happened, I have also accepted full responsibility for our innocence and misplaced trust in others. Like Nancy, I also found it easy to be forgiving, not only of those who crossed the line, but mostly of ourselves. We were inexperienced in the domain of business. We applied the trusting attitude that serves us well as therapists to another context in which different rules operated—and I see that as our biggest error.

Speaking for myself, I learned some hard lessons about the limits of my ability to read people and uncover so-called truth. Yet these therapists were our friends; they were people we trusted; they were professionals with track records and sterling reputations among their colleagues. Even more disturbing, they were also good therapists and had very successful practices.

Whereas Nancy talks about this repeated deception as a gift, an important lesson learned, it took me many years to come to terms with my lapses in judgment. Eventually, I did rekindle trust, enough so that I still prefer to give people (clients and colleagues) the benefit of the doubt.

As I read over Nancy’s version of the story, and then consider my own narrative, I find it interesting that each of us blames ourselves (instead of the other) for the crazy things that took place under our watch. We mistakenly assumed that because we operate from a position of transparency and honesty, that our colleagues, whom we carefully screened and supervised, would do so as well. That was a huge mistake, one that changed the way I function in some arenas in that I am more cautious and skeptical at times. Yet I think we have both been able to maintain a deep faith in the ability and willingness of most people to do the right thing.

Working with the Unemotional in Emotionally Focused Therapy

It is pretty clear from research that focuses on how change happens in therapy, that emotional engagement is essential for significant change to occur. This is true in individual therapy (for example, research by Castonguay and by Beutler ) and it is certainly true in couple therapy (research by EFT therapists like myself). So what happens in an intervention like Emotionally Focused Couple therapy when one person emphatically denies or avoids emotion? The Boy Code insists that men are at their best when they are strong and silent. So, it is not surprising that male clients tend to deny their emotions a little more often than their female partners.

Process of change research and over 30 years of the clinical experience of numerous EFT, suggests that in fact, this does not seem to be a problem in EFT. Men who are described as “inexpressive” by their partners at the beginning of therapy seem to do very well in EFT. Now why is that?

First, it’s because as EFT therapists we have a map for emotions. For example, there are only 6-8 emotions that everyone on this planet can read on another’s face and assign a similar meaning to. The main difficult emotions that come up in couple therapy are reactive anger, sadness, shame and fear of rejection and abandonment. If you understand emotions, you can help people make coherent sense of them. Once you and your client find the order and logic in an emotion, it is much easier to deal with and work with. Emotions are the most powerful music in the dance called a love relationship and EFT therapists learn how to shape that music and use that music to guide partners into new dance steps.

Second, EFT therapists are emotion detectives. They know emotions are wired into our brains and they have simple, safe, systematic ways of helping folks access and explore them. So, Jim will say in session 8 of EFT, “I used to think I was just frustrated, angry in these fights with my wife; but now I see that mostly I am afraid. It’s a relief to get this – to understand my own feelings and to be able to ask my wife for reassurance rather than stomping around the house in a huff or zoning out and withdrawing into my loneliness.”

Third, tuning into your emotions, especially your fears and longings and shaping these into new messages to your partner WORKS. It is what securely bonded folks naturally do. It pulls our partner close to us and this connection sparks little floods of the cuddle hormone, oxytocin, in our brain. The calm contentment and a sense of belonging that oxytocin induces is the ultimate reward for our kind – little bonding mammals that we are.

When folks tell us, “I don’t have emotions”, we know that this person is working very hard and stressing out his body to suppress his feelings, so we gently explore how and why he does this. He always does it out of fear to avoid being overwhelmed, feeling helpless or ashamed, getting rejected or abandoned. The trouble is that when you shut down your emotions, you shut others out and then you are ………… all alone. No-one wants that. So if you show folks another path to take and support them, they will take it. Even people who do have to shut down as part of their jobs, firefighters, policemen, marines and surgeons respond to EFT. Even traumatized partners who swim in the turmoil of emotional storms learn to order those storms and use their emotions to tell them what they want and need and so find direction in their lives and with their partner.

The traditional route to change in psychotherapy is the haloed “corrective emotional experience”. Without this, any therapy is just an intellectual mist that evaporates once a strong emotion hits. The EFT experience is that even the most seemingly “unemotional” among us respond to corrective emotional experiences of being reassured and treasured. Who can resist this ? Who wants to?

Why a Therapist Should Care About a Clients Favorite Brand of Shampoo

When I was a youngster my father owned a company that manufactured shampoos and hair conditioners.  His bestseller was the original Rum & Egg Shampoo, a product he invented himself.  Now here’s where the story gets a little humorous (or perhaps not so humorous depending on your vantage point).  We would routinely receive correspondence from folks who just loved the Rum & Egg . . . heck, they thought it was the best darn shampoo on the face of the planet.  In fact, they’d go a step farther and trash another brand or two of Rum & Egg and say something like, “Why can’t Brand X or Brand Y make Rum & Egg like yours? The product they manufacture is pure junk.”

These folks wanted the original Rum & Egg. Anything else was a poor copy of the real thing. Now you might be thinking that we were patting ourselves on the back for making such a great product. Well if that’s what you thought then hold onto your horses because I haven’t gotten to the punch line yet.  Moments after the first call we receive another telephone message. This time it would be from an irate customer who would be ranting and raving about how inferior our product was, “Why in the heck can’t you guys make a decent Rum & Egg Shampoo like Brand X or Brand Y?  I’ll even send you a bottle of their brand so you can see how good the competition’s product really is.” 

These folks had invariably seen the Brand X or Brand Y advertisements that stressed that their rum and egg products clearly surpassed the original formula. And send us a bottle, they did!  Now what the aforementioned dummies (um excuse me, I mean customers) didn’t know was that most of the time it was the exact same stuff!  Let me put it in a different way.  We’d fill a thousand bottles to the brim with Rum & Egg and some bottles would get our label, others Brand X, and others Brand Y, Z or whatever.  We never had a clue which bottles received which labels. Hello folks: you’re all buying the same stuff . . . it's called a private label product. Often the same shampoo or conditioner would even be made under the same name with ten different colors, ten different brand names and ten different perfumes.  (Sorry to disappoint you, but in cosmetics generally the most expensive part of the product is the package and the perfume, in that order.)

But this principle goes way beyond hair care products. At one time made in Japan meant junk, but that’s hardly been the case for the last twenty years.  Now Japanese always stands for superior quality . . . or does it? A few years back researchers took models of automobiles and VCRs that were sold either with US nameplates (Dodge or RCA) or Japanese badges (Mitsubishi or JVC).  Like the shampoo saga, the products were actually identical. Customers were given the Japanese brand and the American issue and told to rate them. Perhaps you’ve already guessed that the products sporting a Japanese label – never mind that in reality they were the same – were rated much better.  Consumers made comments like, “The Japanese model just rode quieter,” or “the picture and the sound were markedly better.” Had you performed the experiment in the early 1950s the products with the US nameplate would surely have won by a landslide. 

Now what does all this have this do with the art and science of psychotherapy?  I thought you would never ask. A number of years ago I was at a conference where one of the top-guns in the world was not only lecturing but was going to perform therapy with a real client for the audience. Since I was the program coordinator for an agency I brought several of my therapists with me. Anyway, Mr. Hot Shot top-gun therapist was kind enough to perform a therapy session for the audience. He spent most of the session yelling and screaming at the poor client. One of my therapists leaned over and said, "You'd fire us if we ever talked to a client like that. Well, wouldn't you?" I didn't answer.

When the brief session ended a counselor in the audience raised her hand and asked the client a question, "What would you think if you walked into an agency or private practice and the therapist treated you like this?" "Well," the client admitted, "I would think it was a bit odd or perhaps totally crazy." The counselor in the audience was now extremely perplexed. "But I don't get it. You seemed perfectly happy and even impressed when Dr. so and so just did it." "Oh that's different," replied the client. "I know he's one of the greatest therapists in the world. He did it for some complex theoretical reason. He knows what he's doing."

I leaned toward the therapist at my agency and whispered, "Yes, I would have fired you." So here's the quintessential question: If you said exactly (I mean precisely word-for-word) what a well-known therapist said to the same client would you get the same results? Since a world famous therapist is one heck of a placebo the best answer is: not on this planet.  Therapists, quite frankly, are a lot like brands of shampoo, electronics, and  automobiles.

Receiving Gifts in Psychotherapy

What does your ethical code say about accepting gifts from clients? Is it ethical to do so? If you’re a psychologist, social worker, or marriage and family therapist, you’re probably not sure. That’s because your official code doesn’t address it. Surprisingly, there’s not a word about gifts in any of the codes pertaining to those disciplines. And yet, virtually every mental health practitioner has, or will, face a situation where some client offers a gift of some sort at some time in the course of their treatment. So what do you do? Do you have a well thought out approach or policy to guide you when a client is standing in front of you with an offer of a gift?
 
The truth is that most practitioners don’t have a clear idea of what type of gift would be acceptable, if any. Those who work in an agency or hospital setting might simply adopt the policy their employer already has in place, but those in private practice need to develop their own guidelines or they might find themselves one day standing face to face with a smiling client who is offering a small, or large, token of their appreciation, and who is wondering why there is a such a long pause going on.
 
Would you accept a poinsettia plant at Christmas time that your client brought as a gift for your office waiting room? How about a plate of cookies at Easter for you and/or your staff? Or a packet of special seeds for your garden since you once talked about growing and nurturing in an earlier session? Or a picture a child client drew for you, or a lanyard she made for you in her crafts class? How about frequent flyer miles? Or cologne? Or an item of clothing for your birthday? Or underclothing?
 
Surely you drew a line somewhere along that list of choices. Maybe right at the beginning or maybe at some point along the way. But why? What went into your decision to say, “That one’s not acceptable”? Why did you reject it? What factors did you consider?
 
The one major code that addresses the issue is the American Counselor Association Code of Ethics. It advises counselors to consider the therapeutic relationship, the cultural context, the value of the item and the motive of both the client and the counselor involved in the transaction when dealing with the issue of the appropriateness of the gift (ACA Code Section A.10(e)). Those are all excellent considerations that should bear on your decision of whether to accept or reject the offer.
 
We might, however, add to those factors at least three more: age and gender of the client, and the timing of the offer. For example, if a six year old boy brings a bouquet of flowers he’s picked for his 40 year old female therapist the situation is markedly different from the same bouquet coming in the hands of a 45 year old male client. Motive and intent would not appear to be the same in those two instances.
 
Also, the timing of the offer can be critical. Is it at the end of a successful treatment regimen, or is it at the outset? Saying goodbye with a token of appreciation would seem more straightforward at the end than at the beginning treatment in terms of motive, intent and the therapeutic relationship.
 
So putting together the ACA list of factors of therapeutic relationship, cultural context, value and motive, and adding the age and gender of the client along with the consideration of timing, should give you enough to think about when deciding whether a gift is appropriate or not. But it would be wise to do your thinking before you hear your client say, “Here, I brought this for you”.

Its the Psychiatric Meds, Stupid!

I was getting ready to close up shop and leave my practice for the day when my secretary announced that one of my clients was in the waiting room in a hysterical panic pleading for a session with me. This came as somewhat of a shock to me inasmuch as I felt this client was actually progressing quite well.  I told my secretary to send her right in.

The client was crying so hard I could barely understand her verbalizations, but strangely enough the precipitating incident was a visit to her psychiatrist's office. As she calmed down I got the gory details. The client told her psychiatrist that she was doing extremely well.  That's a good thing, right? She then went on to explain that her therapy sessions with me were very helpful and thus she had turned her life around.

Her psychiatrist responded with a sinister chuckle and told her in no uncertain terms that her that the therapy sessions with me had done nothing. Instead, he suggested, she had been the victim of a nasty chemical imbalance and that the psychiatric medicines he prescribed had made all the difference. My client balked at the idea, stating that she made some cognitive and behavioral changes as a result of the psychotherapy and that his biochemical explanation was totally negating her work in the process. The psychiatrist's anger then began to escalate and he became louder and more belligerent. He insisted that the therapy and the client's volition had nothing to do with it.

The session reached a point of no return when the psychiatrist took her chart and physically hurled at her (wasn't that professional?) as he yelled, "If you really believe it was the therapy and not the psychiatric medication then go find yourself another psychiatrist." He then stomped out of the room. Since I'm a card carrying therapist in good standing please indulge me as I paraphrase the good doctor, "It's the psychiatric meds stupid!" This served as the trigger for my client breaking down and coming to see me. (Hmm? If you have a gander at one of your behavioral science dictionaries, I've got this uncanny notion the term iatrogenic illness will ring a bell here.)

I agreed with my client that counseling and therapy had been very valuable to her. Nonetheless, since I was the therapist at the center of this battle royale I just I had to know how she knew for sure—I mean 100% sure—that the medicine didn't make all or part of the difference.

"Oh that's easy," said the client as her face instantaneously blossomed into an ear-to-ear grin, "he's been giving me those pills for three years and I've never swallowed a single tablet."