Therapy Today

Kate Cunnion (counsellor,
supervisor and trainer)
On first reading this dilemma,
I was left with a sense of
confusion and lack of clarity.
Although I was aware of
hearing within myself a very
definite negative response
to the counsellor/coach’s
proposed action, I also knew
that it would be important
for me, or any supervisor,
to explore and tease out
certain aspects of this
situation before coming to
a conclusion and being able
to make an explicit response
with any confidence.
I would like to think that
in any new supervisory
relationship where the
parties involved are from
different training modalities,
time and effort would be
given to addressing the sort
of circumstances described,
so that reference can be made
to such contractual points,
if required. Such would be
the case now with Estelle
and Lucy.
An important circumstance
to bear in mind is that
Lucy was trained first as a
counsellor before undertaking
this, as yet incomplete,
training as a coach. From
that counselling perspective,
it is regarded as unethical to
counsel a close relative of an
existing client. Again from the
counselling angle, whilst Lucy
was counselling Martin, to
what degree was she aware
of the ‘presence’ of his brother
within the room? How much
was she aware of the effects
on either herself or Martin
of triangular relationships?
Another point which is not
too clear in the described
dilemma, but known to
counsellors (and possibly
to coaches) is that anyone
wanting to be counselled,
such as Alex, must make that
first appointment him/herself.
It’s worth Lucy reflecting on
just why she would expect it
to be acceptable for her to
take the word of her client
that his brother wanted an
appointment.
In my opinion what we
know so far does not give us
much to endorse Lucy’s plan
to work with Alex. To be fair
to her, I would suggest taking
the focus now to the coaching
perspective on this dilemma,
for, like Estelle, I know
little enough of what it is
comprised. A proposal I
would put to Estelle would
be that she ask, even require,
Lucy to make as strong and
convincing a case as she can
as to why she should work
with Alex, especially in the
light of the above arguments
against it.
Now I move to the word
‘caution’ as used in the
description of the dilemma.
I can almost see Estelle’s
wagging finger, hear the
critical tone in her voice.
In relation to that, there
goes Lucy, in my mind’s
eye, skipping off to do her
own thing, regardless of her
supervisor’s injunction. Am
I alone in thinking that this
relationship has gone askew?
Perhaps I have
misconstrued the whole
thing. Putting myself in
Estelle’s place, I would
be assertive, own my own
authority and set up a review
of my working alliance and
arrangements with Lucy in
order to ascertain just how
healthy our relationship is.
In the meantime, I would
also suggest that Estelle make
an appointment with her
own consultant supervisor
in order to look at these
developments in some
personal depth. As for Lucy,
at least some reflection,
maybe a piece of writing,
on what is going on for her
as she participates in this
coaching course vis-à-vis the
learning on the subject of its
relationship with counselling.
What of this might be
contributing to a blurring
of the boundaries between
them? My recommendation
to Lucy would be for her not
to work with Alex, at least
until her counselling with
Martin has been finished
for some time, and with the
approval of her supervisor.
December’s dilemma
You are employed as a
counsellor by an employee
assistance programme
(EAP) for a large haulage
company. The EAP funds
six sessions of counselling,
following an initial
assessment. Your client,
John, is an HGV driver for
the company and you have
seen him for four sessions.
He discloses in the fifth
session that he is drinking
heavily – up to a bottle of
vodka in the evening – and
having an occasional drink
at work. John says that he
is ‘sorting this out’ by seeing
you and asks you to keep
the information confidential
for the time being so that
he doesn’t risk losing his
job. You believe John is
making progress and view
his disclosure as an
important statement of
trust, but remain unsure
about what to do.
Please keep your
responses to 500 words or
less. It is important that you
outline your response to the
dilemma, and make your
thinking as transparent as
possible. A small selection of
answers will be published in
December’s Therapy Today,
with others appearing online
(see www.therapytoday.net).
Email your response to
andrew.reeves@bacp.co.uk
before 29 November.
November 2010/www.therapytoday.net/Therapy Today 33