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

net/publication/247763522

The Reflecting Team: A Training Method for Family Counselors

Article  in  The Family Journal · March 2010

DOI: 10.1177/1066480709357731

CITATIONS READS
31 7,207

1 author:

Jeff Chang
Athabasca University
15 PUBLICATIONS   135 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Supervision Conversations: Negotiating Professional Development through Talk View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Jeff Chang on 29 February 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Family Journal
http://tfj.sagepub.com

The Reflecting Team: A Training Method for Family Counselors

Jeff Chang
The Family Journal 2010; 18; 36
DOI: 10.1177/1066480709357731

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/18/1/36

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:

International Association of Marriage and Family Counselors

Additional services and information for The Family Journal can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://tfj.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations http://tfj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/18/1/36

Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010

 The Family Journal: Counseling and
Therapy for Couples and Families
The Reflecting Team: A Training Method for 18(1) 36-44
ª 2010 SAGE Publications
DOI: 10.1177/1066480709357731
Family Counselors http://tfj.sagepub.com

Jeff Chang1,2

Abstract
The reflecting team (RT) is an innovative method used in the training and supervision of family counselors. In this article, I trace the
history, development, and current uses of RTs and review current findings on RTs. In my opinion, many users of RTs have diverged
from their original theoretical principles and have adopted RTs mainly as a technique. Although some aspects of the RT technique
(spatial separation and the generation of multiple perspectives) are novel, the potency of RTs is derived from the strength of the
working alliance. Finally, I make specific recommendations on how to use RTs in the education and supervision of family counselors.

Keywords
reflecting teams, counselor education, clinical supervision, collaborative therapy

Reflecting Teams in Counselor Education and
Supervision
The reflecting team (RT) is an innovative method used in train-
ing and supervising family counselors. I trace the history,
development, and current uses of RTs, review current findings
on RTs, and present recommendations on the use of RTs in
training and supervising family counselors.
Tom Andersen: Relationship, Collaboration,
and Multiple Views
Tom Andersen (1987, 1992a, 1992b, 1993, 1995), a psychiatrist
in Tromso, Norway, stumbled upon the practice that has come
to be known as the reflecting team. He and his teammates were
observing a counseling session from behind a one-way mirror.
The counselor was ‘‘drawn into the pessimism of the family’’
(Andersen, 1987, p. 415). After three unsuccessful call-ins,
Andersen suggested the counselor and family exchange places
with the team, who reflected aloud about the family, while the
family and counselor observed. The groups again exchanged
positions and the counselor solicited the family’s reaction to the
team’s reflections. As Andersen continued to use this practice,
he came to believe that RTs are more collaborative and more
effective than simply sitting silently behind the mirror, as he had
been trained to do using the Milan systemic approach, (Selvini
Palazzoli, Cecchin, Prata, & Boscolo, 1979), then emerging from
behind the mirror to deliver an intervention message.
offer multiple descriptions of the client situation. During the
interview, the counselor attends to the multiple descriptions
of the problem, unpacks these descriptions, and invites reflec-
tion on relationships, differences, and implications of changed
perspectives. Exchanging physical positions, so the client can
observe the team’s reflections, mirrors Andersen’s relational
and attitudinal stance. The team shares its reflections specula-
tively, open to multiple possibilities and explanations, allowing
clients to ‘‘select those ideas that fit’’ (p. 420). Specific guide-
lines for conducting reflecting teams can be found in a number
of sources (Andersen, 1991; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Haley,
2002; Lax, 1995; Pare, 1999).
Popularization of RTs
The RT was seen as an innovative application of theoretical
ideas that were already circulating in marital and family ther-
apy (MFT). Lynn Hoffman declared that Andersen ‘‘electrified
the field with a beautiful and dramatic format he called a
reflecting team.... Feeling this idea was heaven-sent in my
search for ways to put a different voice into practice, I imme-
diately adopted . . . it’’ (Hoffman, 1995, p. xi). Friedman
(1995, p. 2), states that ‘‘the use of the reflecting team . . . has
dramatically altered the landscape of family therapy . . . .
1
Athabasca University, Calgary, CANADA
2
The Family Psychology Centre, Calgary, CANADA

Reflecting Process: A Stance, Not a Procedure Corresponding Author:

Jeff Chang, Graduate Centre for Applied Psychology, c/o 1940 37th Street SW,
Although Andersen (1987) offers a procedural description for Calgary, AB, Canada T3E 3A3
RTs, he emphasizes that the purpose of RTs is to generate and Email: jeffc@athabascau.ca

36
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
Chang
[T]hese new ideas represent both a further evolution and, in
some ways, dissolution of family therapy as we’ve known it.’’
The RT format, if not the initial theoretical premises
(Monk & Gehart, 2003), was adopted by MRI brief therapists
(Eubanks, 2002), those using an integrative approach (Shilts,
Rudes, & Madigan, 1991; Wright, Watson, & Bell, 1996),
narrative therapists (Freedman & Combs, 1996; Griffith &
Griffith, 1995; Janowksy, Dickerson, & Zimmerman, 1995;
Lax, 1995), Milan systemic practitioners (Tanji, 1996; Young
et al., 1989), and solution-focused therapists (Johnson, Waters,
Webster, & Goldman, 1997; Lowe, & Guy, 1996; Selekman,
1995). The RT format has been used with many problems and
in many settings: families experiencing violence (Kjellberg,
Edwardsson, Nielela, & Oberg, 1995); families with a psycho-
tic member (Seikkula, et al., 1995); medically marginalized
persons (Griffith & Griffith, 1995); schools (Swim,
1995); managed care (Friedman, Brecher, & Mittelmeier,
1995); adolescents with severe behavior problems (Selekman,
1995); residential treatment (Nichols & Jacques, 1995);
conflictual couples (de Barbaro, et al., 2008; Miller & Lax,
1988); families with young children (Lax, 1989), the deaf
(Munro, Know, & Low, 2008), and stepfamilies (Berger,
2000) to list but a few.
Research Review
Clinical Research
The research on the clinical applications of RTs is sparse.
Clients experiencing many different problems have reported
positive therapy outcome. These include family service agency
clients in Vienna, Austria, and families of pediatric psychiatry
outpatients in Gottingen, Germany (Hoeger, Temme, Reiter, &
Steiner, 1994); families experiencing a ‘‘therapeutic impasse’’
(Karr, 1998); couples (Lytton, 1998) and individual clients
(Stough, 2000) in university counseling centers. Clients stated
the RT format was helpful when the team’s feedback was ten-
tative, curious, and suggestive of multiple options (Karr, 1998;
Lytton, 1998). Therapists and a majority of clients agreed that
RT consultations were beneficial when new perspectives on the
problems, possible solutions, and the strengths of the family
were discussed. Singh (1996) interviewed 11 narrative therapy
clients, who reported that the team’s reflections and the RT for-
mat assisted clients to notice unique outcomes; hear new dis-
tinctions by allowing clients to listen from a distance; and
become more aware of options for action. Participants reported
a feeling of equality with the team.
Griffith et al. (1992) coded the communication of 12 fami-
lies with a member experiencing a physical problem for which
no medical cause was found, before and after an RT consulta-
tion. They found significant increases in communication
expressing trust, reliance, and nurturance and decreases in
communication expressing control, blame, monitoring, and
belittlement after the RT consultation.
Two studies have evaluated the effect of RTs on treatment
outcome and the therapeutic alliance (McGovern, 1996;
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
37
Stough, 2000). Stough (2000) compared the therapeutic alli-
ance and treatment outcomes with 26 clients at a university
counseling center seen by 11 therapists of various theoretical
orientations, and with a matched control group. Clients par-
ticipating in RTs experienced neither stronger therapeutic
alliances nor larger treatment effects than the control group.
Stough suggests that common factors might have masked the
effects of the RT format. McGovern (1996) compared ‘‘a
new model of family therapy, the Reflecting Team Model’’
with strategic therapy. Clients reported no significant differ-
ences in the therapeutic alliance, optimism about problem
resolution, or the use of self-generated solutions. Therapists
and team members, however, expressed a preference for the
RT format.
Sells, Smith, Coe, Yoshioka, and Robbins (1994) compared
clients’ and therapists’ perceptions of the RT process. Clients
reported benefiting from the multiple perspectives offered by
RTs and appreciating the team’s accessibility. Therapists, how-
ever, were more concerned about how the RT created a context
for change. Clients believed that RTs would be particularly
helpful for overwhelming complex problems or if the family
was highly conflicted. Although therapists agreed, they thought
that teams would be effective only if the problem was clearly
defined. Clients found RTs ineffective if introduced too early
in counseling or if they thought the RT was more for the coun-
selor or team. Although therapists thought that RTs were inef-
fective if the clients did not have specific treatment goals,
clients thought that RTs were interesting and helpful even if
their problems were ill-defined. Clients found spatial separa-
tion that prevented them from making an immediate verbal
response to the team’s reflections allowed them to process the
team’s reflections. Clients emphasized their perceived relation-
ship to the team and the therapist, whereas therapists were
more interested in languaging that made reflections acceptable
to clients. Smith, Sells, and Clevenger (1994) replicated these
results. Finally, Smith, Sells, Pereira, and Papagiannis (1995)
used interpersonal process recall to study RTs. They found
that a strong therapeutic relationship and careful preparation
by the counselor enhanced clients’ receptivity to the team’s
reflections.
Reflecting Teams in Counselor Education
and Supervision
Live supervision. There are several extant accounts of live RT
supervision. Wright et al. (1996) use a case presentation preses-
sion format, in which the counselor presents highlights from
two readings, the team reflects and hypothesizes, and the
clients observe. Cohen et al. (1998) report that the clients (who
were also the third and fourth authors) found being present dur-
ing the pre and postsession discussions ‘‘made therapy more
comfortable’’ (p. 281) because it allowed them to understand
what was to happen in session and feel more equal to the team.
Group supervision. RTs have been used as an adjunct to group
supervision (Attridge, 2007; Lowe & Guy, 1996; Prest, Darden,
37
38
& Keller, 1990). The RT observes the supervision session and
reflects in view of the supervisee and supervisor. The supervi-
sor and the supervisee then discuss the team’s reflections.
Lowe and Guy (1996) suggested specific questions for each
stage of the process, from a solution-focused orientation. They
make an important distinction between ‘‘pluralistic’’ and ‘‘the-
oretically aligned’’ approaches to RTs, and suggest that trainers
and supervisors be explicit about their theoretical premises.
Prest et al. (1990) observed anecdotally that supervisees tended
to be less defensive when listening to feedback without having
to respond directly to it.
University-based programs. Biever and Gardner (1995)
describe their use of RTs in a counselor education program
based on social constructionist principles. Asking, ‘‘How do
you ‘‘train’’ someone within a model in which knowledge is
negotiable?’’ (p. 49), they note RTs inherently provide multiple
descriptions of every event, signifying that different people
construct meaning differently. They also note that RTs engage
the attention of supervisees by requiring active observation
behind the mirror and are useful in shaping trainees’ behavior.
James, MacCormack, Korol, and Lee (1996) describe the
use of RTs to teach systemic therapy concepts to students in
an American Psychological Association–accredited clinical
psychology program. After a course in family systems therapy,
RTs were the primary mode of practicum supervision. The RT
was used progressively to shape the trainees’ skills. Trainees
first served as RT members, honing their observation and case
conceptualization skills, before serving as primary counselor.
Team members experienced greater involvement as a result
of having to observe and prepare their reflections; improved
self-confidence, having been a team member before serving
as primary counselor; and the perception of enhanced
skill development. When serving as counselors, trainees
experienced support, encouragement, and validation. The team
provided counselors with many hypotheses about cases,
supporting the development of case conceptualization skills.
Participants believed that case conceptualization and treatment
planning skills would transfer across models and settings.
Supervisors found that multiple observers generated more ideas
for intervention.
Sloan-Power (2008) investigated the use of RTs as a vehicle
for teaching assisting MSW concepts of spiritual diversity. A
modified RT was used in classroom instruction, resulting in
increased self-efficacy and decreased anxiety for dealing with
spiritual matters. Landis and Young (1994) suggest that train-
ing should be delivered in a manner consistent with the models
taught. They used RTs to deliver feedback during role-plays in
an introductory master’s level MFT course. Trainees reported
significant improvement in these skills. Smith, Jenkins, and
Sells (1995) found that RTs helped trainees perceive multiple
views of a case, which depolarized sociopolitical differences
within the team.
Training in a family service agency. A series of papers prepared
by the Bouverie Family Therapy Centre, Flemington,
38
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(1)
Australia, traces RT use longitudinally in their 3-year family
therapy training program. The first (Young et al., 1989)
described the inception of the RT in the training program.
Young et al. (1989) suggested that RTs would reduce perfor-
mance anxiety by distributing responsibility among the team;
enable reflections to be better integrated with the interview
than an intervention message delivered from behind the mirror;
allow for multiple descriptions that would broaden counselors’
and clients’ perspectives; and create a more egalitarian format
that would enhance the participation of female trainees. The
trainer believed that the RT was consistent with her egalitarian
values: ‘‘ . . . my beliefs and rhetoric about the need for
empowerment of trainees/families, and the validity of a variety
of perspectives was being enacted’’ (p. 72). Trainees reported
increased ability to develop ‘‘non-blaming, meaningful, and
systemic constructions of family dilemmas’’ (p. 72). Trainees’
concerns about the power differential between the family and
the team were moderated by the RT format. Clients reported
that multiple perspectives of the team, focus on strengths,
‘‘being able to see the process they went through to give us
an answer, rather than just getting an answer,’’ and the respon-
siveness of the team to the clients’ questions and comments
were helpful. However, some clients desired more direct
recommendations.
Perlesz, Young, Paterson, and Bridge (1994) performed a
content analysis of an RT session and interviewed the clients
about their experience. Clients did not find that the RT created
multiple possibilities from which they could select. They
thought team members promoted the same idea and were being
covertly directive. This led Perlesz et al. to question whether
RTs actually do implement the egalitarian values to which they
aspire or are simply a more subtle way of being prescriptive.
Young et al. (1997) surveyed supervisors, trainees, and fam-
ilies about their experience of RTs. While supervisors thought
trainees’ performance anxiety decreased, trainees did not
agree. Although supervisors lauded the nonhierarchical nature
of RTs, trainees still thought supervisors held the majority of
the power. Although trainees were generally positive about
RTs, some still experienced embarrassment for families; per-
formance anxiety; concern that reflections would overwhelm
the family; feelings that the counselor’s voice was over-
whelmed by the team’s; prohibition from disagreeing with the
team; and reluctance to share for fear of ‘‘saying the wrong
thing.’’ Some trainees believed clients may not be as comforta-
ble with RTs as counselors think and may acquiesce out of
deference to the counselor.
Finally, Young et al. (1997) surveyed five families about
their experience of RTs. Most families found RTs helpful and
positive. One family stated that RTs might better suit families
who were more assertive, and thought that the team would
offer reflections only if the family required correction. Most
families disliked the lack of concrete recommendations.
Although the families found the RT open and supportive, cli-
ents experienced ‘‘ . . . a hierarchical structure, where it is
assumed therapists [make] decisions about how therapy will
proceed . . . (p. 34).
Chang
Recommendations for Training and
Supervision
In this review, several trends have emerged. I will describe
these trends, specify the implications for education and super-
vision of family counselors, and provide recommendations for
educational or supervisory practice.
A Technique in Search of a Theory
Despite the excitement that greeted RTs (Friedman, 1995;
Hoffman, 1995), counselors have apparently adopted the RT
technique without much theoretical clarity. Adopters of the
RT have had varied theoretical explanations and procedural
purposes than Andersen (1987, 1991). For instance, narrative
therapists use RTs in Foucauldian fashion, to circulate subju-
gated knowledge that run counter to the dominant, problem-
supporting discourse (White & Epston, 1990). More recently,
some narrative therapists (Carey & Russell, 2003; Morrison,
2009; White, 2000) have combined RTs with anthropologist
Barbara Myerhoff’s (1986) idea of definitional ceremonies.
Definitional ceremonies are rituals, witnessed by outsiders,
performed to legitimize and construct specific aspects of a new
identity. Solution-focused therapists use RTs as an efficient
way to deliver compliments to clients (Johnson et al., 1997).
Using an MRI brief therapy model (Eubanks, 2002), the RT
was used to deliver a pattern interruption intervention (Watzla-
wick, Weakland, Fisch, 1974). Although the RT format is a
common thread, it serves a different purpose in each case.
White (2000) states:
Although there are similarities in the structure of the reflecting-
team work that is practiced from place to place, today there
exists no uniform approach to the emphases, content, themes
and styles of team reflections . . . [Nor is there] consensus
[about] the mechanism at work . . . in relation to its frequently
transformative effects (p. 71).
The RT format has evolved from Andersen’s (1987) initial
intent. Davis and Lax (1992) cautioned against RTs being
reduced to a mere technique. It appears that RTs have in fact
become a mere technique.
Clinical research has not clarified this issue. Although
McGovern (1996) referred to ‘‘a new model of family ther-
apy, the Reflecting Team Model’’ (p. 2091), this is defined
by the RT format, not by a particular theoretical shift. Stough
(2000) used the RT format with ‘‘11 therapists of various the-
oretical orientations’’ (p. 5793), wherein the RT was overlaid
onto each counselor’s orientation. In these cases, the RT is
simply a technique. This is not necessarily inappropriate,
as in the history of counseling and therapy, many practices
that emerged from a particular theoretical orientation have
been adopted as techniques. It simply requires counselor
educators and supervisors to be clear about their theoretical
premises. Without so doing, they may confuse students and
supervisees.
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
39
Supporting theoretical clarity. Effective use of RTs in counse-
lor education and supervision requires that counselor educators
and supervisors clarify their theoretical positions, communicate
this clearly to trainees, and encourage trainees’ theoretical
development. Lowe and Guy (1996) suggest one way to do this.
They distinguish pluralistic or atheoretical approaches focused on
process (e.g., Andersen, 1987, 1991) from theoretically aligned
RTs in which the members advance a theoretically driven pur-
pose. Lowe and Guy align their RT supervision with solution-
focused therapy. Accordingly, they recommend specific
solution-focused questions for team members to pose while
reflecting. Lowe and Guy pose the following questions to coun-
selor educators to assist them to clarify their theoretical positions:
Is the job of the interviewer simply to elicit information and
facilitate the client’s (or supervisee’s) story . . . to create grist
for the reflecting team’s mill? Or does the primary interviewer
actively work for change according to a theoretically informed
stance? . . . Conversely, does the reflecting team develop its
own conversation independently of the interviewer’s work, or
do team members deliberately align themselves with the inter-
viewer’s strategies and seek to extend them? (p. 29)
This type of clarification will enhance the utility of the RTs for
students. Once counselor educators and supervisors have clar-
ified their theoretical positions, it is useful to clarify model-
specific instrumental tasks. For example, given their theory
of choice, what should trainees watch for from behind the mir-
ror? For instance, is the goal to locate evidence of a new story
and circulate it, as a narrative approach to RTs would suggest?
Or is it to highlight exceptions and deliver compliments as a
solution-focused RT might? Supervisors should also orient trai-
nees thoroughly with the general guidelines for RTs (Andersen,
1991; Freedman & Combs, 1996; Haley, 2002; Pare, 1999). In
this respect, RT supervision and training is no different from
supervision or training in any other technique or approach to
counseling.
Supporting the appropriate use of theory. Competent counse-
lors use theory to determine what information to collect, orga-
nize and conceptualize the information, and formulate
treatment plans based on the information (Mead, 1990; Tomm
& Wright, 1979). Thus, competent therapists can move back and
forth from theory to specific information and back to theory.
Authors from several training programs stated that trainees
on RTs are more actively engaged as observers than when they
are simply observing passively. Because trainees are expected
to offer sensible reflections based on the client’s presentation
and the interaction between the counselor and the clients, they
are more likely to attend to the process and the content of the
interview. This encourages trainees to become more perceptive
observers (Biever & Gardner, 1995; James et al., 1996; Wright
et al., 1996; Young et al., 1989), which is an important first step
in the development of theoretical fluency. Trainers and super-
visors of family counselors could, for example, assign trainees
specific observational tasks designed to increase their ability to
39
40
notice theoretical concepts, consistent with the programs and
the trainee’s goals.
Assisting Trainees to Strengthen the Therapeutic Alliance
Relationship factors appear to be the chief contributor to effec-
tive RTs. Two studies (McGovern, 1996; Stough, 2000) mea-
sured the working alliance as a function of RT use without
finding any main effect. Although Stough suggested that com-
mon factors might have masked the effects of the RT, the cor-
ollary to this is that the RT format is not robust enough to
overcome common (relationship) factors. Given what we know
about the relative contributions of the common factors (Miller,
Duncan, & Hubble, 1997), this is not surprising.
Clients report that inattention to relationship factors inter-
fered with the usefulness of RTs. When the RT was introduced
too early in the course of therapy, clients were less open to the
team’s input (Sells et al., 1994). Clients also experienced RTs
as less useful when the therapist’s or team’s agenda was pushed
(Perlesz et al., 1994; Sells et al., 1994;). Clients who desired
specific recommendations or advice found the team’s reflec-
tions unhelpful (Hoeger et al., 1994; Young et al., 1989,
1997). The experts surveyed by Jenkins (1996) specified con-
traindications largely in terms of relationship factors such as
‘‘ . . . when it is being forced or insisted upon,’’ when partici-
pants ‘‘do not believe . . . it would be helpful,’’ and when ‘‘it
is not guided by dialogue between the family and therapist’’
(p. 231).
However, clients identified what are essentially artifacts of
the therapeutic relationship as helpful (Sells et al., 1994; Smith,
Sells, et al., 1995). Clients appreciate the team’s accessibility,
transparency, and responsiveness (Brownlee, Vis, & McKenna,
2009; Cohen et al., 1998; Sells et al., 1994; Young et al., 1989),
exemplified by emerging from behind the mirror, meeting the
team, and being able to observe how the team developed reflec-
tions and recommendations.
Authors from several training programs suggest that reflect-
ing teams assist trainees to notice client strengths and solutions
and conceptualize cases in collaborative and non-blaming ways
(Andersen, 1987; Johnson et al., 1997; Wright et al., 1996;
Young et al., 1989). Trainees and supervisors alike clearly state
that knowing that their conversations about clients will be over-
heard helps them change their ideas and conceptualizations.
Postmodern models of therapy (Mills & Sprenkle, 1995)
believe that different conversational habits construct different
realities. Highlighting client strengths is presumed to construct
an alternative therapeutic reality through language, focusing
clients’ attention on their own strengths and resources. How-
ever, Metcalf and Thomas (1994) found that, although
solution-focused therapists placed primacy on identifying
strengths, solutions, and resources, clients tended to be more
conscious of the relationship, without noticing what exactly the
therapist did to promote the relationship.
Although it is a truism that therapists should be positive and
look for strengths, resources, and solutions (Andersen, 1987;
Brownlee et al., 2009; Johnson et al., 1997; Wright et al.,
40
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(1)
1996; Young et al., 1989), it is also important to be sincere. The
father in a family I saw several years ago, who disdainfully
stated that the team was ‘‘just trying to blow sunshine up my
ass’’ did not feel understood, and did not believe in the team’s
sincerity.
Supervisors and trainers can assist aspiring family counse-
lors to use RTs to maximize relationship factors in the follow-
ing ways: First, trainers should familiarize trainees with the
literature on common factors, which tells us that the
therapeutic alliance is the primary contributor to change over
which counselors have any influence. With RTs, this is more
complex, because it requires attending to both the relationship
with the primary counselor and with the team. Given that par-
ticipating in an RT is an often intermediate step toward acting
as a primary counselor, counselor educators can prompt trai-
nees to attend to process and relationship as they reflect. This
is one way of shaping the complex skill of simultaneously
speaking and monitoring the reactions of others.
Second, supervisors and counselor educators can ensure
that clients are prepared for, and comfortable with, the RT for-
mat. Trainers can provide trainees with specific guidance on
how to explain the procedure, obtain informed consent, and
continue to check in with the clients as to their comfort with
the RT format. If necessary, the counselor should abandon the
RT if clients are not comfortable. Pare (1999) suggests pre-
senting the team as an additional service, providing a number
of options for the involvement of the team, and affirming
whatever choice the clients make. Client welfare must be
placed above the team’s need to perform or their interest in
the novelty of the RT.
Third, trainers should ensure that trainees focus on the post-
reflection portion of the session when the primary counselor
interviews the client(s) about the team’s reflections. If clients
did not feel heard, this can be mitigated by sensitive follow-
up interviewing and debriefing.
Assisting Trainees to Maximize Format-Specific Factors
Spatial separation. Both clients (Sells et al., 1994; Singh,
1996) and supervisees (Prest et al., 1990) reported that spatial
separation increases their receptivity to the team’s reflections.
The practice of not responding directly to the team as they were
reflecting was underlined by the spatial separation from the
team, whether the RT was in a separate room behind a one-
way mirror, or some distance away in the same room, conver-
sing among themselves. Supervisors and trainers of family
counselors are advised to acquaint trainees with this procedural
aspect of the RT and instruct trainees to orient clients to the
physical environs, as part of the informed consent process.
Multiple perspectives. RTs assist clients and trainees alike by
generating multiple perspectives about the problem (Biever &
Gardner, 1995; Brownlee et al., 2009; James et al., 1996; Karr,
1998; Lytton, 1998; Sells et al., 1994; Smith et al., 1994;
Young et al., 1989). Clients particularly appreciate multiple
options when dealing with complex problems. However,
Chang
clients also ask that counselors assist them to manage the
diverse information from the team, set the stage for the team’s
reflections (Sells et al., 1994), and ensure the reflections are
conceptually integrated with the interview (Smith, Jenkins,
et al., 1995; Smith, Sells, et al., 1995). I am reminded of a client
who stated that listening to the team’s reflections was like ‘‘try-
ing to drink from a fire hose.’’ He required assistance to sort out
the multiple perspectives of the team. It is therefore recom-
mended that supervisors coach trainees to set the stage for the
entrance of the team by orienting the clients to both the proce-
dure and the process. Pare (1999) emphasizes gaining the cli-
ents’ informed consent and providing a description of the
process and an orientation to the physical space to be used.
In addition, I suggest that counselors prompt clients to prepare
a cognitive set so they can attend to the team’s reflections, per-
haps in a form like this:
As I mentioned, now we will change places with the team,
and they will have a conversation about what they have seen
and heard in our session. What they are saying is not ‘‘the
way it is,’’ just their perceptions. As you listen to the team’s
reflections, note what fits for you, what does not fit for you,
what seems to be useful, and what jumps out at you. After
they’re done, we’ll meet again for a few minutes to sort it
all out.
This can open space for clients to hear what the team has to say,
accept what is beneficial, and reject the reflections of the team
that do not resonate for them.
A supervisor using RTs can coach trainees to conduct the
post-reflection interview with sensitivity to clients’ need to sort
out all they have heard. Pare (1999) states that debriefing helps
clients by giving them a chance to acknowledge and perhaps
critique the team’s input, reduce the sense of ‘‘being sent off
into a void’’ (p. 391), and highlight reflections that resonated
for them.
The generation of multiple perspectives can facilitate reflec-
tive practice. According to Griffith and Frieden (2000), reflec-
tion is defined as ‘‘the active ongoing examination of theories,
beliefs, and assumptions that contribute to counselors’ under-
standing of client issues and guide their choices for clinical
interventions’’ (p. 82). Reflective thinking facilitates cognitive
complexity in counselors (Holloway & Wampold, 1986),
which in turn assists counselors to develop case conceptualiza-
tion skills. RTs are but one strategy to encourage reflective
thinking in novice family counselors.
Assisting Trainees to Hone Their Executive Skills
The RT provides a ready format to shape trainees’ executive
skills (James et al., 1996; Landis & Young, 1994; Pare,
1999). James et al. (1996) suggest having students observe,
then exercise executive skills by sharing their reflections while
observing clients’ reactions, and finally act as primary counse-
lor. This provides a structure for progressively increasing the
complexity of coordinating the trainee’s perpetual, conceptual,
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
41
and executive skills. Pare asserts that RTs are helpful in
training as an incremental step toward direct client service,
adding ‘‘intensity and focus [since they] know they are not
merely role-playing, but responding to persons who are inter-
ested in their input’’ (p. 300). Biever and Gardner (1995) assert
that RT supervision should be supplemented by other modes of
supervision, such as individual videotape and case
consultation.
Maximizing the Experiential Aspects of Reflecting Teams
in Training
Family therapy educators have found that RTs are an excellent
way to teach systemic concepts (James et al., 1996; Wright
et al., 1996; Young et al., 1989) and to illustrate diversity issues
(Merl, 1995; Sloan-Power, 2008; Smith, Jenkins, & Sells,
1995; Wright et al., 1996). Hill (2003) suggests that multicul-
tural competencies in counselor education can be enhanced
by recognizing the phenomenological aspects of oppression
and diversity; developing a systemic perspective that recog-
nizes the impact of social, political, and environmental factors
on human behavior; and creating structures that implement a
collaborative nonhierarchical approach. Because RTs are a
microcosm of a training program (e.g., Smith, Jenkins, et al.,
1995; Smith, Sells, et al., 1995), they can supplement other
efforts at diversity training (Arthur & Januszkowski, 2001).
Attending to Power and Hierarchy: Intent Does Not
Guarantee Effect
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence for differential treatment
effects when therapy includes the RT format, therapists prefer
them (McGovern, 1996), believing that RTs are more colla-
borative (Cohen et al., 1998; Singh, 1996; Young et al.,
1989). Young et al. (1989) reported that the trainer in their
study enjoyed RT work because it was consistent with her
‘‘egalitarian values.’’ However, more recently, Young et al.
(1997) found that, while trainers thought the RT format leveled
the hierarchy, trainees did not always agree. The same study
found that, although clients appreciated the openness of RTs,
they still experienced counseling as a process where profes-
sionals were in charge. Young et al. conclude that RTs chal-
lenge the cultural expectations of clients, who seek expert
consultation for problems. Counselors may not be as collabora-
tive as they aspire to be or as they think they are. Although RTs
intend to reflect collaborative nonhierarchical values, as Tomm
(1988) states, ‘‘intent does not guarantee effect.’’ As Goldner
(1993) notes, making a direct recommendation to a client does
not mean that the counselor is being hierarchical or imposi-
tional, and phrasing directives as suggestions does not make
a social system nonhierarchical.
As Young et al. (1997) point out, whenever counselors
select a technique, they are exercising power, based profes-
sional knowledge. Perlesz et al. (1994) caution that using the
RT may lead to ‘‘a false sense of virtuous collaboration’’
(p. 119). Perhaps, using RTs can lead to a larger scale reflection
41
42
on whether our training programs and supervision practices are,
in fact, collaborative, transparent, and as nonhierarchical as
possible. Although we may attempt to implement collaborative
therapeutic practices like RTs, we cannot entirely eliminate
hierarchy. For example, in a master’s program in MFT, Fine
(2003), noted that, despite the program’s efforts to create a col-
laborative context, subtle competition between students was
unavoidable, given the need to achieve high grades to obtain
advantages like scholarships, assistantships, and entry to doc-
toral studies. Fine and Turner (1997) make several suggestions
on how training programs can operationalize a collaborative
approach by being transparent about multiple levels of power
relations, evaluation, conduct of supervision sessions, goal set-
ting, responsibility for the conduct of therapy, and so on. Using
RTs outside of a context collaborative practice is inconsistent
with the intent of the practice. We would do well to heed Pare
(1999, p. 306):
Reflecting . . . involves a great deal more than deciding who
talks to whom while who else listens. It is founded on an ethic
of relationship which suggests that how we think, and how we
speak to/about persons makes a [huge] difference. There can be
a fine line between working collaboratively with persons, and
imposing purportedly collaborative practices upon them with-
out truly informed consent. Educators and clinicians interested
in working with reflecting processes can help to minimize these
risks by familiarizing themselves with the ideas and values
informing [these] practices.
Conclusion
RTs have been embraced by those who espouse a postmodern
collaborative approach to family counseling, offering an
innovative way to provide feedback to clients, in a way that is
consistent with the values of postmodern and social construction-
ist practice. RTs are generally embraced by clients as well, who
find them to be positive, supportive, and a useful source of mul-
tiple perspectives. RTs are also a popular innovation in the edu-
cation and supervision of family counselors. However, RT use
has been subject to a lack of theoretical clarity. RTs have evolved
into more of a technique than a specific orientation or approach to
therapy. Although RTs appear to rely largely on relationship fac-
tors for their effectiveness, there are some potent format-specific
factors (spatial separation, multiple perspectives, providing an
experiential microcosm). RTs do not guarantee collaborative
practice, and are best used in the context of an overall approach
to training that attends to issues of context and hierarchy.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect to
the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research and/or
authorship of this article.
42
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(1)
References
Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue
in clinical work. Family Process, 26, 415-428.
Andersen, T. (Ed.). (1991). The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialo-
gues about the dialogues. New York: W.W. Norton.
Andersen, T. (1992a). Relationship, language and pre-understanding
in the reflecting processes. Australia and New Zealand Journal
of Family Therapy, 13, 87-91.
Andersen, T. (1992b). Reflections on reflecting with families. In
S. McNamee, & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construc-
tion (pp. 54-68). Thousands Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Andersen, T. (1993). See and hear, and be seen and heard. In
S. Friedman (Ed.), The new language of change: Constructive col-
laboration in psychotherapy (pp. 303-322). New York: Guilford.
Andersen, T. (1995). Reflecting processes: Acts of informing and
forming: You can borrow my eyes, but you must not take them
away from me. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action:
Collaborative practice in family therapy (pp. 11-37). New York:
Guilford.
Arthur, N., & Januszkowski, T. (2001). The multicultural counselling
competencies of Canadian counsellors. Canadian Journal of Coun-
selling, 35, 36-48.
Attridge, W. C. (2007). Advancing the dialogue: A grounded theory
analysis of reflecting team group supervision in counseling practi-
cum. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Texas A & M University,
Commerce, TX.
Berger, R. (2000). The goodness of fit between the reflecting team
approach and stepfamilies’ problems and issues. Journal of Sys-
temic Therapies, 19, 43-55.
Biever, J. L., & Gardner, G.T. (1995). The use of reflecting teams
social constructionist training. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14,
47-56.
Brownlee, K., Vis, J., & McKenna, A. (2009). Review of the reflecting
team process: Strengths, challenges, and clinical implications. The
Family Journal, 17, 139-145.
Carey, M., & Russell, S. (2003). Outsider-witness practices: Some
answers to commonly asked questions. The International Journal
of Narrative Therapy and Community Work, 1, 12-29.
Cohen, S. M., Combs, G., DeLaurenti, B., DeLaurenti, P., Freedman, J.,
Larimer, D., et al. (1998). Minimizing hierarchy in therapeutic rela-
tionships: A reflecting team approach. In M. F. Hoyt (Ed.), The
handbook of constructive therapies: Innovative approaches from
leading practitioners (pp. 276-292). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Davis, J., & Lax, W. D. (1992). Introduction to the special section:
Expanding the reflecting position. Journal of Strategic and
Systemic Therapies, 10, 1-3.
de Barbaro, B., Drozdzowicz, L., Janusz, B., Gdowska, K.,
Dembinska, E., Kolbik, I., et al. (2008). Multi-couple reflection
team: Preliminary report. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy,
34, 287-297.
Eubanks, R. (2002). The MRI reflecting team: An integrated
approach. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 21, 10-19.
Fine, M. (2003). Reflections on the intersection of power and comple-
tion in reflecting teams as applied to academic settings. Journal of
Marital & Family Therapy, 29, 339-351.
Chang
Fine, M., & Turner, J. (1997). Collaborative supervision: Minding the
power. In T. C. Todd, & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic
supervisor: Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 229-240).
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Freedman, J., & Combs, G. (1996). Narrative therapy: The social
construction of preferred realities. New York: Norton.
Friedman, S. (Ed.). (1995). The reflecting team in action: Collabora-
tive practice in family therapy. New York: Guilford.
Friedman, S., Brecher, S., & Mittelmeier, C. (1995). Widening the
lens, sharpening the focus: The reflecting process in managed care.
In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative
practice in family therapy (pp. 184-204). New York: Guilford.
Goldner, V. (1993). Power and hierarchy: Let’s talk about it. Family
Process, 32, 157-162.
Griffith, B. A., & Frieden, G. (2000). Facilitating reflective thinking
in counselor education. Counselor Education & Supervision, 40,
82-93.
Griffith, J. L., & Griffith, M. E. (1995). When patients somatize and
clinicians stigmatize: Opening dialogue between clinicians and the
medically marginalized. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team
in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy (pp. 81-99).
New York: Guilford.
Griffith, J. L., Griffith, M. E., Krejmas, N., McLain, M., Mittal, D.,
Rains, J., et al. (1992). Reflecting team consultations and their
impact upon family therapy for somatic complaints as coded by
Structural Analysis of Social Behavior (SASB). Family Systems
Medicine, 10, 41-51.
Haley, T. (2002). The fit between reflecting teams and a
social constructionist approach. Journal of Systemic Therapies,
21, 20-40.
Hill, N. R. (2003). Promoting and celebrating multicultural
competence in counselor trainees. Counselor Education &
Supervision, 43, 39-52.
Hoeger, C., Temme, M., Reiter, L., & Steiner, E. (1994). The
reflecting team approach: Convergent results of two exploratory
studies. Journal of Family Therapy, 16, 427-437.
Hoffman, L. (1995). Foreword. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting
team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy
(pp. ix-xiv). New York: Guilford.
Holloway, E. L., & Wampold, B. E. (1986). Relation between concep-
tual level and counseling-related tasks: A meta-analysis. Journal of
Counseling Psychology, 33, 310-319.
James, S., McCormack, T., Korol, C., & Lee, C. M. (1996). Using
reflecting teams in training psychology students in systemic ther-
apy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15, 46-58.
Janowksy, Z. M., Dickerson, V. C., & Zimmerman, J. L. (1995).
Through Susan’s eyes: Reflections on a reflecting team experience.
In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative
practice in family therapy (pp. 167-183). New York: Guilford.
Jenkins, D. (1996). A reflecting team approach to family therapy: A
Delphi study. Journal of Marital & Family Therapy, 22, 219-238.
Johnson, C., Waters, M., Webster, D., & Goldman, J. (1997). What did
you think about what the team said? The solution-focused reflect-
ing team as a virtual therapeutic community. Contemporary Fam-
ily Therapy: An International Journal, 19, 49-62.
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
43
Karr, J. R. (1998). Reflecting team consultations with families experi-
encing therapeutic impasse: An ethnographic study. Dissertation
Abstracts International (B), 59, 2420.
Kjellberg, E., Edwardsson, M., Nielela, B. J., & Oberg, T. (1995).
Using the reflecting process with families stuck in violence and
abuse. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Colla-
borative practice in family therapy (pp. 38-61). New York:
Guilford.
Landis, L. L., & Young, M. E. (1994). The reflecting team in
counselor education. Counselor Education and Supervision,
33, 210-219.
Lax, W. D. (1989). Systemic family therapy with young children in the
family: Use of the reflecting team. In J. J. Zilbach (Ed.), Children
in family therapy. New York: Haworth.
Lax, W. D. (1995). Offering reflections: Some theoretical and practi-
cal considerations. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in
action: Collaborative practice in family therapy (pp. 145-166).
New York: Guilford.
Lowe, R., & Guy, G. (1996). A reflecting team format for solution-
oriented supervision: Practical guidelines and theoretical distinc-
tions. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 15, 26-44.
Lytton, C. R. (1998). Client perceptions of the reflecting team in mar-
riage and family therapy: A qualitative study. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 59, 1079.
McGovern, T. J. (1996). Quantitative and qualitative differences
between the reflecting team model and the strategic team model
in family therapy: A comparative study. Dissertation Abstracts
International (A), 57, 2691.
Mead, E. D. (1990). Effective supervision: A task-oriented model for
the mental health professions. Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.
Merl, H. (1995). Reflecting supervision. Journal of Systemic Thera-
pies, 14, 47-56.
Metcalf, L., & Thomas, F. (1994). Client and therapist perceptions of
solution focused brief therapy: A qualitative analysis. Journal of
Family Psychotherapy, 5, 49-66.
Miller, D., & Lax, W. D. (1988). Interrupting deadly struggles:
A reflecting team model for working with couples. Journal of
Strategic & Systemic Therapies, 7, 16-22.
Miller, S. D., Duncan, B., & Hubble, M. (1997). Escape from Babel:
Toward a unifying language for psychotherapy practice. New
York: Norton.
Mills, S. D., & Sprenkle, D. H. (1995). Family therapy in the postmo-
dern era. Family Relations: Journal of Applied Family & Child
Studies, 44, 368-376.
Monk, G., & Gehart, D. (2003). Sociopolitical activist or conversa-
tional partner? Distinguishing the position of the therapist in narra-
tive and collaborative therapies. Family Process, 42, 19-31.
Morrison, P. A. (2009). Using an adapted reflecting team approach to
learn about mental health and illness with general nursing students:
An Australian example. International Journal of Mental Health
Nursing, 18, 18-25.
Munro, L., Knox, M., & Lowe, R. (2008). Exploring the potential of
constructionist therapy: Deaf clients, hearing therapists and a
reflecting team. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 13,
307-323.
43
44
Myerhoff, B. (1986). Life not death in Venice: Its second life. In
V. Turner., & E. Bruner (Eds.), The anthropology of experience.
University of Philadelphia Press.
Nichols, T., & Jacques, C. (1995). Family reunions: Communities
celebrate new possibilities. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting
team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy
(pp. 314-330). New York: Guilford.
Pare, D. A. (1999). Using reflecting teams in clinical practice. Cana-
dian Journal of Counselling, 33, 293-306.
Perlesz, A., Young, J., Paterson, R., & Bridge, S. (1994).
The reflecting team as a reflection of second order therapeutic
ideals. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy,
15, 117-127.
Prest, L. A., Darden, E. C., & Keller, J. F. (1990). ‘‘The fly on the
wall:’’ Reflecting team supervision. Journal of Marital and
Family Therapy, 16, 265-274.
Seikkula, J., Aaltonene, J., Alakare, B., Haarakanas, K., Keranen, J., &
Suetal, M. (1995). Treating psychosis by means of open dialogue.
In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative
practice in family therapy (pp. 62-80). New York: Guilford.
Selekman, M. D. (1995). Rap music with wisdom: Peer reflecting
teams with tough adolescents. In S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting
team in action: Collaborative practice in family therapy
(pp. 205-219). New York: Guilford.
Sells, S. P., Smith, T. E., Coe, M. J., Yoshioka, M., & Robbins, J.
(1994). An ethnography of couple and therapist experiences in
reflecting team practice. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
20, 247-266.
Selvini Palazzoli, M., Cecchin, G., Prata, G., & Boscolo, L. (1979).
Paradox and counterparadox. New York: Jason Aronson.
Shilts, L., Rudes, J., & Madigan, S. (1991). The use of a solution-
focused interview with a reflecting team. Journal of Systemic
Therapies, 12, 1-10.
Singh, A. T. (1996). Narrative reflecting teams: Client’s experiences.
Dissertation Abstracts International (B), 57, 4043.
Sloan-Power, E. (2008). Progressive pedagogy and diversity aware-
ness for MSW students: An empirical reflecting team approach for
teaching spirituality in the classroom. Dissertation Abstracts Inter-
national Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 68, 4866.
44
Downloaded from http://tfj.sagepub.com at ATHABASCA UNIV LIBRARY on March 16, 2010
View publication stats
The Family Journal: Counseling and Therapy for Couples and Families 18(1)
Smith, T. E., Jenkins, D., & Sells, S. P. (1995). Reflecting teams:
Voices of diversity. Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 6, 49-71.
Smith, T. E., & Sells, S. P, & Clevenger, T. (1994). Ethnographic con-
tent analysis of couple and therapist perceptions in a
reflecting team setting. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy,
20, 267-286.
Smith, T. E., Sells, S. P., Pereira, M. G. A., & Papagiannis, G. (1995).
Pilot process research of reflecting conversations. Journal of Fam-
ily Psychotherapy, 6, 71-89.
Stough, R. L. (2000). The impact of the reflecting team on the working
alliance and therapy outcome. Dissertation Abstracts International
(B), 60, 5793.
Swim, S. (1995). Reflective and collaborative voices in the school. In
S. Friedman (Ed.), The reflecting team in action: Collaborative
practice in family therapy (pp. 100-118). New York: Guilford.
Tanji, J. M. (1996). The application of Milan systemic family therapy
in a training context: A grounded theory study. Dissertation
Abstracts International (A), 56, 3640.
Tomm, K. M. (1988). Interventive interviewing: III. Intending to ask
lineal, circular, strategic, or reflexive questions. Family Process,
27, 1-15.
Tomm, K. M., & Wright, L. M. (1979). Training in family therapy:
Perceptual, conceptual, and executive skills. Family Process, 18,
227-250.
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J. H., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change:
Principles of problem formation and problem resolution. New
York: Norton.
White, M. (2000). Reflections on narrative practice: Interviews and
essays. Adelaide, Australia: Dulwich Centre Publications.
White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends.
New York: Norton.
Wright, L. M., Watson, W. L., & Bell, J. M. (1996). Beliefs: The heart
of healing in families and illness. New York: Basic Books.
Young, J., Perlesz, A., Paterson, R., O’Hanlon, B., Newbold, A.,
Chaplin, R., et al. (1989). The reflecting team process in training.
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 10, 69-74.
Young, J., Saunders, F., Prentice, G., Macri-Riseley, D., Fitch, R., &
Pati-Tasca, C. (1997). Three journeys toward the reflecting team.
Australia and New Zealand Journal of Family Therapy, 18, 27-37.