Todd, a recently hired addiction counselor, found himself at an impasse with one of his clients who experienced childhood trauma very similar to what Todd had experienced as a child. Todd had never effectively healed from the traumatic incident and began talking about it with his supervisor with whom he felt comfortable and safe. His supervisor willingly supported Todd and his efforts in coming to grips with his own past. Todd’s supervisor felt this was an appropriate avenue to take in helping him grow into a more effective counselor. Soon, however, the discussions drifted away from client-related issues and were eventually focusing exclusively on Todd’s own history.

The addiction counseling field, like that of behavioral healthcare in general, is continually seeking answers to troubling ethical questions while identifying the appropriate stance supervisors must take in a variety of situations. This column addresses the issue of dual relationships in supervision, an issue critical and relevant to the practice of clinical supervision, but also one that, like the above example, is not always crystal clear.

Ethical dilemmas are seldom clear and when we look at the multiple roles in the supervisory relationship, the boundaries can appear somewhat blurred. Dual and even multiple relationships evolve by virtue of the comfortable and open relationships many counselors develop with their supervisors. This invariably occurs when self-awareness and self-disclosure are encouraged as a means to gain insight into one’s development as a counselor.

An open and trusting relationship between a counselor and supervisor can be seen as a significant catalyst for professional growth by the counselor. However, boundaries are often unknowingly crossed, creating an ethical quandary for the counselor and supervisor. Ethical concerns come into play when a secondary, or dual, relationship is formed, resulting in a conflict of interest when the level of client-focused support is diminished. Some dual relationships are unavoidable, such as a supervisor recently promoted who is now supervising a former colleague or friend. However, even when a dual relationship can remain ethically sound, an appearance of impropriety may exist due to a perceived sense of favoritism. A challenge for the supervisor is to differentiate between dual relationships that could potentially exploit or harm the supervisee or client and those that involve a positive professional relationship.

Examples of dual relationships that may be exploitive or harmful include supervising an intimate partner, forming a business relationship with a supervisee, and allowing supervision to become psychotherapy. Of these three, the most common, and perhaps least clear, is where psychotherapy is being provided in the context of a supervisory relationship.

It is ethically inappropriate to do therapy with one’s supervisee, but the boundary is too often unintentionally crossed. This usually starts with the supervisee identifying a personal issue, such as Todd’s, that directly relates to a dynamic in the client-counselor relationship. What puts the supervisor on shaky ethical ground, however, is the formation of a secondary relationship that shifts the focus of supervision away from the client and onto the supervisee. This secondary relationship creates a risk to the supervisee of exploitation and may inappropriately impact the supervisor’s judgment as to what is best for the client. What is at stake here is the well-being of the client and the risk that his or her best interests are no longer being served.

Indeed, it is a responsibility of a supervisor to help supervisees recognize how personal dynamics may impact relationships with clients. In fact, it is expected that in a positive supervisory relationship the activation of personal issues will occur. This is especially true if unresolved issues are triggered by a supervisee’s work with clients. For those of us who recognize the significance of countertransference, we know that discussing such triggers in supervision can be helpful to the client while potentially enhancing the professional growth of the supervisee. However, delving into any personal issues related to these triggers is deemed unethical as they are taking the supervisory relationship into the realm of therapy.

I am aware that there is a lack of agreement among professionals about the extent to which personal issues can be ethically dealt with in supervision. Most would agree it is ethically sound to put the primary responsibility of resolving personal issues that come to light during clinical supervision on the supervisee. Supervisors have the responsibility of aiding supervisees in identifying issues that impact their work with clients, such as those that trigger countertransference. Put another way, supervisors are obligated to deal with the “here and now” — dealing with the “there and then” may take the relationship across that fine line into psychotherapy.

Todd’s supervisor, in the example, had appropriately acknowledged personal issues that related to Todd’s work with his client. As an additional and pertinent course of action, the supervisor could have seen that Todd had the tools and resources necessary to resolve those issues outside of the supervisory relationship. An EAP referral, a recommendation for therapy, or perhaps even a direct referral would have been most helpful and ethically sound. Unfortunately, as a trained therapist, the supervisor succumbed to the temptation to directly help Todd.

Clinical supervisors are therapists first and, like Todd’s supervisor, we bring what we know as a therapist into each supervisory relationship. Supervisors must keep in mind, however, that we are therapists doing supervision and, unlike Todd’s supervisor, we must avoid the temptation to be supervisors doing therapy. Unfortunately, the latter occurs all too often.

Thomas G. Durham, PhD, LADC, is Project Director of the Clinical Preceptorship Program at Danya International (www.danya.com) where he coordinates a worldwide program of clinical supervision to drug and alcohol counselors in the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps. As a certified clinical supervisor, he frequently conducts training workshops and is an adjunct faculty member at Tunxis Community College in Connecticut, where he teaches courses in counseling. He can be reached at This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

This article is published in Counselor,The Magazine for Addiction Professionals, December 2003, v.4, n.6, pp. 28-29.

Comments

Add New Search RSS

Write comment
Name:
Email:	do not notifynotify
Title:
	Please input the anti-spam code that you can read in the image.

Powered by !JoomlaComment 3.26

3.26 Copyright (C) 2008 Compojoom.com / Copyright (C) 2007 Alain Georgette / Copyright (C) 2006 Frantisek Hliva. All rights reserved."

---