See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/247522839

Boundaries and boundary management in counselling: The never-ending

story

Article  in  British Journal of Guidance and Counselling · May 1997

DOI: 10.1080/03069889700760131

CITATIONS READS

25 10,867

1 author:

Gary Hermansson
Massey University
19 PUBLICATIONS   170 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Gary Hermansson on 03 February 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Boundaries and Boundary Management in Counselling:
the Never-Ending Story

Gary Hermansson
Department of Human Development Studies,
Massey University College of Education,
Palmerston North,
New Zealand

[Published in ‘The British Journal of Guidance and Counselling’, Volume 25, No. 2, 1997, as part
of a Symposium on Boundaries in Counselling, Edited by Gary Hermansson]
]

1
 Abstract

The concept of boundary has come into prominence in the field of counselling and psychotherapy in

recent years. Its focus has been mainly problem-oriented because much of the thrust has come from

concerns about boundary violations in the form of therapist sexual exploitation and abuse of clients. A

consequence of this has been a growing caution and conservative stance to boundary management,

running the risk of undermining aspects of therapeutic effectiveness. Attention is given to various non-

sexual boundary dilemmas in recognition of the ubiquitousness of boundary matters in counselling.

Essential therapeutic qualities are examined for their boundary-crossing expectations. Empathy, in

particular, is seen as needing to involve boundary crossing, but with important qualifiers. Finally, in

response to this process need, boundary management is considered, with the never-ending need for

dynamic involvement and applying professional judgements, in contrast to operating rigid rules and

adopting any fixed position. As well as arguing a theme, the paper provides an overview of boundary

matters, serving as an introduction to the papers that follow in the symposium on boundaries.

2
Introduction

The concept of boundary has emerged into prominence in the field of counselling and

psychotherapy over recent years. It has become a theme for conference programmes (e.g. the

International Conference on ‘Boundaries – Trust, Impingement and Cure’, sponsored by the School of

Psychotherapy and Counselling, Regents College, London, May 1993), books (e.g. Peterson, 1992),

manuals (e.g. Milgrom, 1992), and numerous articles (e.g. Coleman & Schaefer, 1986; Yorke, 1993).

Boundary has become part of the everyday language of the field and, as we shall see, is

expanding beyond its dominant focus. It has even become a central feature of personality theory, with

Hartmann and his colleagues identifying boundary thickness as a major distinguishing dimension of

personality (Hartmann, 1991; Hartmann et al., 1991), and an influence in career choices, including

those of counselling and psychotherapy (Hartmann, 1991, pp. 216–222; 1997). All told, boundary has

become a multipurpose term that influences understanding of what we do in counselling and how we

do it.

Undoubtedly, the emergence of the term has carried with it a strong flavour of problem

orientation. Boundary violations centred on sexual exploitation and abuse by counsellors and

psychotherapists of clients has become almost endemic – arguably perhaps as much a feature of

reporting and preparedness to challenge, as of any increase in actual incidence. Professional bodies

have been increasingly occupied in investigating, adjudicating and enacting penalties on sexual-abuse

incidents. An extensive literature has built up over the past decade or so on this troubling matter (e.g.

Bates & Brodsky, 1989; Gonsiorek, 1995; Pope & Bouhoutsos, 1986; Rutter, 1989; Schoener et al.,

1989). Ethical codes have been reshaped in pursuit of tighter strictures (Lazarus, 1994a) and both

practice and supervision have reflected the concerns associated with boundary difficulties. For

example, indemnity insurance has become almost obligatory for those in private practice, and vigilance

about boundary matters of any kind has become a topic for automatic attention in supervision (cf.

Feltham & Dryden, 1994).

The boundaries of attention to boundary problems have themselves been extended. Sexual

exploitation concerns have expanded to include considerations of sexual involvement with ex-clients,

with viewpoints ranging from it not being problematic providing the professional relationship has

3
ceased (Van Hoose & Kottler, 1978), through it being possible after a certain specified period

(Appelbaum & Jorgenson, 1991), to it being totally ruled out under any circumstances (Sonnenberg,

1992). Also, considerable debate has occurred with regard to dual relationships, with some authors

stressing their inappropriateness (Glossoff et al., 1996; Kagle & Giebelhausen, 1994; Kitchener, 1988),

and others stressing their inevitability (Clarkson, 1994) and even their value when exploitation is not at

issue (Tomm, 1993). The dominating theme though has understandably been conservative, with

increasing efforts to keep boundaries clear and clean. Treatment boundaries have become accentuated,

and a concern for risk-management and control has driven much of the thinking.

Given what some might see as a profession in potential crisis about boundaries, it is perhaps

inevitable that the current thrust would be towards firming boundaries and working to ensure a

distinctively safe culture – to protect clients, to guide and protect counsellors and psychotherapists, and

to maintain and enhance credibility. However, as often happens with such vigilance and reactivity,

excessive caution can emerge, rigid rules can come to dominate, and simplistic thinking can prevail.

At its worst, boundary control can be taken to extremes (Lazarus, 1994a), but even when more

measured judgement applies, there is the likelihood that problematic thinking around the term

boundary will still exist.

The difficulty with this narrow perspective is that it does not recognise the inevitable and

natural presence of boundary matters in counselling. Even worse than that, it can rigidify the fluid and

dynamic elements of counselling, and shift attention from the never-ending need to manage boundaries

towards a search for a completely safe and protected position from which to operate. Whilst there are

undoubtedly boundary problems in counselling, understanding boundaries and being able to work

constructively with them in an immediate and dynamic fashion is essential.

It should be recognised that the very nature of counselling process demands a measure of

boundary crossing. Without this, counselling will, by inevitable consequence, lack some of its

therapeutic flavour. It is this ‘territorial shift’ that creates both the context for therapeutic gain and the

potential for counsellor exploitation and abuse of clients, making counselling at one and the same time

so powerful and so potentially dangerous. The paradox is that without the conditions brought about by

boundary crossing, therapeutic impact will be seriously undermined; but with them, the scope for

abuse is accentuated. This dynamic tension has to be lived with and constructively responded to.

4
 In this paper, I want to extend the scope of boundary considerations towards greater balance, in

contrast to its rather narrow problem-centred emphasis. This will involve exploring other facets of

boundaries in counselling, with a recognition that there are many boundary dilemmas in the field,

beyond those to do with therapist abuse. Secondly, I want to develop the notion that effective

counselling – reliant as it is especially on the concept of empathy – demands, in a qualified way,

boundary crossing. It will be argued that sound counselling cannot occur unless this happens, and

indeed that counsellor aloofness, often promoted by boundary rigidity, is in itself potentially abusive

(cf. Webster, 1991). A realisation of the need for boundary crossing makes it imperative that we put

our efforts into practices that effectively manage the dynamic quality of boundaries, rather than

moving towards any positions of boundary rigidity, rules and formulae. In our necessary concerns

about the serious matter of therapist boundary violations, it is essential that we do not arrive at a point

where we inadvertently ‘throw the baby out with the bathwater’.

Extending the scope of boundary dilemmas in counselling

Having stated that the term boundary is part of the everyday language of counselling and

psychotherapy, it is interesting to note how seldom it is actually defined. Clearly, though, there is a

sense of shared meaning, even if precise definitions are not made. Gutheil & Gabbard (1993) ask the

question about definition, but then rely on practical description to convey meaning. Whilst there may

be problems with accessing a precise and meaningful definition of boundaries for counselling, the term

seems to have a good measure of ‘street credibility’.

Within the realms of shared understanding, it would seem evident that a defining feature of the

term is that of distinctions: as Webb (1997) states, it involves drawing a line. Katherine (1991)

describes a boundary in relation to personal functioning as ‘a limit or edge that defines you as separate

from others. A boundary is a limit that promotes integrity’ (p.3). She notes that each living organism

is separated from every other living organism by a physical barrier, and that :

‘[w]e have other boundaries as well - emotional, spiritual, sexual and relational. You

have a limit to what is safe and appropriate. You have a border that separates you from

others. Within this border is your youness, that which makes you an individual different

and separate from others’ (Katherine, 1991, p.4).

5
She goes on to say that ‘[b]oundaries bring order to lives. As we learn to strengthen our boundaries,

we gain a clearer sense of ourselves and our relationship to others’ (p.5).

Hartmann (1991, p.3) points out that our world is full of boundaries: between ourselves and

others; around families, groups and countries; as delineates of time (in terms of past, present future)

and development (childhood, adolescence, adulthood). Such distinctions involve parts, regions,

functions, processes that are separate from one another and yet connected with one another.

Emerging from his research and clinical work, Hartmann (1991, pp. 20–48; 1997, Figure 1) has

identified specific types of boundaries related to personality functioning. Whilst all of them to some

degree have relevance to counselling and psychotherapy, a number are especially critical to such

involvements. Examples of these are: perceptual boundaries; boundaries related to thoughts and

feelings; boundaries related to states of awareness or states of consciousness; boundaries related to

memory; boundaries around oneself (body boundaries); interpersonal boundaries; boundaries between

conscious and unconscious and between id, ego and superego; defence mechanisms as boundaries;

boundaries related to identity; and boundaries in decision making and action.

In considering responses to these personality-related boundaries, Hartmann articulates

distinctions in terms of thick or thin boundary types. He proposes a personality theory that has this as

its central feature. There are important implications from this for understanding client and counsellor

functioning and for managing boundaries within counselling process. In the domain of boundary

understanding and management in counselling, the work of Hartmann and his colleagues is of major

importance, and his thick/thin distinction could well form a platform from which progress is made in

terms of such significant matters as differential treatment, counsellor selection, training styles, and

risk-management and control.

The notion of boundaries as part of intrapsychic structure is also fundamental to a number of

counselling theories. Whilst at some level present in all, some theories incorporate boundary elements

more explicitly. Hartmann (1991) acknowledges the boundary distinctions between superego, ego and

id in psychodynamic theory. In Gestalt, considerable attention is given to the contact boundary: the

dynamic point between the self and the environment (Philipson, 1990). Arguably, Transactional

Analysis has the most direct focus on boundary in relation to its ego state dynamics: ‘ego boundaries

6
can be thought of as semi-permeable membranes through which psychic energy can flow from one ego

state to another’ (James & Jongeword, 1971, p. 226). Considerable attention is given in the TA

approach to features of lax boundaries, rigid boundaries, boundary contamination and boundary lesions

as part of intrapersonal functioning (ibid.).

Specifically in the domain of practice, Gutheil & Gabbard (1993) extend the scope of attention

to boundaries away from the crucial but overly narrow abuse focus. Their underpinning rationale for

doing this, though, is still problem oriented in that it is based on the belief that mismanaging

boundaries in minor ways is often the beginnings of movement towards more serious violations,

frequently involving sexual misconduct. They look at boundary dilemmas and consider matters of

appropriateness in relation to role (understanding and making clear acceptable therapist behaviour);

time (duration and scheduling of sessions as well as contact outside of them); place and space (location

and setting); money (fees and debt handling); gifts and services (giving and receiving both tangible and

non-tangible offerings); clothing (style and formality); language (names, tone and word choice); self-

disclosure (therapist spontanaety, personal information and self revelations); and physical contact

(handshakes, touching and hugs).

These boundary matters are clearly important in the context of therapeutic involvement – in

themselves as well as in relation to the potential for movement from non-erotic to sexual violations.

Boundary dilemmas in counselling are even more prolific, however, with additional concerns evident

even beyond those identified by Gutheil & Gabbard. Such boundary matters also need understanding

and management by counsellors as an aspect of making counselling most effective. Some of the more

crucial are identified below, beginning with counselling, but extending into the related fields of

supervision and training.

A wide array of boundary concerns

A number of important boundary dilemmas are fundamental to the nature of counselling itself.

How counsellors recognise and manage them is significant in regard to, among other things, counsellor

competency, the constructive use of power and, ultimately, counselling efficacy.

A common boundary dilemma is to do with the actual form of involvement expected and

available. There are identifiable but clearly overlapping distinctions among such engagements as

interviewing, using counselling skills, counselling and psychotherapy (Belkin, 1988; Frankland &

7
Sanders, 1995; Ivey et al., 1987). Knowing what is available, expected and appropriate is important

for both counsellor and client. Whilst some practitioners see no real distinctions between, say,

counselling and psychotherapy, others regard them as being quite different. For individuals seeking

personal help there are likely to be no real awareness or understood markers of differences, and this

means that defining the form of engagement will be based essentially on what the practitioner chooses

to provide. Recognising this, and realising the potential confusion for and resultant vulnerability of

clients, is an aspect of boundary awareness and management that counsellors need to be sensitive to.

A number of related boundary issues extend from this kind of circumstance. One concerns the

scope of goals that will be attended to within the contact. Clients often bring relatively specific

presenting problems to counselling, with these inevitably being linked to themes and more

fundamental life issues (Hermansson, 1992). Frequently, the counsellor, in collaboration with the

client, has to determine the most appropriate boundary of operation that will enable a sufficient

difference to be made in the person’s life without extending so far as to compel her or him to be a life-

long client. A common example of this is when a person approaches a counsellor with what is

ostensibly a career information need. Often the counsellor, using his or her listening skills and

sensitivity, will recognise cues which indicate that there are more fundamental issues underpinning the

matter that the client asks for help with. The counsellor has to make judgements about what is the

appropriate boundary to draw, with this perhaps even involving deactivating certain counselling skills

in order to contain the scope of involvement within the limits implicitly set by the client. In doing this,

counsellors must also be open to realising that at times clients will present with what appears to be a

rather obvious boundary limit, but that contained within it is an underlying invitation for the counsellor

to help them extend this to the degree that the involvement encompasses what really is the issue in

their life.

It is the counsellor’s responsibility to recognise boundary dilemmas and to manage them. Part

of the management may be to engage clients directly in helping to define the most appropriate limits,

given their needs and preferences and the counsellor’s particular role, time and resources. However,

even with such collaboration, counsellors still must constantly and actively make judgements about

where to draw lines. For example, even if the working alliance extends the boundary of engagement to

address more profound life issues for the client, the counsellor still is left with having to make

8
judgements about content focus and linkages. Additionally, there is the dilemma of where the

boundaries should be drawn with regard to attending to client feelings. Some counsellors assume that

the boundary of involvement automatically includes these, whilst others – for reasons to do with the

approach they use, their professional judgement or personal preferences – keep client feelings more in

the background. Boundary dilemmas of these kinds do not naturally lend themselves to any shared

discussion with clients about where to set the limits, as clients are likely to have no practical

understanding or experience of the implications or alternatives until they are actually exposed to them.

Instead, such dilemmas make up the vast pool of boundary matters that counsellors are left with having

to make their own professional judgements about. Obviously ethical principles must be central to such

judgements, as must be informed understanding of sound practice and the counsellor’s own degree of

self understanding. It is complexities such as these that make it essential for counsellors to recognise

the need for ongoing management of boundaries and to acknowledge that dynamic flexibility must be a

part of this if counselling is to be effective.

The point to be stressed here is that boundary dilemmas pervade counselling. Extending

beyond those already stated, and of equal importance, are distinctions between insight or action

objectives; transitions in and out of phases when using phase-progression models (e.g. Egan, 1994);

boundaries drawn around specific theories (with debates about single-theory, eclectic and integration

orientations highlighting the point – see Owen, 1997, for an example of practice integration centred on

boundaries); working across cultures; limiting the intervention focus to individuals or extending it to

include family, or moving beyond counselling work into advocacy or social action initiatives; creating

appropriate limits to third party participation; negotiating referrals; and deciding where to draw the line

about sharing information.

In supervision and training many of the same boundary dilemmas as those identified for

counselling occur. However, there are some that are more specific to these activities. Managing the

line between focusing on the person of the counsellor and on professional activities such as case work

and role development (Feltham & Dryden, 1994) is one constant boundary dilemma for supervisors.

Another is the division to be managed between providing expert input and facilitating the inner

resource development of the supervisee. The most common training-related boundary issues are to do

with managing roles – most frequently between those of trainer/counsellor in relation to trainee/client

9
but also between those of trainer and assessor (ibid.). Another important training boundary dilemma

involves drawing the appropriate line between training people for the counselling profession or for

their particular work settings.

Boundary management responses

As has been stressed, boundary issues pervade counselling and can be profound in their

implications. Many are managed without great difficulty, but others involve considerable risk and

need very careful consideration. One important management strategy is to clarify and strengthen

boundaries in situations where it is necessary and desirable to do so, with some authors (e.g.

Blackshaw & Baker Miller, 1994) arguing for the complementary strategy of reducing power

differentials in the counselling relationship, which they see as the more crucial issue. In terms of

setting limits, though, the real difficulty is where to draw the line and how static it should be.

Undoubtedly, because of the growing realisation that boundaries are not always being well managed in

counselling and because of the terrible consequences for clients when mismanagement occurs and the

vulnerability of counsellors to it happening or being accused of it happening, there is a trend for risk-

management concerns to override dynamic process needs.

Lazarus (1994a) has expressed concern about the extent to which risk-management has led to

signs of excessive zeal in actioning boundary limits. Although recognising the importance for caution

about boundary matters – especially in the current practice context where even what might be seen as

harmless breaches, or those enacted with the client’s best interests to the fore (e.g. sharing

straightforward information with a colleague with clear therapeutic intent), might lead to complaint or

litigation – Lazarus believes that there is a growing conservative thrust that could be argued to be

undermining clinical effectiveness. Rigid roles and strict codified rules of conduct are seen to be

creating artificial boundaries which interfere with potential effectiveness. For Lazarus, risk-

management principles are in danger of taking precedence over humane interventions.

His thesis has triggered quite a strong response, with a number of authors challenging his

viewpoint (Bennett et al., 1994; Borys, 1994; Brown, 1994; Gabbard, 1994; Gottlieb, 1994; Gutheil,

1994). The main criticisms are that Lazarus was being somewhat simplistic, overly naive and possibly

promoting a dangerous stance towards risk-management and control Whilst there is support for his

view that boundary setting can be taken too far (Gabbard, 1994), the counter-argument made is that

10
risk-management is essential and that boundaries ensure structure and safety which are curative in

themselves. Little attention is given in the responses, however, to what effects excessive risk-

management behaviour might have on clinical process and on the therapeutic aspects of relationship

dynamics. Lazarus (1994b) himself sees the critics as focusing overly on potential costs and dangers,

in contrast to his emphasis that advantages can accrue when certain boundaries are transcended. He

also queries the assumptions that all boundary crossings are motivated by therapists’ needs.

Undoubtedly there is in some quarters an excessive zeal about boundary control which can lead

to stances that seem overly precious and at times even arrogant in relation to clients and to colleagues

in the profession. The damage that has been done and can potentially be done through boundary

violation gives some justification to this line of thinking and to the realistic need for caution. However,

just tightening boundaries is also oversimplistic and has the added danger of possibly setting off from

involvement the very qualities that make counselling therapeutic. What is left can be a pseudo-

professional stance that is controlling in its effects and barren in its essence.

Boundary crossing as an aspect of empathy

The major loss that can occur as a consequence of boundary rigidity and excessive distancing

can be to what is essentially the counsellor’s most potent therapeutic tool, that of empathy. Any

examination of the nature of empathy, widely recognised for its critical role in therapeutic

effectiveness (Carkhuff, 1969; Ivey et al., 1997; Truax & Carkhuff, 1967), leads to the conclusion that

its presence and implementation clearly involves and expects boundary crossing. To be empathic, a

counsellor has to move across a boundary into the life space of the client. All of the descriptions and

definitions of the term are in that direction. To maintain therapeutic potency, however, it must be a

qualified boundary cross, with the counsellor never totally leaving his or her own personal territory. In

these circumstances and with such expectations boundary management must be more than any rigid

enactment of rules.

Gutheil & Gabbard (1993) distinguish between boundary crossing and boundary violation, and

indicate that boundary crossing can at times be salutary (though at other times neutral or even

harmful). However, their examples tend to be in terms of matters that surround process (e.g. the option

of perhaps sending flowers for a major life achievement related to therapy, such as achieving

conception following prolonged fertility problems) more than in terms of the immediate process itself.

11
Boundary crossing in this all important latter area – the core of therapeutic involvement – is obviously

more problematic.

Descriptions of the immediate relationship process in counselling are typically couched in the

language of territorial space. Rogers in his seminal work on the conditions needed for therapeutic

personality change (1957) describes client and counsellor experience as well as the interactive process

in such a manner. He says that ‘for constructive personality change to occur, it is necessary that these

conditions exist and continue over a period of time:

1. Two persons are in psychological contact.

2. The first, whom we shall term the client, is in a state of incongruence, being vulnerable or

anxious.

3. The second person, whom we shall term the therapist, is congruent or integrated in the

relationship.

4. The therapist experiences unconditional positive regard for the client.

5. The therapist experiences an empathic understanding of the client’s internal frame of reference

and endeavours to communicate this experience to the client.

6. The communication to the client of the therapist’s empathic understanding and unconditional

positive regard is to a minimal degree achieved’ (p.95).

In this description, several implicit boundary descriptors are evident. Firstly there is the need

for psychological contact, with the potential for ‘each [person to] make... some perceived difference in

the experiential field of the other’ (p.96). Then, the client state (incongruence) has intrapersonal

boundary features: ‘a discrepancy between the actual experience of the organism and the self picture of

the individual in so far as it represents that experience’ (p.96). In similar fashion, the desired

counsellor state (congruence) is described as being within a unified boundary: ‘a congruent, genuine,

integrated person... [which] means that within the relationship he [sic] is freely and deeply himself,

with his actual experience accurately represented by his awareness of himself. It is the opposite of

presenting a façade, either knowingly or unknowingly’ (p.97). The other two important Rogerian

qualities – unconditional positive regard and empathy – have similar boundary features. The former

12
‘means a caring for the client as a separate person, with permission to have his [sic] own feelings, his

own experiences’ (p.98). The latter involves sensing ‘the client’s private world as if it were your own,

but without ever losing the “as if” quality’ (p.99).

At least in Rogerian terms, the involvement between counsellor and client is very much

boundary-related. Various boundary components contribute to the conditions of engagement through

contact and respectful recognition of difference, but the quality of empathy actually requires movement

across the interpersonal boundary. Fleiss (1942), from a psychoanalytic perspective, described

empathic understanding with distinct boundary crossing features: ‘[it depends] essentially on [the

therapist’s] ability to put himself [sic] in the [client’s] place, to step into his shoes, and to obtain in this

way inside knowledge that is almost first-hand’ (p.212) (my emphasis). In turn, Rogers (1957), writing

about empathy, says: ‘[w]hen the client’s world is this clear to the therapist, and he [sic] moves about

in it freely, then he can both communicate his understanding of what is clearly known to the client and

can also voice meanings in the client’s experience of which the client is scarcely aware’ (p.99) (my

emphasis). As a variation of this kind of description, which is relatively uniform in most counselling

texts, Ivey et al. (1997) draw on the North American Indian saying of ‘walking in the mocassins of

another’ (p.24) to capture the essence of empathy. Although not having the feature of being ‘inside’ the

client, it still reflects a crossing of territory.

The conditions and dynamics outlined demand personal availability and intense involvement

from the counsellor. Structures or strategies that interfere with this can undermine effectiveness.

Applying strict and uniform boundary rules is one example of such structure. An example of a strategy

that can reduce involvement and inhibit appropriate boundary crossing is using a diagnostic

orientation. Rogers (1957) believed that this was not helpful, and may even be unhelpful, in relation to

therapeutic involvement. In terms that convey the creation of a barrier to boundary crossing, he stated

that:

‘[s]ome therapists cannot feel secure in the relationship with the client unless they

possess such diagnostic knowledge. Without it they feel fearful of him [sic], unable

to be empathic, unable to experience unconditional regard, finding it necessary to

put up a pretence in the relationship’ (p.102).

13
 Having made the argument for a recognition of the requirement to boundary cross through the

need to be empathic, it is essential to make sure that the all important qualifier noted previously in this

paper is highlighted: that the boundary crossing must never be complete. Empathy does involve

moving into the client’s private world as if it were your own but, as Rogers (1957) and many others

following him have stressed, it must never be without ‘the ‘as if’ quality’. It is this quality that

provides risk protection, along with of course the necessary attitude of respect and the counsellor’s

own self awareness which enables him or her to monitor personal needs and to remain fully aware of

the therapeutic context. Truax & Carkhuff (1967, p.285) describe such dynamics as: ‘[t]o be “inside”

the client, and yet to remain “outside”...’. Such engagement involves a fine balance between

identification and objectivity. If either of these is abandoned, then danger is imminent and damage is

likely through excessive distancing or exploitation through getting lost in the experience.

A lack of identification with the client, through either an inability to be empathic or a neglect of

duty to be so, leads to the counsellor being potentially dangerous. Various authors see such a lack of

involvement as also being abusive. Katherine (1991), for example, sees two forms of abusiveness: (1)

intrusion, where intimacy is more than what is appropriate; and (2) distance, where intimacy is less

than what is appropriate. Webster (1991), in her paper on emotional abuse in counselling and therapy,

provides several examples that clearly demonstrate misuse of power by counsellors operating in a

detached manner. Lewin (1994) considers that ‘[t]he most common boundary violations. . . consist of

excessive distance not excessive involvement’ (p.296). Myers (1994) writes:

‘while boundaries most often deserve to be sufficiently wide and clearly delineated, if

they are made too wide because of the therapist’s need to avoid emotional interaction . .

. the ensuing emotional detachment can hardly be construed as therapeutic’ (p.294).

Such involvement is characteristic of the group of counsellors and therapists that Hartmann (1997)

refers to as having thick boundaries, who are likely to abuse because of limited sensitivity.

On the other hand, a lack of objectivity, or the loss of the ‘as if’ quality, is likely to lead to

circumstances where, in Katherine’s (1991) terms, intimacy is more than what is appropriate. Such

14
involvement is more typical of the group of therapists and counsellors that Hartmann (1997) identifies

as having thin boundaries.

Peck (1978) defines love as ‘[t]he will to extend one’s self for the purpose of nurturing one’s

own or another’s spiritual growth’ (p.85). Many in counselling would see this definition as

encompassing what counselling fundamentally involves. His description of healthy love continues in a

way that is consistent with responsible counselling. However, he also articulates a description of

dysfunctional love (what he calls ‘romantic love’), the distinguishing feature of which involves ego

boundary loss: ‘involving a sudden collapse of a section of an individual’s ego boundaries, permitting

one to merge his or her own identity with that of another person’ (p.92). He sees such ego boundary

loss as an act of regression to earlier times of the mother-infant merger. This process involves a loss of

objectivity and the kind of dysfunctional involvement that typifies the exploitation and abuse of clients

which is so problematic in counselling and therapy.

Given these possibilities, counsellors must operate in boundary terms in a manner that enables

them to move across the counsellor-client interpersonal line (for identification purposes) but at the

same time they must remain firmly anchored within their own boundary space (for objectivity

purposes). This calls for ongoing consideration of boundary conditions, and for a dynamic flexibility

that will ensure maximum therapeutic effect combined with maximum safety. Settling on fixed-

boundary positions that set up and maintain a protective distance may well serve the safety factor

admirably, but is likely to be deleterious to therapeutic involvement and outcome.

Dynamic boundary management

Boundary management has to be a fluid and dynamic process and is never-ending throughout

the period of involvement with a client. The question then has to be asked about how responsible

boundary management can be ensured when it must incorporate a dimension of boundary crossing. As

would be anticipated, the answer must lie initially in the domain of counsellor selection, training and

supervision, with a focus on counsellor personal process, ethical principles, and the development of

professional judgement and competence. Thorough training which incorporates attention to boundary

issues as being both problematic and potentially therapeutic, and not likely to be managed through

formulaic positions, is essential. It is especially important for counsellors to be able to understand and

15
monitor their own processes, personally and through ongoing supervision, and to recognise signs of

burn-out (Geldard, 1989) as this is often where boundary-management process problems begin.

In this present symposium, Hartmann (1997) articulates a new perspective on boundaries as an

aspect of personality which has the potential to contribute to counsellor selection and practice and, as

part of that, to the understanding and enactment of effective boundary management. Owen (1997)

argues for an integration of principles of psychodynamic and humanistic practices which preserves the

personal involvement focus of the latter but merges it with some limit-setting characteristics of the

former. Finally, Webb (1997) focuses on training for boundary management that recognises it as an

ongoing process in counsellor-client involvement.

Conclusion

The dynamic nature of boundaries has to be preserved in counselling. The effects of boundary

violations are severe for clients, counsellors and the profession, and we must do all that is possible to

ensure that such actions do not occur. Yet we must also ensure the qualities that make counselling

effective are not lost in the process. Boundary management has to involve heightened vigilance and the

identification of ethical principles that need to be central to training and practice, so that the dynamic

quality of counselling involvement is maintained. It must not develop in the direction of creating

protective positions which counsellors rely on to maintain safety; if it does so, part of the price will be

the loss of essential therapeutic qualities.

Katherine (1991), citing Rhodes (1990), stresses that: ‘[e]verything in the universe consists of

something organized surrounded by a boundary...’ (p.81). In turn, Rhodes, paraphrasing British-born

metallurgist Cyril Stanley Smith, says:

‘the conditions of the boundary determine whether or not the organism inside will thrive. If

its boundary is too rigid and impermeable, the organism can’t feed or breathe or excrete

wastes - can’t communicate effectively with the rest of the universe. If its boundary is too

porous, it can’t sufficiently isolate itself from the rest of the universe to function - it loses

its identity. With amoebas and human beings, with stars and nation-states, boundary

conditions are crucial’ (ibid., p. 81f).

16
 The same can be said for counselling as a field and counselling processes within it. It is

imperative that functional boundaries operate. Excessive rigidity can bring dysfunctionality – an

inability to communicate effectively. Excessive looseness will also bring dysfunctionality – a loss

of identity. In all matters of boundary, in counselling as in life, a living, dynamic quality must

exist.

17
References

APPELBAUM, P.S. & JORGENSON, L. (1991). Psychotherapist-patient sexual contact after

termination: an analysis and a proposal. American Journal of Psychiatry, 148, 1466–1473.

BATES, C. M. & BRODSKY, A.M. (1989). Sex in the Therapy Hour: a Case of Professional Incest.

New York: Guilford.

BELKIN, G.S. (1988). Introduction to Counseling (3rd ed.). Iowa: Brown.

BENNETT, B.E., BRICKLIN, P. M. & VANDECREEK, L. (1994). Response to Lazarus’s ‘How

certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness’. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 263–

266.

BLACKSHAW, S. & BAKER MILLER, J. (1994). Boundaries in clinical psychiatry [letter to the

editor]. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 293.

BORYS, D. S. (1994). Maintaining therapeutic boundaries: the motive is therapeutic effectiveness, not

defensive practice. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 267–273.

BROWN, L. S. (1994). Concrete boundaries and the problem of literal-mindedness: a response to

Lazarus. Ethics and Behavior, 4, 275–281.

CARKHUFF, R.R. (1969). Helping & Human Relations, Vol. II; Practice and Research. New York:

Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

CLARKSON, P. (1994). In recognition of dual relationships. Transactional Analysis Journal, 24, 32–

38.

COLEMAN, E. & SCHAEFER, S. (1986). Boundaries of sex and intimacy between client and

counselor. Journal of Counseling and Development, 64, 341–344.

EGAN, G. (1994). The Skilled Helper: a Problem-Management Approach to Helping (5th ed.).

Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole

FELTHAM, C. & DRYDEN, W. (1994). Developing Counselling Supervision. London: Sage.

FLEISS, R. (1942). The metapsychology of the analyst. Psychology Quarterly, 11, 211-214.

FRANKLAND, A. & SANDERS, P. (1995). Next Steps in Counselling. Manchester: Person Centred

Counselling Service.

GABBARD, G. (1994). Teetering on the precipice: a commentary on Lazarus’s ‘How certain

boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness’. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 283–286.

18
GELDARD, D. (1989). Basic Personal Counselling. Parramatta, NSW: Prentice Hall.

GLOSSOFF, H. L., COREY, G. & HERLIHY, B. (1996). Dual relationships. In B. Herlihy & G.

Corey (Eds), ACA Ethical Standards Casebook (5th edition) (pp. 251–266) Alexandria, VA:

American Counseling Association.

GONSIOREK, J.C. (Ed.) (1995). Breach of Trust: Sexual Exploitation by Health Care Professionals

and Clergy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

GOTTLIEB, M.C. (1994). Ethical decision making, boundaries, and treatment effectiveness: a reprise.

Ethics & Behavior, 4, 287–293.

GUTHEIL, T. G. & GABBARD, G. (1993). The concept of boundaries in clinical practice: theoretical

and risk-management dimensions. American Journal of Psychiatry, 150, 188–196.

GUTHEIL, T. G. (1994). Discussion of Lazarus’s ‘How certain boundaries and ethics diminish

therapeutic effectiveness’. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 295–298.

HARTMANN, E. (1991). Boundaries in the Mind: a New Psychology of Personality. New York: Basic

Books.

HARTMANN, E. (1997). The concept of boundaries in counselling and psychotherapy. British

Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 00–00.

HARTMANN, E., EIKIN, R., & GARG, M. (1991). Personality and dreaming: the dreams of people

with very thick or very thin boundaries. Dreaming, 1, 311–324.

HERMANSSON, G.L. (1992). Eclectic Counselling: Working with an Integrated Model. Palmerston

North, New Zealand: Inside-Out Books.

IVEY, A. E., IVEY, M. B. & SIMEK-DOWNING, L. (1987). Counseling and Psychotherapy:

Integrating Skills, Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

IVEY, A. E., IVEY, M. B. & SIMEK-MORGAN, L. (1997). Counseling and Psychotherapy: a

Multicultural Perspective (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

JAMES, M. & JONGEWORD, D. (1971). Born to Win. Reading MA.:Addison-Wesley.

KAGLE, J. D. & GIEBELHAUSEN, P. N. (1994). Dual relationships and professional boundaries.

Social Work, 39, 213–220.

KATHERINE, A. (1991). Boundaries: Where You End and I Begin. New York: Simon & Schuster.

19
KITCHENER, K. S. (1988). Dual role relationships: what makes them so problematic? Journal of

Counseling and Development, 67, 217–221.

LAZARUS, A.A. (1994a). How certain boundaries and ethics diminish therapeutic effectiveness.

Ethics & Behavior, 4, 255–261.

LAZARUS, A.A. (1994b). The illusion of the therapist’s power and the patient’s fragility: my

rejoinder. Ethics & Behavior, 4, 299–306.

LEWIN, R.A. (1994) Boundaries in clinical psychiatry [letter to the editor]. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 151, 294.

MILGROM, J. (1992). Boundaries in Professional Relationships – a Training Manual. Minneapolis,

MN: Walk-In Counseling Centre.

MYERS, W.A. (1994) Boundaries in clinical psychiatry [letter to the editor]. American Journal of

Psychiatry, 151, 293–294.

OWEN, I. R. (1997). Boundaries in the practice of humanistic counselling. British Journal of

Guidance and Counselling, 25, 00–00.

PECK, M. S. (1978). The Road Less Travelled. London: Arrow.

PETERSON, M. (1992). At Personal Risk: Boundary Violations in Professional-Client Relationships.

New York: Norton.

PHILIPSON, P. (1990). Awareness, the contact boundary and the field. Gestalt Journal, 13, 73-84.

POPE, K. & BOUHOUTSOS, J. (1986). Sexual Intimacy between Therapists and Patients. Westport,

CT: Praeger.

RHODES, R. (1990). Beyond the wall. Rolling Stone, March, p.92.

ROGERS, C.R. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change.

Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21, 95–103.

RUTTER, P. (1989). Sex in the Forbidden Zone. Los Angeles: Tarcher.

SCHOENER, G.R., MILGROM, J.H., GONSIOREK, J.C., LUEPKER, E.T. & CONROE, R.M. (Eds)

(1989). Psychotherapists’ Sexual Involvement with Clients: Intervention and Prevention.

Minneapolis, MN: Walk-In Counseling Centre.

SONNENBERG, S.M. (1992). Letter to the editor in response to Appelbaum & Jorgenson (1991).

American Journal of Psychiatry, 149, 983–984.

20
 TOMM, K. (1993). The ethics of dual relationships. Dulwich Centre Newsletter, 3–4, 47–54.

TRUAX, C.B. & CARKHUFF, R.R. (1967). Toward Effective Counseling and Psychotherapy:

Training and Practice. Chicago: Aldine.

VAN HOOSE, W.H. & KOTTLER, J.A. (1978). Ethical and Legal Issues in Counseling and

Psychotherapy. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

WEBB, S. B. (1997). Training for maintaining appropriate boundaries in counselling. British Journal

of Guidance and Counselling, 25, 00–00.

WEBSTER, M. (1991). Emotional abuse in therapy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Family

Therapy, 12, 137–145.

YORKE, V. (1993). Boundaries, psychic structure and time. Journal of Analytic Psychology, 38, 57–

64.

21

View publication stats