Samuel T. Gladding

Dr. Gladding, in what ways does your own family of origin affect your work as an MCF Counselor?

I think in terms of family of origin, I know Alfred Adler talks about the fact that it’s an advantage to be the second child in a family. My premise is that it’s an advantage to be the third child, especially if you have a brother and a sister who are ahead of you, in that you can go to school on their behaviors and learn a lot about your parents, school, and community by seeing their actions and what works and what doesn’t work. Thus, I think my family of origin was a decisive influence in my deciding to be a marriage and family counselor, in that I saw basically how families worked. I know Virginia Satir talks about the fact that she was a kind of observer of humans. I think in looking at my family of origin, I certainly observed my brother and sister, especially. In terms of family of procreation, I think it has humbled me to realize the theories are theories and practice is practice. Sometimes it’s much easier to say or prescribe something to a family, and it’s much harder to carry that out. That insight has made me more aware of the difficulty of this work that we do.

As a follow-up to this question, I noticed that your father, brother, and sister all went into business and your mother was a teacher. Please elaborate on this and what led you into the field of MCF counseling and, subsequently, counselor education?

My father was a small businessman who offered me a place in his business. However, I realized I had no business sense [laughing]. It didn’t appeal to me. I wasn’t motivated to work that way. I worked for my dad for a couple of years during the summers, and while I loved him, I hated the business environment in which I found myself. Also, I was named for my grandfather who was a minister. Thus, I thought I was going to be a minister. It turned out though, after being in divinity school, I realized the ministry wasn’t going to be my forte either. I stumbled into counseling and eventually college teaching by trial and error, more than anything else. Initially, I was a mental health counselor in a rural mental health setting for the first 5 years of my career. Then I became a community college instructor and finally a counselor educator.

You took a risk in sharing your personal genogram in your textbook Family Therapy: History, Theory and Practice (2014), which our students consistently comment as being helpful to them as they develop their own. Did you or your family have any reservations about doing so? Also, did you find any benefit in publishing your genogram?

I think I was very lucky that my family, on both sides, has always been interested in history. They’re both Virginia-based (from the 1600s), so every day was a history lesson growing up in my household. My grandfather had written the history of the Templemans, on my mother’s side of the family. My mother then did research on the Gladdings. I am not aware of any secrets on either side of my family of origin. They have been unearthed. In fact, there is a lot of clarity. I married a woman from Connecticut who had a rich family background, and her family has also investigated their history. I didn’t put any family conflicts in my genogram out of respect for members of the families still living. However, I was able to put all of the other information together nicely. It seemed to me to be refreshing and cathartic both personally and professionally to put my genogram in the text. I’m glad it seems to have worked out well for students, too.

You and your wife, Claire, have been happily married for 28 years. What do you believe are the most important elements involved in maintaining such a healthy relationship?

I think one of the ingredients that maintains a healthy relationship is letting individuals pursue areas of interest they enjoy as well as spending both qualitative and quantitative time together. Claire and I are very different people. She was a middle school librarian before we married, and she has a perspective on life that is somewhat different from mine. We can be different people, and yet come back and enjoy activities together. We took a trip not long ago to the western part of North Carolina where Carl Sandburg spent his last 20 years. Sandburg was, of course, a writer, but his wife was a goat farmer. We could enjoy both the literature and the goats [laughs] and talked about those on the way home, as we do about a lot of different topics, including politics and religion. You can do that when you’re married if you agree beforehand to respect each other’s opinion and realize that in life we may have opinions, but they’re not always facts. We may lean one way or another in our views, but what keeps us straight and away from leaning too far in any direction is feedback from that person with whom we’re intimate. We can be friends as well as partners and I think that is what Claire and I are.

When we reviewed the pictures of your family that you shared with us prior to this interview, we noted how sincerely happy you look. How do you manage to juggle all that you have accomplished in your remarkable career and still hold on to your happiness and genuinely loving family relationships?

I think I’ve been most fortunate in my life. Not that everything has just gone just the way I would want. But I think part of happiness probably comes from certain dispositions that we have, and certain attitudes we adopt. The light-hearted remark we make in our family is, “We’re Gladdings; we’re happy people,” because the name just kind of makes you smile [laughs]. I really love life. I want to be on the front row or second row of events, absorbing what other people have to say. I want to be engaged with them. I really like people. I really like nature. I am genuinely happy. I will hate to leave this good earth, but I know that’s inevitable. Still, life’s fun.

One of the things that we just have to say is that we have no understanding of how you could’ve accomplished as much as you have in your lifetime without having your weekends and evenings completely filled up. You’ve accomplished more than what I think a team of counselors could in a lifetime, and out of curiosity, how have you been able to make this possible?

I really love what I do, and so I try to do it with as much zest as I possibly can. When I was growing up my dad used to say to me, “Give yourself to something great. Give yourself to something bigger than you, and make it better than when you found it.” I enjoy writing among other activities I do. When I was younger I did not like many of the texts I used as a college professor. Therefore, I started writing my own. It was fun and educational, and I found my endorphins started kicking in when I was writing for more than an hour. It has been likewise with other activities. Sometimes I don’t have time to do much. However, I am always looking for what I can do, such as scratch out a couple of sentences, make a phone call, or read a few paragraphs. I keep a notepad and pencil by my bedside. Early in the morning when I’m just waking up, sometimes I’ll find I have a thought and just write it down. Later I will evaluate and see if it is something I can expand on or something I need to throw away.

It has been our experience that higher issues of burnout risk appear to exist for counselors specializing in MCF counseling than those working more exclusively with individuals. What you have found has been most effective for you in avoiding burnout?

I think making sure that all your eggs are not in one basket is a way to avoid burnout. Let me see if I can say that a little more eloquently. I think that when you’re engaged in counseling or in teaching, be engaged in those activities, or when you’re engaged in research, certainly be fully engaged in that, but make sure that there are times in your life when you’re not so involved. I was just rereading the interview questions you previously sent and I was thinking, “Well, ok, what am I going to do after this interview.” The answer, I’m going to a basketball game tonight. Tomorrow I’m driving to Charlottesville with Claire to see our son who lives there and visit with him. On Sunday, we’re going to a Shakespearean play. College campuses are wonderful because we have access to many stimulating activities. Life outside of a college campus is filled with possibilities, too. And so, what I’m not going to do this weekend is to be engrossed with work. Monday I will come right back to it and become totally immersed in it. I think it’s having variety that is important. Variety gives us an opportunity to keep our mental health, our sanity, and our humanity, as well as accomplish a lot.

Specifically, how did you take care of yourself during and after your work as a mental health responder to the 9/11 and Virginia Tech tragedies? What did you learn about yourself from these experiences? What did you learn from the individuals you helped?

I think in any disaster work one of those things I’ve learned is how strong I can be in sustaining and maintaining a presence with others in the midst of their grief and their loss. I think one of the other things that I’m aware of is my vulnerability to overpowering feelings of grief and sadness and how much I have to resist giving into those emotions. A third insight I have gained is that people are resilient (and so am I). At these times, I have found most people value life instead of possessions. While there is obviously grief in loss, there is healing, too, although that takes time and effort. I think we as counselors help make the healing process fuller, richer, and deeper than it would be or probably could be otherwise. People need to gain closure and to rebuild if they’re to live in a healthy and productive manner. We as counselors need to take care of ourselves when we’re in those situations so we can be as nurturing and constructive as possible. I know I had to debrief every night when I was at 9/11 before they’d let me go home. I valued that because I realized that if I didn’t have time to unload, I would probably take some toxicity home that would haunt me for a long time and affect my work. Realizing we’re not supermen or wonder women is important. We’re, as Albert Ellis would say, “fallible human beings” who have our limits. That knowledge is crucial to working in crisis situations.

Do you find yourself still affected by the tragedies in which you’ve worked and, if so, in what kinds of ways?

I do. William Faulkner has one of his characters in Requiem for a Nun state, “The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” Sometimes out of the blue I will think of 9/11 or I’ll think of Virginia Tech and someone I encountered there. It will have an impact on me, usually emotionally, not so much cognitively. When it does, I need to stop and to debrief with a colleague or write something down so that I am more aware and on the road to resolution. When I have a paper trail of these times it helps me better understand what’s happening within me now. That helps me be better interpersonally as well as intrapersonally.

Cultural diversity issues surface more in MCF counseling than perhaps any other counseling modality. What advice do you have for aspiring MCF counselors to prepare themselves to best assist culturally diverse couples and families? What did you learn, personally and professionally from your experience as a Fulbright Specialist in Turkey and China?

I think culture makes a difference in how we understand life and how we understand MCF counseling. It’s important to speak from your own experience but to learn from the experience of those in the culture in which you’re residing. When I was in Turkey and China, for instance, I realized that I could talk about the various theories of marriage, family, and couples counseling; but I also had to really be aware of the family structure in their cultures. I had to realize that if I was going to work with a family in either culture, I had to enter their systems in a way that was respectful, but in a way that could lead somewhere. I had to ask myself anew, “Who do we start with in the family?” “How do we start with that person within the system as well as the system itself?” That was one thing I learned. The other thing is that common metaphors we use in the United States usually don’t translate well in other countries. Thus, I learned a great deal in terms of being humble, listening, and finding out more about the worldview of the culture and families in the culture. Whether it’s been in Turkey, Estonia, Malaysia, or even Canada, I’ve learned that lesson. I was in Turkey and China for about a month each. The other countries just mentioned, I’ve been in anywhere from 10 days to 2 weeks. I’ve done everything from living with a family, which I really find the best way to get immersed in the culture, to living in a hotel, which I find to be the worst way to get involved with the culture.

Many MCF counselors of today practice individual, group, and couple/family counseling. How do you reconcile the paradigm shift between these modalities when working with couples or families? Further, how do you address systems issues when sitting across from an individual “identified patient?”

I always think when I’m with an individual that I’m seeing his or her family, because the person is an inseparable product of that system. Thus, even though I might take an individual approach in some overt way, I’m always looking, covertly at least, for family influences and how the person is still a part of the system in which they grew up or reside. I am amazed how people interact in “the now” as if they were in the past. I think systems theory is not incompatible at all with doing individual work. It’s more a process of looking at the individual as if he or she was still a part of his or her family of origin as well as being the “identified patient.” Many times, I’ll have individuals do genograms, even if I’m going to work with them from another theoretical basis.

We have many students in our program who come from a variety of different majors, and several who have degrees in the arts and are really very artistic. We have found that neophyte counselors are often afraid to embrace that side and tend to be drawn to almost rigid ways of working with clients because they’re afraid of making a mistake if they inject their own personality and qualities into the relationship in helping clients. Since you have helped pioneer the creativity movement in counseling, what advice do you have for the artistically inclined counselor who is nervous about incorporating creative or innovative strategies into the counseling process?

I think Abraham Maslow was correct in talking about growth and risk. People need to feel secure initially before taking a risk and venturing into a growth type of behavior. I actually had this come up in class this week, where one of my students was saying, “I don’t know about this creativity stuff and being innovative.” I responded, “I think that’s fine. You know, counseling is evidence based. Stay with the theories and research that we know work, but when you eventually get to that client where that’s not working and you have some experience in the field, you can feel comfortable being a bit more innovative, being a bit more creative, and seeing what happens.” Most novice counselors should probably not start off trying to be innovative and creative. It is only when they begin to feel more secure or when they have had theory failures that they should respond in more creative or innovative ways.

As a follow-up, when I teach internship class I describe counseling as a sort of “recipe” within which the three requisite and inseparable ingredients are relationship building, theory, and the personality of the counselor. I think new counselors struggle the most with the latter, in how to insert the uniqueness of their personality into sessions. It really seems to be a developmental process that leads to greater and greater individuality and spontaneity as confidence grows.

Exactly. I believe it’s a developmental process and it’s relationship oriented. One of the things I tell students in practicum and internship is that your clients will correct you, if you’re really off the mark. Most times, they’ll say something back to you and give you feedback that lets you know that you’re not being empathically, relationally, or even developmentally appropriate, let alone effective. Clients, as well as theories, give us cues as to what to do next.

So when you’re talking about training counselors and counselor educators, are you looking more at introspection, having the trainee or student take a closer look at themselves, are you talking more about training them to recognize such issues in working with clients, or both?

I think it’s both. I think counseling is both a cognitive and emotional field that focuses on changing behaviors and lifestyles. I think we look at personality, and we look at professional development in counseling and realize there’s not a lot we can do in changing someone’s personality except to help them become more aware and to shore up their liabilities or weaknesses, if they are willing. Professionally, I think we can always educate individuals more to the research, theories, and skills that are part of who we are as counselors. However, we have less impact on the personalities of individuals we admit into programs. Thus, we need to choose wisely. I think the more our graduates know about their own families, as well as how to do family work, especially in an individual setting, the better for them and all the better for the field of counseling.

It seems as if having more pre-master’s direct client contact hours required with couples and families, in addition to individual and group hours, would provide a more rounded training experience, regardless of counseling specialty area. What are your thoughts about expanding this area of pre-master’s training?

I think that the more you’re exposed to couples and families, the more you are aware of how they operate. This exposure also makes you appreciative of how difficult couple and family counseling is. William Butler Yeats, the Irish poet, used to say writing poetry was harder than breaking stone. I often think that counseling is harder than breaking stone. It’s complicated. It is more than just listening or reflecting.

Next, we would like to discuss the proposed 2016 Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) Standards, since the second draft has been publicized. Do you think the CACREP entry-level specialty areas (e.g., clinical mental health, school, addiction counseling, etc.) need to place a greater emphasis on MCF counseling and systems training since so many struggles our clients face originate with families of origin and procreation? In other words, if you had your way, where you would go with this issue in the 2016 CACREP standards?

I think I would emphasize systems thinking more, because I think it’s what you don’t know that always hurts you. Sometimes, in counseling and in counselor education, there’s a lack of awareness of factors that have been in one’s family that come out more subtly, covertly, or even pathologically. We all try to screen and serve as good gatekeepers, but I think sometimes people can skirt these issues because they are so complex. The result is when new graduates get into the field, some have not addressed family issues, and these matters may become a liability to them. I think that more of an emphasis on family work would be helpful to all people in the helping professions, because everybody has a family of origin. Influences from either toxic members of one’s family or heroic members of one’s family have an influence on us. I believe we don’t have to go back too far to see that in even the early origins of counseling, as theorists would develop their positions, many times they were largely influenced by their families of origin.

What advice do you have for a new graduate from a program accredited in, for example, clinical mental health, school, or addiction counseling wishing to specialize in MCF counseling?

There are a couple of things that I would recommend. One is an awareness, first, of their own family, such as completing a genogram and looking at family history as well as talking with family members. Second, it’s often continuing education that helps people become more specialized. As you know, ACA, IAMFC, and AAMFT offer a wide variety of continuing education courses through webinars dealing with family counseling. At conferences, there are always specialty tracks you can pick up. In addition, there are plenty of helpful books you can read. I think the realization is that, even though you may have a specialty in student affairs, school counseling, or clinical mental health, there is always more to learn. However, it’s like multicultural counseling and learning about different cultures. You’re probably never going to learn it all. Nevertheless, you can become quite skilled and knowledgeable and have some expertise in fields other than the one in which you were initially credentialed.

Following up on this response, I have worked in settings providing group, couple, and family counseling, but my primary emphasis has always been individual counseling. I found that group and individual were my fortes, but I always felt so exhausted, so drained after working with families, and even more so when working with couples. I’m curious if you have had similar experiences and if you think there are certain personality types that might fit better in working with couple and family systems as opposed to individuals and groups?

I think some people become more energized rather than drained when working with certain issues or in certain specialty areas. I’m usually fairly excited when I’m working with couples and families, but it is exhausting. You’ve got to keep track of everything and remain focused. It’s kind of like running a marathon. It’s exhausting in one way but exhilarating in another. You’re really glad when you’ve crossed the finish line and can see where you’ve been. It’s a positive experience for me, but I realize it’s a different kind of experience for others who venture into this territory. I think we find that we like to do certain things with certain people in a certain way, which is an important insight to have. I think that’s why we have so many specialties, because people are attracted to those specialties and not to others.

We were both trained in the wellness model with a clear strength-oriented focus. Yet in the field, the reality is that the DSM-5 doesn’t give you kudos for having certain qualities; it looks exclusively for faults and pathologies. With the current treatment planning environment and the medical model, third-party billing emphasis, what are your thoughts on how we can maintain that unique aspect of our field despite all of these external pressures?

I think it’s really difficult to do, but I think it’s also one of those opportunities that we have that is not available to most other helping professions. I believe, in counseling, one of the unique qualities we have is the developmental and wellness emphasis in which we have been educated. I think some of the work by Tom Sweeney, Jane Meyers, and Allen and Mary Ivey emphasizes that. However, we haven’t got to the point where we have as much sophisticated knowledge of what wellness is as would be ideal. I think we have to straddle the line at times for now. Those who subscribe solely to the DSM-5 do not. It’s really a difficult situation at this point. Do we “play the DSM-5 game?” If so, how? I’m not going to put down a diagnosis that may harm an individual or that I really don’t believe is present. I still practice, and I really struggle with diagnostic choices. Sometimes I’ll just say to a client, “Why don’t you just pay the co-pay, because I’m not going to process this on your insurance. I don’t think that there’s really anything in the DSM-5 that’s applicable to you.”

Next, we would like to address the rift that exists between the CACREP/IAMFC and the Council for Accreditation for Marriage and Family Therapy Education (COAMFTE)/AAMFT. The evolution of licensure in California is a prime example. You are a member of both associations and an AAMFT Approved Supervisor. In your opinion, how can we bridge this separation and work more collaboratively since the different bodies are so remarkably similar but seem to experience so much infighting?

I think part of this problem is related to histories and personalities. I believe both AAMFT and CACREP were on track to get licensure at about the same time. Combined with trying to overcome some of the resistance to licensure on state levels by other helping professions sometimes these two entities came into conflict with each other. Questions that were asked were are you a profession or are you not a profession? Who do you see? How do you specialize? What’s your training model? California initially called those providing marriage and family work “counselors” [i.e., Marriage, Couple, and Child Counselors, MFCCs]. Later the word “therapist” was substituted for the word “counselor.” The logic was that there was only so much of a slice of the mental health pie that anyone would be able to serve and although it was faulty logic, the competitive stance prevailed. The other thing I think that held back progress in this area is personalities. Sometimes when people retire from heading certain organizations, a time of reconciliation and peaceful coexistence emerges. I don’t think we’ve reached that point yet with these two entities. However, I think that time will come and adversity will begin to lessen, although CACREP and COAMFTE will remain distinct and separate.

Back to a more personal question, what do you see as your legacy and how would you like to be remembered?

I think there are so many people who’ve come before us who are not remembered so much individually, but who really have had a positive influence on the cultures in which they’ve lived. They’re unsung on an individual level, but their contributions have been significant and beneficial to humankind. I’m not really concerned about being remembered individually. I’m more concerned about making a contribution to the greater good, and I think that that contribution combined with those from others can leave the world better. I’m more concerned about that than I am anything else.

In closing we’d like to ask what you see yourself doing and where you hope to be in the near future, perhaps in 10 years?

I was a first lieutenant in the army in my 20s. One of the things I remember from the army was the drills that we’d have and a certain command of “continue to march.” I have always thought of “continuing to march” as something that you do when you have found a place or an idea that you are passionate about and to which you are committed. In such situations you should continue to do what you do best and love, regardless of your age or stage in life. Thus, I hope to continue to march, in terms of writing, teaching, and traveling and being involved with Claire and our grown children. I also hope to be more international as well as to continue on the national scene. I’m content to be in the background wherever that’s needed. I’m content to be in the foreground, if that arises.

Thank you for taking the time for this interview. As we close, we wanted to give a final opportunity to add anything we may have missed as we try to accomplish our goal of sharing your message.

I’m not sure I have anything else left to add except, I really do believe that if you have a passion for a profession, that it’s something that you should pursue, just like if you have a passion for people you should pursue that, too. Also I think it is important to be mindful that not everything you try will work, but if you don’t try anything, nothing’s going to work out. I think one of the things we do in counseling, regardless of the specialty, is to help people become better instead of bitter, and that’s what makes this such a noble calling and such a great profession in which to work.