Dr. Hoff, this is a critical discussion, and as a clinical social worker with nearly three decades in the field, my answer to whether Brown's work is "in keeping" with the field is a complex "yes and no."
Let's be clear: Dr. Brown is a Ph.D. social worker. Her foundational research on shame, vulnerability, empathy, and connection is the "bread and butter" of clinical practice. It’s a direct and valuable extension of social work's core "person-in-environment" perspective and our commitment to the "dignity and worth of the person." She gave accessible, research-backed language to concepts many of us have worked with for decades.
The problem is not the research; it's the application.
This "rebrand" isn't a therapist evolving; it's a consummate businesswoman solidifying her brand as a leadership consultant. Once she hit the talking circuit, it's hard to see how she remained *primarily* a psychotherapist in practice. This is an assumption, of course, but the demands of being a public figure are all-consuming. This shift places her work squarely at the center of the most significant debate in our field today: the blurring line between therapy and coaching.
The Therapy vs. Coaching Dilemma
As clinical social workers, we are licensed, regulated health professionals trained and legally authorized to diagnose and treat mental and emotional disorders. Our goal is healing. Corporate coaching is an unregulated industry focused on performance.
The ethical "gray area" here is dangerous. When a coach at BetterUp asks a manager to "rumble with vulnerability," what happens when the root of that manager's avoidance isn't a "skill gap" but undiagnosed complex trauma, social anxiety, or severe depression?
A clinician is trained to identify this, manage the risk, and provide treatment. A coach is not. At best, they are out of their depth; at worst, they risk causing real harm by pushing someone into an emotional space they are not equipped to handle, all under the guise of "leadership development."
This is the very "commodification" I find so troubling. It's not the future of therapy; it's a lucrative exit strategy from a broken, undervalued system. And to frame this as therapy's "future" erases the past. The idea that we are just now being "invited" to address "systems, organizations, and culture" is a striking omission of the entire history of social work. This is social work. Clinical social workers, as mandated by our codes of ethics (like the NASW's), have been doing this systems-level work long before it was fashionable.
I also must fundamentally challenge your core premise that "Therapy as a profession may be shrinking."
Where is the evidence for this? All available data, like from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the exact opposite: "much faster than average" growth for our field. The profession isn't shrinking; the *demand* is exploding. My own practice, infused with ideas of justice and culture, is growing, not shrinking.
Care for maternal mental health - still we have a shortage.
Care for children - still we have a shortage.
Guess what? There is less money and less attention to mothers and children. While some of you may be focusing on other communities some of the most in need are still here, still needing care and this is care that cannot be done with AI empathy.
What is shrinking is the workforce's capacity to meet this demand. The "culture eating therapy alive" isn't AI; it is capitalism: burnout, low reimbursements, and administrative burdens. What is shrinking is the number of psychotherapists trained in clinic and psychiatric settings. What is increasing is people becoming licensed and opening up their own shop...but being most interested in the worried well and the all mighty dollar. (Making money is not wrong. Yes, the worried well need care too but I didn't get into this work for that.)
The Biological Reality: AI Cannot Co-Regulate
This brings me to your concern about AI "automating empathy." This isn't just a philosophical problem; it's a biological one.
Therapy is an embodied, relational experience. What happens on a biological level between humans is not, and cannot be, replicated by an AI.
Co-Regulation:When we are in a therapeutic relationship, our nervous systems attune. This is the essence of co-regulation, where one person's calm, regulated state can physiologically soothe another's dysregulated state. An AI has no nervous system. It cannot co-regulate.
Neurobiology:Brain imaging shows that human-to-human interaction activates specific neural networks that AI interaction does not, particularly the regions for **Theory of Mind** and the mirror neuron system. These are the biological underpinnings of empathy.
Neurochemistry: Genuine, trusted human connection releases a cascade of neurochemicals, most notably oxytocin. This "bonding hormone" builds the felt sense of safety. An AI cannot trigger this reciprocal, relational neurochemistry.
That biological dance of attunement is uniquely human. An AI can simulate a response, but it cannot *be* in a relationship. (And if a day comes when it *can* trigger that neurochemistry, we have a different set of problems and probably need to pull the plug.)
This pivot simply turns "healing" into a construct for those with the most power and money. What about healing as a messy, nonlinear, human right? What about just being okay with being average? What about connection as the real, biological foundation of care?
Dr. Hoff, therapy should always have been, and for many of us has been, about what happens when you "leave the room." But leaving the room means different things to you, I think, than to me. You seem to be championing a move to a different room: the corporate boardroom. For me, and for the social work tradition, it means taking the work into the systems of justice, community, and culture that shape our clients' lives.
Of course, in a short forum like this, both your post and my response are bound to be reductionist. I hope that's something we can both own.
With that said, and honestly, enough with Brené Brown. We've read the books. We can thank her for her contributions. But it’s time to move over. There are newer thinkers, and most especially, let's take the time to listen to thinkers who are not white. Let's intentionally listen to and highlight more BIPOC theorists and writers in our field.
If we don't, psychotherapy will continue to be a field about healing people in the image of what dominant white culture is comfortable with. Yuck. This is the history of the field.
That is the far more important work to be done. It just might not make as much money.
For the record, Brene Brown has never been a clinician. She’s never been a therapist. This has long been a misunderstanding of her work.
And she studied organizations when pursuing her masters and phd in social work. She’s always been doing work inside of organizations. It’s not just a rebrand. And it’s not new. Dare to Lead (her organizational leadership framework) was published in 2018.
Think it's really important that someone mentioned this. She's been working with organizations for... her entire career? What else is missing from this piece is the fact that she has spoken publicly (in a recent episode of The Interview with the NYT) about the fact that she was no longer comfortable being in the self-help space. So it makes even more sense that she's shifting away from content that could be consumed by the masses and going back to her roots (and perhaps digging even deeper).
I was just about to chime in with this. She is very clear about the fact that she is not a therapist. Thanks for naming this! Really interesting piece, though!
Exactly. I believe it's helpful for other therapists to see examples of different approaches they can try beyond traditional therapy, but I wouldn't call this a pivot at all. This is who she has always been.
Yes and what has happened in the "space" of mental health is that is what she became. That isn't on her. It brings up some interesting questions - doesn't it? Why are people drawn to self help and what she offers? (Don't get me wrong, I love her work.) Why is it so important now? And why was it so easily misused? I tend to think this has something to do with the human condition. On the whole, her work has, in my opinion be a gift to many, many people. Not trying to knock her.
Yes to all of this. What we’re really talking about is the collapse of community and mentorship among helpers, and the overall state of healthcare in this country. (I’m intentionally lumping a few realities together because they’re connected.) And I can’t pretend my own field—clinical social work—hasn’t caused harm. It has. Medicine and mental healthcare both have long histories of wounding the very people they claim to serve.
I read stories here on Substack about what some clients have endured in therapy and I’m both bewildered and, unfortunately, not surprised. The moment for-profit graduate programs and “therapist factories” became the norm, the clinical landscape shifted in ways that made everything more fragile. The number of therapists going straight from school into private practice is alarming—and dangerous. I cannot emphasize that enough. It’s a mess. A real mess. And the average person has no way of knowing who is trained well, who isn’t, and what “good care” should actually look like.
+1 to this. Brown never claimed to be a therapist. From my own personal experience with both multiple CB therapists and Brown’s audiobook 6+ hour seminar (The Power of Vulnerability) I learned a hell of a lot more from Brown about how to treat myself better and give grace to others in struggle, and that while my struggles originated in growing up they were greatly exacerbated in the workplace, where everyone is trying to survive and use, gaslight and gain the edge against their coworkers. Leaders drive organization cultures for good or bad - and it’s mostly bad right now because humans were never meant to be plug and play widgets with aspirations and career arcs dependent on what some boss or leader thinks of them. Brown is doing more to undo the damage caused by dehumanizing industrialized corporations than all therapists put together. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
This forces a necessary reflection on my own biases. I admit I hadn't fully considered her impact in that way, largely because I tend to approach these issues from a political theory perspective.
That lens has often meant seeing the world of business as fundamentally separate from—or even hostile to—the work of healing. This is an idea I need to sit with and think on more deeply. Thank you.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate you naming your experience with Brown’s work, and I want to be clear that I’m not dismissing the impact she has had on individuals. I’ve read her, I’ve studied the material, and one of her books is genuinely on my “top ten” list. Personal transformation through a writer’s work is real, and I don’t dispute that. However, I do want to respond more directly to the comparison you’re making.
First, in terms of clinical accuracy: yes, I corrected in the comments that Brown does not present herself as a therapist. That distinction matters because she is not bound by the ethical, legal, and educational frameworks that govern clinical practice. This is neither good nor bad—it simply means her work serves a different function.
Second, the argument that Brown has done “more to undo the damage of dehumanizing workplaces than all therapists put together” is difficult to evaluate because there is no data to support or even measure a claim at that scale. I looked for evidence, both out of curiosity and respect for your point, and I didn’t find anything that substantiates it either on the organizational psychology side or on the clinical outcomes side. It may be true for *you*, and that is valid. But it’s not generalizable.
We may simply differ in our understanding of how economies and organizational systems function. Workplaces are indeed dehumanizing for many people, and the structural pressures you described are real. But the roots of those problems are political, economic, and systemic; they cannot be solved or reversed by a single writer, no matter how compelling or resonant. Organizational psychologists, sociologists, labor historians, and yes, even therapists, have been critiquing and documenting this for half a century.
Third, the therapist-versus-writer comparison is where I think we diverge most. Writers can offer insight, emotional resonance, and language for lived experience. Therapists work within the complexity of actual human relationships, trauma histories, attachment systems, and the ethical obligations that come with being responsible for people in real time, not in abstraction. These are simply different domains.
I’m not arguing that Brown hasn’t offered something important. She has. Millions of people have found clarity, comfort, and courage through her writing and workshops and that matters.
Mental health, as a field has caused real harm, and I’ve written extensively about the failures in clinical training, mentorship, and oversight. Your comments are a part of a much larger problem, one we need to address with honesty rather than defensiveness.
I respect the impact Brown’s work has had on your life. And I also hold a different perspective on what therapy is, what it requires, and why comparing it directly to a writer’s influence, no matter how powerful, oversimplifies the landscape.
I was so confused by this article because I hadn’t recalled her ever claiming to be a therapist, and my knowledge was that she has always been a consultant in organisational development and leadership. Thanks for naming this I was feeling slightly dense reading the OP!
☝🏻💯💕I finished this book last week. When you read her work, she writes about not being a therapist. What I appreciate about her work is the research she conducts for her own books and how her specialty is more associated with human factors psychology. This specialization aligns with all of her work. Human factors/psychology represents a smaller percentage of Ph.D. psychologists when compared to other specializations. https://www.audible.com/pd/B0DVCZZTFS?source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=pdp
Apparently a lot of us were confused by this entire discussion even happening. I even went out and double checked that her LI still describes her as a Researcher/Research Professor. Because none of the descriptions I was seeing, bore any real resemblance to the things she has called herself in the past.
Exactly. Having followed Ms. Brown since her earliest research and writing, I thought the same thing. It was always application. Leadership and Education.
You said everything I was thinking. Bravo! What’s interesting to me about this piece is how out of touch the writer feels with what’s actually happening in the therapy world. It reminds me of an academic giving a lecture about therapy when they’ve never practiced or been in the depths of the system.
And of course, Brené is also an academic. As much as I respect her research, her delivery has never felt aligned with actual therapy or healing. Some of that isn’t her fault — she’s a researcher and academic, and people often take her work and reduce it to a tagline. She’s worked to provide depth, but she’s always been a bit outside the “real” work. This writer feels the same.
When we start moving therapy outside the room and rebranding ourselves as consultants, it becomes a dangerous minefield of messy ethics and a lack of regulation. While I agree that therapists are equipped for far more roles than we’re often offered, I see Brené’s “rebrand” as little more than a fight to stay relevant — an opportunity she’s taking at a time when we’re already in a socially destructive place.
She’s now commenting on politics, economics, and other topics that don’t align with her research or expertise. What I see is one more person out of their depth at a time when we need real commentary and analysis from people who don’t get microphones simply because they’re influential.
Half the reason we’re in this predicament in the U.S. is because we handed those microphones to bros and influencers — and let them guide conversations about masculinity, marriage, economics, and politics.
Do I think therapists could be a better voice in that space? Certainly. But are we the voice we need right now? I’m not so sure. We’re trained to do clinical work. Yet this writer argues we should be consulting. And I get the point — we understand people, systems, and relational dynamics. Those skills are needed, especially given how relational collapse is at the heart of so many of our social problems.
But the way we’re trained, and the way we practice therapy, often runs counter to cultural norms. That’s partly what makes therapy sacred. The question is: how do we make it accessible on a larger scale without reducing it to taglines and cultural commentary?
Therapists should focus on sharpening their skills. TikTok “ therapists….” are already potentially harming people by blurring ethical rules and boundaries. You cannot be an ethical therapist and a “ consultant/ life coach/ business coach on social media simultaneously. Each has different rules.
It’s not for a lack of skill that therapists show up on social media. I actually think there’s a legitimate place for it — it’s just not always what we see on TikTok. Therapists are allowed to use social media; there are ethical guidelines, of course, and some people do blur those lines. But many use it appropriately and meaningfully.
Plenty of people have felt seen, understood, or gained valuable insight about themselves and therapy through what clinicians share online. There’s real value in that. What we need is not a blanket ban, but more accountability and discernment.
The coaching industry, though, is a different conversation entirely. In the U.S., it’s completely unregulated... zero oversight, zero ethical standards. Coaches can say or sell almost anything they want, which often makes it harder for licensed clinicians who get lumped in with the broader “self-help” or “self-improvement” crowd. Coaching should not be allowed to tie itself to mental health in any way, but here we are —unregulated programs and courses promising transformation for thousands of dollars with no evidence behind them.
Ethical therapists use social media responsibly. I don’t use it for advertising or to attract clients, but many do, and and they do it well. They share helpful resources, educational posts, and connect communities to mental health information. That’s not the problem. The problems arise when people start diagnosing strangers, debating which modality or intervention is “best,” or turning therapy into performance. That’s where it stops being helpful and starts needing attention.
"Accountability and discernment" bingo. Social media makes therapy accessible in a number of ways: cost, culture, language, and more, but you're right in that social media is a place where anyone, and many do, play armchair therapists, well-meaning or not.
I mean, we could write about this for months. Right? Ethical practice is about asking the questions and the process. Just that we engage on these topics is super important.
I am a Professional Certified Coach (PCC), a credential earned through the International Coaching Federation (ICF). I am also a faculty member of an ICF accredited coaching academy. I struggle with the comment of zero oversight or ethical standards. Both of these certainly exist in the ICF world. Is it as rigorous and as comprehensive as the counseling guidelines? No.
The challenge from my experience is that the term “coach” is up for interpretation. There is an unlimited amount of conceptual assumptions made depending on the individual and their experience. Most people assume I am a basketball coach because I played through college, as an example.
While we agree that lots of “coaching” programs exist aren’t regulated or evidence-based, I’d invite you to consider that the opposite may also be true.
Ultimately, I believe that therapy and ICF-level coaching can complement each other to support a person in both healing and choosing to become.
This all might be true and I applaud you for going about it in an ethical way, but there still exists no enforceable standards for life coaches. Until there are, I think we have to be having different conversations. I don’t think all coaches are bad, but I also don’t think we can put them in the same categories as anyone working in mental health from a professional license standpoint. Life coaches don’t have the qualifications, by law, to treat mental health related issues. Yet we live in a world where they are doing it. Which tells me we value mental health so little that we allow unlicensed, untrained people to “treat” these very real issues. This isn’t a dig at life coaches, it’s a dig at a system that is so broken we are okay with allowing anyone off the street to call themselves a “coach” and sit across the couch from someone who has real issues. And then we do not have the governing bodies to enforce accountability if they do harm. Maybe we get the system together that creates standards of training, ethics, enforcement bodies, etc. Then and only then, can we find a way to co-exist and work together. We work from very different centers of thought and accountability. When we can better align those, I see a future of us working together!
I do not recall asking for a rebuttal but we all know unhealed therapists cannot resist giving pedantic serial monologues. I, however, actually create real things. Keep telling yourself it’s not a deficit of skill .
"Half the reason we’re in this predicament in the U.S. is because we handed those microphones to bros and influencers — and let them guide conversations about masculinity, marriage, economics, and politics."
This also begs the question...what are we doing on Substack? Don't you think? Even a little? I wrestle with this one. I also think wrestling is important and there isn't a clear answer.
I’ve thought a lot before deciding to create an account like this. As you can tell from my name, I’m here to counter some of the nonsense circulating online from and about therapists. I enjoy writing, and while much of what I write touches on therapy, it’s really more about life. Sharing simple stories about what this work has taught me feels like offering clarity, rather than adding to the constant noise from talking heads.
Another reason I’m here — especially in the context of consulting — is that so many people use our field to push messages that are misleading or harmful. I don’t want to be part of that, and if I can offer a grounded, realistic perspective, I’ll take the opportunity.
It took me years to actually open an account like this because I wrestled with questions like, “Will I just be another talking head? What do I have to offer? Who really cares?” But seeing the misinformation circulating made it feel like I couldn’t not do it.
I also intentionally avoid taking an expert stance. Too often, people present knowledge they don’t fully have — offering absolutes without acknowledging uncertainty. I want to provide a voice that’s realistic and measured, one that doesn’t promise answers no one really knows.
I really respect this, and I grappled with similar thoughts. I ultimately chose to thread the needle differently, which, frankly, has meant extra legal work and some sleepless nights.
My primary goal was different: I'm focused on providing free psychoeducation for my specific population. I wanted a space where people could get that information on their own time, so that when they see me, we can spend less time on my 'chattering' and more time doing deeper therapeutic work. It was also a way to proactively manage all the misinformation I was spending time correcting.
I deeply respect the way you went about this. Even with our different goals, I think your choice was the better one. It's clear how much deliberate thinking went into it.
I totally see your mission! And I completely get wanting this to be an extension of your clinical work — that can be incredibly helpful. I wonder if more clinicians might start doing that: collecting their writing on these platforms and using it as a supplement. Honestly, that’s a genius idea! 😉
For me, I was looking for something less clinical, but still a space to create from this lens in an everyday, ordinary way. It all started during the pandemic, when we were being bombarded with TikTok therapy content and clients were seeking so much guidance online. My consultation group sessions often felt like a lot of head-scratching. So I thought, “let’s create our own content — talk about what’s real, what works, and what the research actually says.”
It started as a podcast and has morphed into this. Time passed, the podcast got shelved as life got busy, and I’ve been doing this piece on my own. The podcast is still on the docket for next year, but it will be grounded in conversation — open to nuance, and not directive. Just people who do this work chatting. If something resonates, great. If we’re annoying and you tune us out, fine too! Haha. And since I’m also a comedian in another life, it won’t be without humor and silliness. 😉
I agree with SSK, I was fascinated reading through this thread. First time I've seen such a deliberate discussion with divergent paths on any platform that didn't erupt into pettiness. Bravo!!!
I am an outside guy looking in and would opine that professionals like you two need to be in the public arena as professionals. I get that it is far afield from your practice/training//ethics, but maybe your profession/training/education needs a refresh for the 21st century to train and certify those who can credibly/ethically guide public discourse. It is needed now more than ever!
As someone who has been both a patient of clinical therapists and a client of a coach ‘therapist’, I want to thank you and all true clinical therapists for taking time from overworked difficult schedules to share your wisdom on the real damage self-described life coach ‘therapists’ can cause individuals by exactly what you mentioned - pushing too soon under the guise of leadership guidance.
I suffered extreme emotional setback, financial losses, relationship damages and ongoing health issues due to following this so-called guidance to move forward into a situation I was not yet prepared to handle. The more persistent harm has been that some issues I sought help for have actually been compounded by that coach’s poor direction.
I think there are far too many people on this app giving out advice that most certainly should be done by a trained therapist. I try to make my writing “I” centered—this is what I’ve learned, this is how I think I’ve changed or what I’m grappling with. Perhaps people can draw parallels to their own circumstances but I’m not dispensing advice or being an expert either. When I find myself slipping into that territory, I self-correct as soon as I notice.
Hi Tracy — I really appreciate this approach! I think that when we simply share our own experiences, it’s often more helpful than being directive. Unless we’re talking about chocolate… then I’ll always tell you to eat it 😉
There are so many armchair experts out there with too much to say. It can be overwhelming, and it’s often incorrect anyway.
Thank you for your thoughts on such a complex dilemma. I, too, have been grappling with how to proceed within and beyond my clinical practice. Like you, I enjoy writing and desire to use it for the healing of our fragmented culture. This entire thread has been thought provoking, illuminating, and inspiring. Thank you all!
Yes, therapy….time, place, situation….all sacred. Those of us who’ve had our share of effective, kindly, patient listening to our very soul speak know the boardroom doesn’t cut it.
Agree. Thanks for articulating this. As well as the original comment above you are commenting on. I had a very similar reaction. But couldn't put words to it as well. What struck me the most is that this pivot from therapy to coaching is like a 15 year old fad, that a lot of people are realizing was not conducive to collective healing - you can't heal people from a platform on high. You might inspire people but it recreates that trickle down effect where the people most in need get the crumbs. when they need the most energy.
Agreed! I think therapists are realizing what we’re doing isn’t sustainable, but to pivot to something else unsustainable seems silly. And that misses the whole point, and does nothing to change the system. We need real systemic change.
Since this, I wrote a piece about therapists and rebranding. And since then, I’ve seen more discourse amongst medical doctors who are choosing to shift. They’re either leaving the field or finding creative ways to see patients but outside the systems.
We’re all in this together, and it appears we are all feeling this squeeze. The systems are failing providers and patients/clients. I just hope we can right the plane before it all crashes.
Yes, it seem we are less alone than we think. That feels hopeful to imagine about doctors shifting into more mutual aid settings. Few people are unaffected by this system meltdown. But are being crushed sooner than others.
Thank you so much for this comment! You said everything I was thinking but so much more eloquently.
The thought I had was that this “take” is sort of like equating wellness culture and wellness influencers and the like with going to the doctor. Is there some value in there being a greater awareness of health and wellness in the wider culture? Sure. Is it the same as going to a board certified physician when you have a medical condition? Obviously absolutely not. Are there problems with the field and practice of medicine? Of course. Do we want there to be no doctors and only wellness coaches because of that?
Also, to me, this is all just about money. Therapists are wildly underpaid. I did the math and if our reimbursement from insurance had matched inflation, starting from what therapists were reimbursed in 1982 when our current model started, we’d currently be making about $600 a session. Instead we are reimbursed about the same amount as we were in 1982. To make money as a practice owner, at least in my city, you basically are exploiting new therapists. But sure, let’s rebrand as leadership coaches and come up with some virtuous sounds justification rather than take collective action to address the issue.
Thank you for listening to my rant. And again, thank you for your comment.
The $600 stopped me in my tracks. I am working on a sustainable model for how to do this. Let me tell you it is so hard! Happy to talk sometime. You can find my contact on the Substack. This isn't a rant. I am also so upset with the NASW for not addressing this...and then we could talk about how "self care" (dislike that phrase because it puts a systems failure on individuals) as an ethical issue. Meaning often when we make mistakes we are overworked, underpaid and burnt out. There has to be a better way.
Organizations worldwide spend close to $400 billion on leadership development, though research indicates that the vast majority do not systematically measure program outcomes. Meanwhile, celebrity speakers like Brené Brown and Adam Grant command tens of thousands of dollars per hour for corporate talks.
Money is power, influence, and freedom. Social work is a profession that helps people, families, and communities and it works well until the field of therapy took over the profession. And these elite therapists/business used massive money to water down the social work profession. And now, Brown and Grant are playing the same game with them. Get it!
LOVE everything you’ve said here, Elizabeth. Even as just a laywoman, I couldn’t agree more. Thank you so much for this eloquent and intentional and meaningful rebuttal. Honestly so glad I read this article just so I could see your comment!!
You’ve made a very useful clear distinction for me between therapy and coaching. I don’t know that the lines are blurred but instead we tend to blur the lines in our attempts to find meaning. Though bringing the concepts that Brené Brown so well defined and researched into a leadership role and work culture environment may be therapeutic and offer understanding and connection within the many environmental realms in which we all co-exist; it is vastly different from therapy and should not be considered a replacement. They are separate entities and each with their own function and role.
I appreciate this conversation and view the purpose of Substack as exactly this - an evolving dialogue.
I was with all of what you expressed here until the lines "Enough with Brené Brown...There are newer thinkers..." It reads as though she has nothing more to contribute. It's giving exclude when there's room to just expand.
And I am all for listening to thinkers from all backgrounds and ethnicities. Transforming psychotherapy, so it's not "healing people in the image of what dominant white culture is comfortable with" doesn't require BIPOC voices. It would benefit from more white voices advocating for change by the dominant white culture controlling things. Listening is good, but it won't dismantle the system.
Of course transforming psychotherapy in those way, requires BIPOC voices & other marginalized voices! There are too many voices in the therapy room, always have been!
Elizabeth, I do not work in this field, but I very much like your perspective, and I think it is spot on. It did not take a genius to see what the pandemic was going to do to people psychologically. I saw it coming early on, like a freight train barreling down the track straight at us. I suspect that the damage from it is still running like a vast undercurrent in society right now, even though the shiny spin paints it differently. I have no problem believing that there is more demand than ever for therapy than can be provided. By humans! Yes, this brings us to AI, because there is no way that a computer is equipped to heal the emotional or mental field of a human being. This is very dangerous territory, in my estimation. I think the most remarkable part of this post is the perspective and balance you bring to it, so thank you for that. We need to stay human, and take care of each other. ~ Susan Hart
I couldn’t agree more. Brené Brown is redundant. She always has been in the therapeutic sphere, other than being a writer and speaker who educates people on shame. To see her at the head of this movement is laughable.
Hard agree. She’s a brand, and in many respects always has been. Us therapists and busier than ever. No matter how many pseudopsychological pop psychology bullshit TikTok or Ai peddles won’t change that because therapy is not about being told what you want to hear. It’s about the relationship and the willingness to be uncomfortable, to change.
"What about healing as a messy, nonlinear, human right? What about just being okay with being average? What about connection as the real, biological foundation of care?" Exactly! Why do we have to always commodify and pivot everything, even the human need for one-on-one, human relationships.
(I am going to answer your comment and speak to another comment below at the same time….it is time for those of us who have been around awhile to make room for other voices.) Frankly, I’m fine with the idea of our field evolving and people moving on to new voices. All work, even the most foundational, can grow stale. I know mine does. We need fresh perspectives to keep our work alive and relevant.
For a long time, colleagues of mine have recommended I actively look for sources and research from BIPOC authors in the social sciences. We can go over all the reasons why this is a good idea, but for me, it’s simple. Historically, in my field, the voices of white men and women have long been seen as the most prevalent. Publishing has been very, very challenging for others, and that means we’ve missed out on crucial perspectives.
Now, this doesn't mean I use material if it isn't quality work. It means I make the effort to find the quality work that has been historically marginalized.
As a clinician in my 50s, I am fine with saying it is time for my wisdom to fuel the voice of those who come behind me. This doesn't mean my time is done. It means the meaning of my work is shifting. It means the meaning now comes from making space for others, from amplifying their work, and from using my position to pass the mic. (To reference another older thinker - don’t know if you are familiar with the 8 stages of man…..?)
I have a personal method that I’ve developed over the years—a way of checking the "pulse" of my own profession. Periodically, I do a little digital fieldwork. I look up social work programs online to see what's really going on inside the academy.
Who is teaching? Who is being hired as faculty? What are their backgrounds and clinical interests?
What research is being done? What topics are being funded and published? What is being valued as "serious" scholarship?
What is on the syllabus? When I can find them, I look at who is being taught. Whose theories are considered "foundational" and whose are "elective"?
I intentionally look at two very different types of institutions. First, the "well-known" programs— like Smith College or University of Michigan that act as "gatekeepers." (Ok that sounded weird. I don’t really mean gatekeepers….they capture a particular audience.) Second, and just as importantly, I look at the programs historically for commuters, working adults, and first-generation graduate students. These are, in my opinion, a place where one may find more of the front line of social work education. (This doesn’t mean those of us who went to big name schools are less than…) As a clinical social worker, many in my professional - well, we are leaning away from working with those most in need. Not all of us, of course…and we all have to change professionally. Sadly what this looks like is the newest social workers are working with those with the most need and most complexity. I think about the cases from earlier in my career and those now and there is a sharp contrast. (There is a lot I could say about why this is and it isn’t all about personal choice or as simple as being a “sell out.”)
Anyway, I do this because social work is a field that is, at its core, supposed to be about accessibility, but it has a lengthy, complicated history that has often said the exact opposite. This practice of looking at the curriculum, at who is teaching and what is being researched, is part of a larger commitment to ensuring our field's "ivory tower" doesn't become so high that it can no longer see the street. This is one way I try to walk the fine line of my obligation to the field. It is not a perfect method. I am not perfect. This is one of the things I do to manage the path I have taken as a clinician in private practice. I know others do other things. Yet, this is how I find people I consider to be the leaders who are pushing our field forward.
So, in response to that original question, here are just a few of the therapists, social workers, and researchers whose work I am following:
Resmaa Menakem, MSW, LICSW: His book My Grandmother's Hands is essential reading on racialized trauma and how it lives in the body. He is a leading voice in somatic abolitionism. (Critical read for all…again, in my opinion. Doing this is a group with a trained facilitator is what I found most helpful.)
Nedra Glover Tawwab, LCSW: A social worker whose work on boundaries (like her book Set Boundaries, Find Peace) has become a cornerstone for modern clinical practice.
Dr. Joy Harden Bradford, Ph.D.: The founder of "Therapy for Black Girls." She has an incredible podcast and community focused on the specific mental health needs of Black women.
Dr. Shawn Ginwright, Ph.D.: A key researcher who is moving the conversation from "trauma-informed care" to "healing-centered engagement," which is a crucial, systemic shift.
Dr. Mariel Buquè, Ph.D.: A psychologist whose work focuses on decolonizing therapy and healing intergenerational trauma through a more holistic lens.
This is a starting point for you. I also find a lot of what I call clinical wisdom in literature and art. I have moved away from reading thinkers like me. I don’t find it revolutionary — or what I read is something close to some ideas I have had here or there. I find hearing from those who are different forces me to make larger shifts in my thinking…that is what I am interested in at this point. That may not be what others want and that is ok. There are other researchers out there I would lift up if you are interested. Please feel free to DM me for more information.
I deeply resonate and loudly celebrate your identification of therapy moving into a larger “room” so to speak, because the goal of therapy (in my opinion) is learning the art of building bridges over personal disconnection and grief; the better we connect with ourselves and the areas we’ve been disconnected the more effective (in a non-corporate and icky way) we are at receiving true healing that likely can only come from community. Relational wounds need relational healing, and currently the workplace is the cornerstone of most adults’ lives. This is sustainable healing, and all the tools we can conceptualize “on the bridge” in therapy as we bravely look down into the chasm of our pain, can be truly integrated on a larger and more holistic level. Fantastic piece, thank you for articulating this!
She’s a researcher, not a therapist and there is great work out there both before and after hers. Many brands change direction, scale, or rebrand, especially when solid funding and platforms are available to support it, like the BetterUp partnership she announced last year. A lot of it comes from a profound place of privilege that is not always discussed. From opportunity to accessibility for folks.
I definitely agree with you Linda. Therapy as a whole is a deeply colonial construct with a very dark and violent past (especially against BIPOC and other minorities). One tool I’ve used as a POC when discussing privilege is to replace that specific word with “mobility”. Privilege has become such a buzzword/ weapon that I find it actually shuts down conversations and curiosity, whereas mobility captures and communicates what privilege actually DOES as an action word. For example, driving vs taking the bus results in two very different kinds of access to the world. Or as you mentioned with literal accessibility (be it financial or physical disability-wise), one’s mobility/ privilege plays a huge role. However just as Rosa Parks wasn’t actually the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat, she did become the ultimate face of a movement much greater than her. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, with the goal of honouring them by doing better for the next generation vs fighting over who gets the official credit of doing it first.
There is so much goodness here in this comment. Like you I am using changing language because of the buzzword status including with belonging. I’m shifting to relational gravity since belonging is often code for “Well, we told you you belong so why don’t you feel that way?” Access gets me fired up. It’s not enough to “send the elevator back down”. You better make sure the door is unlocked, they had directions, a way to get there, etc. There’s so many things not considered and it’s very easy with all the access in the world to talk about a horizon other folks can’t even see. Also, following you immediately. :)
relational gravity vs belonging!!!!! Wow I’m going to add that to my personal lil dictionary! Thank you for that, I feel like we could have a great conversation about this. My personal intersectionality as biracial has left me with maaannyy convoluted experiences around “belonging”and I bet you have your fair share as well. Thank you for this lovely engagement, it’s a gift to engage with heart-forward individuals online <3
That can be arranged!! I have many thoughts, and have read most of her books :D I actually prefer that she’s a researcher > therapist since she’s brought such great attention and clarity to the infrastructure, language, and peripheral culture that shapes therapy vs therapy itself.
Very strong argument! I love that you took the time to write this amazing response which I read with interest. You brought me back to the essence of our work. Please keep on defending the SW field!
Thank you for your response and taking the time to educate us on your field of expertise. I love your passion and witness as the voice of the voiceless. Your work cannot be replaced especially now and after the fallout rains down from today’s messy world .
Fangirling over the Brené Brown brand as an institution healer is… something.
Brown didn’t rebrand. She bailed.
She got sick of being seen as “the help” who receives everyone’s trauma dumps, got tired of feigning grace, and wanted a seat at the corporate table so she could be taken seriously by bigger spenders. She knowledge vamped therapy and sold it back to leadership, turning emotions into corporate virtues to complete the feminisation of institutions.
She didn’t dare to lead. She dared to believe her ideas were a balm for workplaces, and in doing so, gave more ammo to the narcissists and corporate psychopaths to perform empathy so they can use your trust against you later. Workplace bullying and abuse stats haven’t gone down since vulnerability and empathy were sold as corporate virtues, and now the abusers have more tools to work with. Thanks Brené.
Institutions haven’t improved since her brand of leadership took over. And now she’s going to do even more.
We’re in a discernment crisis. Choose your heroes and elders wisely.
This is the one. This is the take I’ve been longing to see articulated. She didn’t shift and adapt- she jumped ship. It’s as much as an indicator for the ‘field of therapy’ as it is for everything and everyone else with corporate overlords in late stage feudalistic capitalism.
Far too many corporations buy the books and hire the speakers for a superficial cultural rebranding, and not an actual attention to the things that matter in improving culture. Thanks for your comment.
I occupy 2 worlds, part- time therapist, part time finance professional. I’m leaving the latter because being around that level of dysfunction is becoming too dysregulating for me. It’s endemic in that field. The workaholism, people barely holding their personal lives together & using work to prop themselves up. I can’t do it anymore.
I echo Vilma’s thoughts! And if you choose to stay in both professions, you can become a Certified Financial Therapist (CFT). There are so few globally, and I’m sure it would expand your brand and reach. Regardless, congrats on having two very cool jobs!
Brené is a canny businesswoman. Until the west acknowledges that the pursuit of growth at any cost is destroying our planet and chances of survival, aiding the corporate sector is no more than an opportunist sell-out. Tweaking a psychopathic system is collusion in our destruction.
I'm nauseated by a frankly mercenary act being extolled as virtuous revolution. What a lot of garbage. A real revolution would be seeing the mental health industrial complex for what it is and doing some good despite yourselves.
I made a long comment above, but I noted this too. Much like the author of this piece, Brené has always been a bit out of touch with therapy — because she’s an academic. And what we need less of are people who aren’t doing the work commenting on the work.
We don’t need a rebrand to “consultant.” Can therapists consult? Absolutely. But when you start pulling us out of clinical roles and rebranding us as consultants, you lose the value of ethics, evidence, skill — all the things that make therapy what it is.
I understand what he’s saying, but it’s not a direction actual clinicians can take. Brené isn’t setting a trend here. The world doesn’t respect therapists to the degree this author imagines. People minimize, downplay, and simply don’t value the work we do.
Who’s going to hire me as a “consultant” just because of my degree and credentials? Because Brené Brown did it?
What we need are clinicians leading the charge — and a system and society that respects the work. The field isn’t “shrinking” because it needs a rebrand. It’s struggling because it needs value: better pay, less corporate and insurance regulation, and more flexibility in how we deliver care.
Yeah, I didn't find any credentials showing that she's a licensed therapist. Seems like she's only done research and never micro work with individual clients in her professional career.
The first problem with people assuming that Brené is shifting her work from the therapy realm to consulting is that she has not been working as a therapist. She is a researcher and has been a professor. She has also been speaking for a very long time on her research regarding vulnerability and shame to large organizations. Many of us who are in therapy (and many practicing therapists) resonated deeply with her messaging (and her two early TED talks), and this gave her a reputation as America’s therapist, which is not a role she ever asked for (as she discussed in a recent interview in the NY Times). I am a big fan of Brené’s work, but I don’t feel at all that the work she is doing now is anything more than a continuation of what she has been doing all along.
Therapy is indeed changing. It’s a shift to building resilience and agency. What happens when you walk out of the room? It’s that time that matters most. And what can we do as a collective to reach more people. Community and connection matters.
Interesting thoughts. Nothing comes to mind to add at this time, but like all systems on this planet, the therapeutic world needs to change. We’re in transition. Now that I’ve written that, one thought jumps out, it’s not so much for me about following anyone else but rather what comes to express from within me, in the world.
As someone who spent over 25 years in executive coaching before completing a master’s in clinical psychology, I find this piece both fascinating and necessary, a long overdue wake-up call for the therapeutic field.
I went back to graduate school not to pivot careers but to deepen my own inner work. When memories from early childhood trauma resurfaced, I realized it was time to understand, through both personal and professional lenses, what true healing required. It was a classic case of “healer, heal thyself.” That process reshaped my perspective on both coaching and therapy.
As a coach, I often found myself working from a more therapeutic lens. During graduate school, I found myself as a new therapist working from a more coaching lens. That overlap revealed just how artificial the divide between the two fields really is. Sitting in those classrooms, I couldn’t help but notice how upside down much of the system felt, so focused on diagnosis, billing codes, and symptom reduction that it risked producing competent technicians rather than embodied practitioners. The model still treats the human condition as a checklist instead of a living process.
There’s also the professional gatekeeping to contend with. After publishing my first book, I noticed how quickly the conversation could turn to credentials rather than lived experience. That was partly what sent me back, to earn the degree, yes, but also to integrate the experience I’d already been living and teaching for decades.
It’s time for the field to expand. The rigid state-by-state licensing boundaries and the obsession with manualized methods don’t reflect the reality of an interconnected world. The next generation of practitioners must bring both depth and adaptability, people who embody the work, not just understand it.
That’s why I resonate so strongly with Brené’s evolution. She hasn’t abandoned vulnerability or healing; she’s translated them into broader human systems where they can actually shape culture. The challenge, and the opportunity, for our profession is to follow suit. The world doesn’t just need more therapists. It needs more whole humans who have done their own work and can help others do the same, wherever that work happens to take place.
Came here for the comments. Thank you all for already naming what I was thinking. Brene has never been a therapist. She was a researcher and has been talking about leadership for a long time. Also, from my perspective as a therapist, there is nothing shrinking about this profession. In fact, we have a therapist shortage from the demand in my area. I also see Brene as a mid-career professional pivoting to follow her authenticity as many of us do after doing something for twenty years.
Dr. Hoff, this is a critical discussion, and as a clinical social worker with nearly three decades in the field, my answer to whether Brown's work is "in keeping" with the field is a complex "yes and no."
Let's be clear: Dr. Brown is a Ph.D. social worker. Her foundational research on shame, vulnerability, empathy, and connection is the "bread and butter" of clinical practice. It’s a direct and valuable extension of social work's core "person-in-environment" perspective and our commitment to the "dignity and worth of the person." She gave accessible, research-backed language to concepts many of us have worked with for decades.
The problem is not the research; it's the application.
This "rebrand" isn't a therapist evolving; it's a consummate businesswoman solidifying her brand as a leadership consultant. Once she hit the talking circuit, it's hard to see how she remained *primarily* a psychotherapist in practice. This is an assumption, of course, but the demands of being a public figure are all-consuming. This shift places her work squarely at the center of the most significant debate in our field today: the blurring line between therapy and coaching.
The Therapy vs. Coaching Dilemma
As clinical social workers, we are licensed, regulated health professionals trained and legally authorized to diagnose and treat mental and emotional disorders. Our goal is healing. Corporate coaching is an unregulated industry focused on performance.
The ethical "gray area" here is dangerous. When a coach at BetterUp asks a manager to "rumble with vulnerability," what happens when the root of that manager's avoidance isn't a "skill gap" but undiagnosed complex trauma, social anxiety, or severe depression?
A clinician is trained to identify this, manage the risk, and provide treatment. A coach is not. At best, they are out of their depth; at worst, they risk causing real harm by pushing someone into an emotional space they are not equipped to handle, all under the guise of "leadership development."
This is the very "commodification" I find so troubling. It's not the future of therapy; it's a lucrative exit strategy from a broken, undervalued system. And to frame this as therapy's "future" erases the past. The idea that we are just now being "invited" to address "systems, organizations, and culture" is a striking omission of the entire history of social work. This is social work. Clinical social workers, as mandated by our codes of ethics (like the NASW's), have been doing this systems-level work long before it was fashionable.
I also must fundamentally challenge your core premise that "Therapy as a profession may be shrinking."
Where is the evidence for this? All available data, like from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, shows the exact opposite: "much faster than average" growth for our field. The profession isn't shrinking; the *demand* is exploding. My own practice, infused with ideas of justice and culture, is growing, not shrinking.
Care for maternal mental health - still we have a shortage.
Care for children - still we have a shortage.
Guess what? There is less money and less attention to mothers and children. While some of you may be focusing on other communities some of the most in need are still here, still needing care and this is care that cannot be done with AI empathy.
What is shrinking is the workforce's capacity to meet this demand. The "culture eating therapy alive" isn't AI; it is capitalism: burnout, low reimbursements, and administrative burdens. What is shrinking is the number of psychotherapists trained in clinic and psychiatric settings. What is increasing is people becoming licensed and opening up their own shop...but being most interested in the worried well and the all mighty dollar. (Making money is not wrong. Yes, the worried well need care too but I didn't get into this work for that.)
The Biological Reality: AI Cannot Co-Regulate
This brings me to your concern about AI "automating empathy." This isn't just a philosophical problem; it's a biological one.
Therapy is an embodied, relational experience. What happens on a biological level between humans is not, and cannot be, replicated by an AI.
Co-Regulation:When we are in a therapeutic relationship, our nervous systems attune. This is the essence of co-regulation, where one person's calm, regulated state can physiologically soothe another's dysregulated state. An AI has no nervous system. It cannot co-regulate.
Neurobiology:Brain imaging shows that human-to-human interaction activates specific neural networks that AI interaction does not, particularly the regions for **Theory of Mind** and the mirror neuron system. These are the biological underpinnings of empathy.
Neurochemistry: Genuine, trusted human connection releases a cascade of neurochemicals, most notably oxytocin. This "bonding hormone" builds the felt sense of safety. An AI cannot trigger this reciprocal, relational neurochemistry.
That biological dance of attunement is uniquely human. An AI can simulate a response, but it cannot *be* in a relationship. (And if a day comes when it *can* trigger that neurochemistry, we have a different set of problems and probably need to pull the plug.)
This pivot simply turns "healing" into a construct for those with the most power and money. What about healing as a messy, nonlinear, human right? What about just being okay with being average? What about connection as the real, biological foundation of care?
Dr. Hoff, therapy should always have been, and for many of us has been, about what happens when you "leave the room." But leaving the room means different things to you, I think, than to me. You seem to be championing a move to a different room: the corporate boardroom. For me, and for the social work tradition, it means taking the work into the systems of justice, community, and culture that shape our clients' lives.
Of course, in a short forum like this, both your post and my response are bound to be reductionist. I hope that's something we can both own.
With that said, and honestly, enough with Brené Brown. We've read the books. We can thank her for her contributions. But it’s time to move over. There are newer thinkers, and most especially, let's take the time to listen to thinkers who are not white. Let's intentionally listen to and highlight more BIPOC theorists and writers in our field.
If we don't, psychotherapy will continue to be a field about healing people in the image of what dominant white culture is comfortable with. Yuck. This is the history of the field.
That is the far more important work to be done. It just might not make as much money.
For the record, Brene Brown has never been a clinician. She’s never been a therapist. This has long been a misunderstanding of her work.
And she studied organizations when pursuing her masters and phd in social work. She’s always been doing work inside of organizations. It’s not just a rebrand. And it’s not new. Dare to Lead (her organizational leadership framework) was published in 2018.
Think it's really important that someone mentioned this. She's been working with organizations for... her entire career? What else is missing from this piece is the fact that she has spoken publicly (in a recent episode of The Interview with the NYT) about the fact that she was no longer comfortable being in the self-help space. So it makes even more sense that she's shifting away from content that could be consumed by the masses and going back to her roots (and perhaps digging even deeper).
THIS!
I was just about to chime in with this. She is very clear about the fact that she is not a therapist. Thanks for naming this! Really interesting piece, though!
Exactly. I believe it's helpful for other therapists to see examples of different approaches they can try beyond traditional therapy, but I wouldn't call this a pivot at all. This is who she has always been.
This is a fair point. Thank you.
Yes - she's always been adamant that she is not "America's Therapist"
Yes and what has happened in the "space" of mental health is that is what she became. That isn't on her. It brings up some interesting questions - doesn't it? Why are people drawn to self help and what she offers? (Don't get me wrong, I love her work.) Why is it so important now? And why was it so easily misused? I tend to think this has something to do with the human condition. On the whole, her work has, in my opinion be a gift to many, many people. Not trying to knock her.
Yes to all of this. What we’re really talking about is the collapse of community and mentorship among helpers, and the overall state of healthcare in this country. (I’m intentionally lumping a few realities together because they’re connected.) And I can’t pretend my own field—clinical social work—hasn’t caused harm. It has. Medicine and mental healthcare both have long histories of wounding the very people they claim to serve.
I read stories here on Substack about what some clients have endured in therapy and I’m both bewildered and, unfortunately, not surprised. The moment for-profit graduate programs and “therapist factories” became the norm, the clinical landscape shifted in ways that made everything more fragile. The number of therapists going straight from school into private practice is alarming—and dangerous. I cannot emphasize that enough. It’s a mess. A real mess. And the average person has no way of knowing who is trained well, who isn’t, and what “good care” should actually look like.
And there are exceptions, of course.
+1 to this. Brown never claimed to be a therapist. From my own personal experience with both multiple CB therapists and Brown’s audiobook 6+ hour seminar (The Power of Vulnerability) I learned a hell of a lot more from Brown about how to treat myself better and give grace to others in struggle, and that while my struggles originated in growing up they were greatly exacerbated in the workplace, where everyone is trying to survive and use, gaslight and gain the edge against their coworkers. Leaders drive organization cultures for good or bad - and it’s mostly bad right now because humans were never meant to be plug and play widgets with aspirations and career arcs dependent on what some boss or leader thinks of them. Brown is doing more to undo the damage caused by dehumanizing industrialized corporations than all therapists put together. Lead, follow, or get out of the way.
This forces a necessary reflection on my own biases. I admit I hadn't fully considered her impact in that way, largely because I tend to approach these issues from a political theory perspective.
That lens has often meant seeing the world of business as fundamentally separate from—or even hostile to—the work of healing. This is an idea I need to sit with and think on more deeply. Thank you.
Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I appreciate you naming your experience with Brown’s work, and I want to be clear that I’m not dismissing the impact she has had on individuals. I’ve read her, I’ve studied the material, and one of her books is genuinely on my “top ten” list. Personal transformation through a writer’s work is real, and I don’t dispute that. However, I do want to respond more directly to the comparison you’re making.
First, in terms of clinical accuracy: yes, I corrected in the comments that Brown does not present herself as a therapist. That distinction matters because she is not bound by the ethical, legal, and educational frameworks that govern clinical practice. This is neither good nor bad—it simply means her work serves a different function.
Second, the argument that Brown has done “more to undo the damage of dehumanizing workplaces than all therapists put together” is difficult to evaluate because there is no data to support or even measure a claim at that scale. I looked for evidence, both out of curiosity and respect for your point, and I didn’t find anything that substantiates it either on the organizational psychology side or on the clinical outcomes side. It may be true for *you*, and that is valid. But it’s not generalizable.
We may simply differ in our understanding of how economies and organizational systems function. Workplaces are indeed dehumanizing for many people, and the structural pressures you described are real. But the roots of those problems are political, economic, and systemic; they cannot be solved or reversed by a single writer, no matter how compelling or resonant. Organizational psychologists, sociologists, labor historians, and yes, even therapists, have been critiquing and documenting this for half a century.
Third, the therapist-versus-writer comparison is where I think we diverge most. Writers can offer insight, emotional resonance, and language for lived experience. Therapists work within the complexity of actual human relationships, trauma histories, attachment systems, and the ethical obligations that come with being responsible for people in real time, not in abstraction. These are simply different domains.
I’m not arguing that Brown hasn’t offered something important. She has. Millions of people have found clarity, comfort, and courage through her writing and workshops and that matters.
Mental health, as a field has caused real harm, and I’ve written extensively about the failures in clinical training, mentorship, and oversight. Your comments are a part of a much larger problem, one we need to address with honesty rather than defensiveness.
I respect the impact Brown’s work has had on your life. And I also hold a different perspective on what therapy is, what it requires, and why comparing it directly to a writer’s influence, no matter how powerful, oversimplifies the landscape.
I was so confused by this article because I hadn’t recalled her ever claiming to be a therapist, and my knowledge was that she has always been a consultant in organisational development and leadership. Thanks for naming this I was feeling slightly dense reading the OP!
I thought so too! I always think Brene Brown has been very active in the corporate world.
I wasn't sure about this fact. Thank you. Glad you know what is going on!
☝🏻💯💕I finished this book last week. When you read her work, she writes about not being a therapist. What I appreciate about her work is the research she conducts for her own books and how her specialty is more associated with human factors psychology. This specialization aligns with all of her work. Human factors/psychology represents a smaller percentage of Ph.D. psychologists when compared to other specializations. https://www.audible.com/pd/B0DVCZZTFS?source_code=ASSORAP0511160006&share_location=pdp
Glad you said this about her work in organisations and Dare you Lead book as I was about to
Apparently a lot of us were confused by this entire discussion even happening. I even went out and double checked that her LI still describes her as a Researcher/Research Professor. Because none of the descriptions I was seeing, bore any real resemblance to the things she has called herself in the past.
I came here to say the same.
Exactly. Having followed Ms. Brown since her earliest research and writing, I thought the same thing. It was always application. Leadership and Education.
You said everything I was thinking. Bravo! What’s interesting to me about this piece is how out of touch the writer feels with what’s actually happening in the therapy world. It reminds me of an academic giving a lecture about therapy when they’ve never practiced or been in the depths of the system.
And of course, Brené is also an academic. As much as I respect her research, her delivery has never felt aligned with actual therapy or healing. Some of that isn’t her fault — she’s a researcher and academic, and people often take her work and reduce it to a tagline. She’s worked to provide depth, but she’s always been a bit outside the “real” work. This writer feels the same.
When we start moving therapy outside the room and rebranding ourselves as consultants, it becomes a dangerous minefield of messy ethics and a lack of regulation. While I agree that therapists are equipped for far more roles than we’re often offered, I see Brené’s “rebrand” as little more than a fight to stay relevant — an opportunity she’s taking at a time when we’re already in a socially destructive place.
She’s now commenting on politics, economics, and other topics that don’t align with her research or expertise. What I see is one more person out of their depth at a time when we need real commentary and analysis from people who don’t get microphones simply because they’re influential.
Half the reason we’re in this predicament in the U.S. is because we handed those microphones to bros and influencers — and let them guide conversations about masculinity, marriage, economics, and politics.
Do I think therapists could be a better voice in that space? Certainly. But are we the voice we need right now? I’m not so sure. We’re trained to do clinical work. Yet this writer argues we should be consulting. And I get the point — we understand people, systems, and relational dynamics. Those skills are needed, especially given how relational collapse is at the heart of so many of our social problems.
But the way we’re trained, and the way we practice therapy, often runs counter to cultural norms. That’s partly what makes therapy sacred. The question is: how do we make it accessible on a larger scale without reducing it to taglines and cultural commentary?
Therapists should focus on sharpening their skills. TikTok “ therapists….” are already potentially harming people by blurring ethical rules and boundaries. You cannot be an ethical therapist and a “ consultant/ life coach/ business coach on social media simultaneously. Each has different rules.
It’s not for a lack of skill that therapists show up on social media. I actually think there’s a legitimate place for it — it’s just not always what we see on TikTok. Therapists are allowed to use social media; there are ethical guidelines, of course, and some people do blur those lines. But many use it appropriately and meaningfully.
Plenty of people have felt seen, understood, or gained valuable insight about themselves and therapy through what clinicians share online. There’s real value in that. What we need is not a blanket ban, but more accountability and discernment.
The coaching industry, though, is a different conversation entirely. In the U.S., it’s completely unregulated... zero oversight, zero ethical standards. Coaches can say or sell almost anything they want, which often makes it harder for licensed clinicians who get lumped in with the broader “self-help” or “self-improvement” crowd. Coaching should not be allowed to tie itself to mental health in any way, but here we are —unregulated programs and courses promising transformation for thousands of dollars with no evidence behind them.
Ethical therapists use social media responsibly. I don’t use it for advertising or to attract clients, but many do, and and they do it well. They share helpful resources, educational posts, and connect communities to mental health information. That’s not the problem. The problems arise when people start diagnosing strangers, debating which modality or intervention is “best,” or turning therapy into performance. That’s where it stops being helpful and starts needing attention.
"Accountability and discernment" bingo. Social media makes therapy accessible in a number of ways: cost, culture, language, and more, but you're right in that social media is a place where anyone, and many do, play armchair therapists, well-meaning or not.
I mean, we could write about this for months. Right? Ethical practice is about asking the questions and the process. Just that we engage on these topics is super important.
I am a Professional Certified Coach (PCC), a credential earned through the International Coaching Federation (ICF). I am also a faculty member of an ICF accredited coaching academy. I struggle with the comment of zero oversight or ethical standards. Both of these certainly exist in the ICF world. Is it as rigorous and as comprehensive as the counseling guidelines? No.
The challenge from my experience is that the term “coach” is up for interpretation. There is an unlimited amount of conceptual assumptions made depending on the individual and their experience. Most people assume I am a basketball coach because I played through college, as an example.
While we agree that lots of “coaching” programs exist aren’t regulated or evidence-based, I’d invite you to consider that the opposite may also be true.
Ultimately, I believe that therapy and ICF-level coaching can complement each other to support a person in both healing and choosing to become.
This all might be true and I applaud you for going about it in an ethical way, but there still exists no enforceable standards for life coaches. Until there are, I think we have to be having different conversations. I don’t think all coaches are bad, but I also don’t think we can put them in the same categories as anyone working in mental health from a professional license standpoint. Life coaches don’t have the qualifications, by law, to treat mental health related issues. Yet we live in a world where they are doing it. Which tells me we value mental health so little that we allow unlicensed, untrained people to “treat” these very real issues. This isn’t a dig at life coaches, it’s a dig at a system that is so broken we are okay with allowing anyone off the street to call themselves a “coach” and sit across the couch from someone who has real issues. And then we do not have the governing bodies to enforce accountability if they do harm. Maybe we get the system together that creates standards of training, ethics, enforcement bodies, etc. Then and only then, can we find a way to co-exist and work together. We work from very different centers of thought and accountability. When we can better align those, I see a future of us working together!
I do not recall asking for a rebuttal but we all know unhealed therapists cannot resist giving pedantic serial monologues. I, however, actually create real things. Keep telling yourself it’s not a deficit of skill .
Thank you for your feedback. So glad you are participating.
"Half the reason we’re in this predicament in the U.S. is because we handed those microphones to bros and influencers — and let them guide conversations about masculinity, marriage, economics, and politics."
100%
This also begs the question...what are we doing on Substack? Don't you think? Even a little? I wrestle with this one. I also think wrestling is important and there isn't a clear answer.
I’ve thought a lot before deciding to create an account like this. As you can tell from my name, I’m here to counter some of the nonsense circulating online from and about therapists. I enjoy writing, and while much of what I write touches on therapy, it’s really more about life. Sharing simple stories about what this work has taught me feels like offering clarity, rather than adding to the constant noise from talking heads.
Another reason I’m here — especially in the context of consulting — is that so many people use our field to push messages that are misleading or harmful. I don’t want to be part of that, and if I can offer a grounded, realistic perspective, I’ll take the opportunity.
It took me years to actually open an account like this because I wrestled with questions like, “Will I just be another talking head? What do I have to offer? Who really cares?” But seeing the misinformation circulating made it feel like I couldn’t not do it.
I also intentionally avoid taking an expert stance. Too often, people present knowledge they don’t fully have — offering absolutes without acknowledging uncertainty. I want to provide a voice that’s realistic and measured, one that doesn’t promise answers no one really knows.
I really respect this, and I grappled with similar thoughts. I ultimately chose to thread the needle differently, which, frankly, has meant extra legal work and some sleepless nights.
My primary goal was different: I'm focused on providing free psychoeducation for my specific population. I wanted a space where people could get that information on their own time, so that when they see me, we can spend less time on my 'chattering' and more time doing deeper therapeutic work. It was also a way to proactively manage all the misinformation I was spending time correcting.
I deeply respect the way you went about this. Even with our different goals, I think your choice was the better one. It's clear how much deliberate thinking went into it.
I totally see your mission! And I completely get wanting this to be an extension of your clinical work — that can be incredibly helpful. I wonder if more clinicians might start doing that: collecting their writing on these platforms and using it as a supplement. Honestly, that’s a genius idea! 😉
For me, I was looking for something less clinical, but still a space to create from this lens in an everyday, ordinary way. It all started during the pandemic, when we were being bombarded with TikTok therapy content and clients were seeking so much guidance online. My consultation group sessions often felt like a lot of head-scratching. So I thought, “let’s create our own content — talk about what’s real, what works, and what the research actually says.”
It started as a podcast and has morphed into this. Time passed, the podcast got shelved as life got busy, and I’ve been doing this piece on my own. The podcast is still on the docket for next year, but it will be grounded in conversation — open to nuance, and not directive. Just people who do this work chatting. If something resonates, great. If we’re annoying and you tune us out, fine too! Haha. And since I’m also a comedian in another life, it won’t be without humor and silliness. 😉
I agree with SSK, I was fascinated reading through this thread. First time I've seen such a deliberate discussion with divergent paths on any platform that didn't erupt into pettiness. Bravo!!!
I am an outside guy looking in and would opine that professionals like you two need to be in the public arena as professionals. I get that it is far afield from your practice/training//ethics, but maybe your profession/training/education needs a refresh for the 21st century to train and certify those who can credibly/ethically guide public discourse. It is needed now more than ever!
Love this.
As someone who has been both a patient of clinical therapists and a client of a coach ‘therapist’, I want to thank you and all true clinical therapists for taking time from overworked difficult schedules to share your wisdom on the real damage self-described life coach ‘therapists’ can cause individuals by exactly what you mentioned - pushing too soon under the guise of leadership guidance.
I suffered extreme emotional setback, financial losses, relationship damages and ongoing health issues due to following this so-called guidance to move forward into a situation I was not yet prepared to handle. The more persistent harm has been that some issues I sought help for have actually been compounded by that coach’s poor direction.
I think there are far too many people on this app giving out advice that most certainly should be done by a trained therapist. I try to make my writing “I” centered—this is what I’ve learned, this is how I think I’ve changed or what I’m grappling with. Perhaps people can draw parallels to their own circumstances but I’m not dispensing advice or being an expert either. When I find myself slipping into that territory, I self-correct as soon as I notice.
Hi Tracy — I really appreciate this approach! I think that when we simply share our own experiences, it’s often more helpful than being directive. Unless we’re talking about chocolate… then I’ll always tell you to eat it 😉
There are so many armchair experts out there with too much to say. It can be overwhelming, and it’s often incorrect anyway.
Thank you for your thoughts on such a complex dilemma. I, too, have been grappling with how to proceed within and beyond my clinical practice. Like you, I enjoy writing and desire to use it for the healing of our fragmented culture. This entire thread has been thought provoking, illuminating, and inspiring. Thank you all!
You are so welcome!
We need to have coffee!
Yes, therapy….time, place, situation….all sacred. Those of us who’ve had our share of effective, kindly, patient listening to our very soul speak know the boardroom doesn’t cut it.
Agree. Thanks for articulating this. As well as the original comment above you are commenting on. I had a very similar reaction. But couldn't put words to it as well. What struck me the most is that this pivot from therapy to coaching is like a 15 year old fad, that a lot of people are realizing was not conducive to collective healing - you can't heal people from a platform on high. You might inspire people but it recreates that trickle down effect where the people most in need get the crumbs. when they need the most energy.
Agreed! I think therapists are realizing what we’re doing isn’t sustainable, but to pivot to something else unsustainable seems silly. And that misses the whole point, and does nothing to change the system. We need real systemic change.
Since this, I wrote a piece about therapists and rebranding. And since then, I’ve seen more discourse amongst medical doctors who are choosing to shift. They’re either leaving the field or finding creative ways to see patients but outside the systems.
We’re all in this together, and it appears we are all feeling this squeeze. The systems are failing providers and patients/clients. I just hope we can right the plane before it all crashes.
Yes, it seem we are less alone than we think. That feels hopeful to imagine about doctors shifting into more mutual aid settings. Few people are unaffected by this system meltdown. But are being crushed sooner than others.
Thank you so much for this comment! You said everything I was thinking but so much more eloquently.
The thought I had was that this “take” is sort of like equating wellness culture and wellness influencers and the like with going to the doctor. Is there some value in there being a greater awareness of health and wellness in the wider culture? Sure. Is it the same as going to a board certified physician when you have a medical condition? Obviously absolutely not. Are there problems with the field and practice of medicine? Of course. Do we want there to be no doctors and only wellness coaches because of that?
Also, to me, this is all just about money. Therapists are wildly underpaid. I did the math and if our reimbursement from insurance had matched inflation, starting from what therapists were reimbursed in 1982 when our current model started, we’d currently be making about $600 a session. Instead we are reimbursed about the same amount as we were in 1982. To make money as a practice owner, at least in my city, you basically are exploiting new therapists. But sure, let’s rebrand as leadership coaches and come up with some virtuous sounds justification rather than take collective action to address the issue.
Thank you for listening to my rant. And again, thank you for your comment.
The $600 stopped me in my tracks. I am working on a sustainable model for how to do this. Let me tell you it is so hard! Happy to talk sometime. You can find my contact on the Substack. This isn't a rant. I am also so upset with the NASW for not addressing this...and then we could talk about how "self care" (dislike that phrase because it puts a systems failure on individuals) as an ethical issue. Meaning often when we make mistakes we are overworked, underpaid and burnt out. There has to be a better way.
A few decades ago, the elite therapists manipulated NASW with massive money and destroyed the social work profession. Now what!
“Also, to me, this is all just about money.”
Organizations worldwide spend close to $400 billion on leadership development, though research indicates that the vast majority do not systematically measure program outcomes. Meanwhile, celebrity speakers like Brené Brown and Adam Grant command tens of thousands of dollars per hour for corporate talks.
Money is power, influence, and freedom. Social work is a profession that helps people, families, and communities and it works well until the field of therapy took over the profession. And these elite therapists/business used massive money to water down the social work profession. And now, Brown and Grant are playing the same game with them. Get it!
Check out Scott Miller’s work called Better Results.
Funny you mention Scott Miller. Are you familiar with his earlier work on therapy?
I would love to “restack” every word you’ve written. Thank you for this 🙏🏻
LOVE everything you’ve said here, Elizabeth. Even as just a laywoman, I couldn’t agree more. Thank you so much for this eloquent and intentional and meaningful rebuttal. Honestly so glad I read this article just so I could see your comment!!
Great points. I think the shift in the mental health field is away from pathologizing not necessarily the end of therapy.
You’ve made a very useful clear distinction for me between therapy and coaching. I don’t know that the lines are blurred but instead we tend to blur the lines in our attempts to find meaning. Though bringing the concepts that Brené Brown so well defined and researched into a leadership role and work culture environment may be therapeutic and offer understanding and connection within the many environmental realms in which we all co-exist; it is vastly different from therapy and should not be considered a replacement. They are separate entities and each with their own function and role.
I appreciate this conversation and view the purpose of Substack as exactly this - an evolving dialogue.
This comment could be an excellent article here on Substack. Thank you!
I was with all of what you expressed here until the lines "Enough with Brené Brown...There are newer thinkers..." It reads as though she has nothing more to contribute. It's giving exclude when there's room to just expand.
And I am all for listening to thinkers from all backgrounds and ethnicities. Transforming psychotherapy, so it's not "healing people in the image of what dominant white culture is comfortable with" doesn't require BIPOC voices. It would benefit from more white voices advocating for change by the dominant white culture controlling things. Listening is good, but it won't dismantle the system.
Of course transforming psychotherapy in those way, requires BIPOC voices & other marginalized voices! There are too many voices in the therapy room, always have been!
Elizabeth, I do not work in this field, but I very much like your perspective, and I think it is spot on. It did not take a genius to see what the pandemic was going to do to people psychologically. I saw it coming early on, like a freight train barreling down the track straight at us. I suspect that the damage from it is still running like a vast undercurrent in society right now, even though the shiny spin paints it differently. I have no problem believing that there is more demand than ever for therapy than can be provided. By humans! Yes, this brings us to AI, because there is no way that a computer is equipped to heal the emotional or mental field of a human being. This is very dangerous territory, in my estimation. I think the most remarkable part of this post is the perspective and balance you bring to it, so thank you for that. We need to stay human, and take care of each other. ~ Susan Hart
Love your comment. Really helps put in balance what Dr Hoff has written.
I couldn’t agree more. Brené Brown is redundant. She always has been in the therapeutic sphere, other than being a writer and speaker who educates people on shame. To see her at the head of this movement is laughable.
Hard agree. She’s a brand, and in many respects always has been. Us therapists and busier than ever. No matter how many pseudopsychological pop psychology bullshit TikTok or Ai peddles won’t change that because therapy is not about being told what you want to hear. It’s about the relationship and the willingness to be uncomfortable, to change.
"What about healing as a messy, nonlinear, human right? What about just being okay with being average? What about connection as the real, biological foundation of care?" Exactly! Why do we have to always commodify and pivot everything, even the human need for one-on-one, human relationships.
Curious as an amateur about the newer thinkers you mention. Would you be so kind as to direct me to a post on that you might gave done already?
(I am going to answer your comment and speak to another comment below at the same time….it is time for those of us who have been around awhile to make room for other voices.) Frankly, I’m fine with the idea of our field evolving and people moving on to new voices. All work, even the most foundational, can grow stale. I know mine does. We need fresh perspectives to keep our work alive and relevant.
For a long time, colleagues of mine have recommended I actively look for sources and research from BIPOC authors in the social sciences. We can go over all the reasons why this is a good idea, but for me, it’s simple. Historically, in my field, the voices of white men and women have long been seen as the most prevalent. Publishing has been very, very challenging for others, and that means we’ve missed out on crucial perspectives.
Now, this doesn't mean I use material if it isn't quality work. It means I make the effort to find the quality work that has been historically marginalized.
As a clinician in my 50s, I am fine with saying it is time for my wisdom to fuel the voice of those who come behind me. This doesn't mean my time is done. It means the meaning of my work is shifting. It means the meaning now comes from making space for others, from amplifying their work, and from using my position to pass the mic. (To reference another older thinker - don’t know if you are familiar with the 8 stages of man…..?)
I have a personal method that I’ve developed over the years—a way of checking the "pulse" of my own profession. Periodically, I do a little digital fieldwork. I look up social work programs online to see what's really going on inside the academy.
Who is teaching? Who is being hired as faculty? What are their backgrounds and clinical interests?
What research is being done? What topics are being funded and published? What is being valued as "serious" scholarship?
What is on the syllabus? When I can find them, I look at who is being taught. Whose theories are considered "foundational" and whose are "elective"?
I intentionally look at two very different types of institutions. First, the "well-known" programs— like Smith College or University of Michigan that act as "gatekeepers." (Ok that sounded weird. I don’t really mean gatekeepers….they capture a particular audience.) Second, and just as importantly, I look at the programs historically for commuters, working adults, and first-generation graduate students. These are, in my opinion, a place where one may find more of the front line of social work education. (This doesn’t mean those of us who went to big name schools are less than…) As a clinical social worker, many in my professional - well, we are leaning away from working with those most in need. Not all of us, of course…and we all have to change professionally. Sadly what this looks like is the newest social workers are working with those with the most need and most complexity. I think about the cases from earlier in my career and those now and there is a sharp contrast. (There is a lot I could say about why this is and it isn’t all about personal choice or as simple as being a “sell out.”)
Anyway, I do this because social work is a field that is, at its core, supposed to be about accessibility, but it has a lengthy, complicated history that has often said the exact opposite. This practice of looking at the curriculum, at who is teaching and what is being researched, is part of a larger commitment to ensuring our field's "ivory tower" doesn't become so high that it can no longer see the street. This is one way I try to walk the fine line of my obligation to the field. It is not a perfect method. I am not perfect. This is one of the things I do to manage the path I have taken as a clinician in private practice. I know others do other things. Yet, this is how I find people I consider to be the leaders who are pushing our field forward.
So, in response to that original question, here are just a few of the therapists, social workers, and researchers whose work I am following:
Resmaa Menakem, MSW, LICSW: His book My Grandmother's Hands is essential reading on racialized trauma and how it lives in the body. He is a leading voice in somatic abolitionism. (Critical read for all…again, in my opinion. Doing this is a group with a trained facilitator is what I found most helpful.)
Nedra Glover Tawwab, LCSW: A social worker whose work on boundaries (like her book Set Boundaries, Find Peace) has become a cornerstone for modern clinical practice.
Dr. Joy Harden Bradford, Ph.D.: The founder of "Therapy for Black Girls." She has an incredible podcast and community focused on the specific mental health needs of Black women.
Dr. Shawn Ginwright, Ph.D.: A key researcher who is moving the conversation from "trauma-informed care" to "healing-centered engagement," which is a crucial, systemic shift.
Dr. Mariel Buquè, Ph.D.: A psychologist whose work focuses on decolonizing therapy and healing intergenerational trauma through a more holistic lens.
This is a starting point for you. I also find a lot of what I call clinical wisdom in literature and art. I have moved away from reading thinkers like me. I don’t find it revolutionary — or what I read is something close to some ideas I have had here or there. I find hearing from those who are different forces me to make larger shifts in my thinking…that is what I am interested in at this point. That may not be what others want and that is ok. There are other researchers out there I would lift up if you are interested. Please feel free to DM me for more information.
This comment should be an essay, thank you !
I deeply resonate and loudly celebrate your identification of therapy moving into a larger “room” so to speak, because the goal of therapy (in my opinion) is learning the art of building bridges over personal disconnection and grief; the better we connect with ourselves and the areas we’ve been disconnected the more effective (in a non-corporate and icky way) we are at receiving true healing that likely can only come from community. Relational wounds need relational healing, and currently the workplace is the cornerstone of most adults’ lives. This is sustainable healing, and all the tools we can conceptualize “on the bridge” in therapy as we bravely look down into the chasm of our pain, can be truly integrated on a larger and more holistic level. Fantastic piece, thank you for articulating this!
She’s a researcher, not a therapist and there is great work out there both before and after hers. Many brands change direction, scale, or rebrand, especially when solid funding and platforms are available to support it, like the BetterUp partnership she announced last year. A lot of it comes from a profound place of privilege that is not always discussed. From opportunity to accessibility for folks.
I definitely agree with you Linda. Therapy as a whole is a deeply colonial construct with a very dark and violent past (especially against BIPOC and other minorities). One tool I’ve used as a POC when discussing privilege is to replace that specific word with “mobility”. Privilege has become such a buzzword/ weapon that I find it actually shuts down conversations and curiosity, whereas mobility captures and communicates what privilege actually DOES as an action word. For example, driving vs taking the bus results in two very different kinds of access to the world. Or as you mentioned with literal accessibility (be it financial or physical disability-wise), one’s mobility/ privilege plays a huge role. However just as Rosa Parks wasn’t actually the first black woman to refuse to give up her seat, she did become the ultimate face of a movement much greater than her. We all stand on the shoulders of our predecessors, with the goal of honouring them by doing better for the next generation vs fighting over who gets the official credit of doing it first.
There is so much goodness here in this comment. Like you I am using changing language because of the buzzword status including with belonging. I’m shifting to relational gravity since belonging is often code for “Well, we told you you belong so why don’t you feel that way?” Access gets me fired up. It’s not enough to “send the elevator back down”. You better make sure the door is unlocked, they had directions, a way to get there, etc. There’s so many things not considered and it’s very easy with all the access in the world to talk about a horizon other folks can’t even see. Also, following you immediately. :)
relational gravity vs belonging!!!!! Wow I’m going to add that to my personal lil dictionary! Thank you for that, I feel like we could have a great conversation about this. My personal intersectionality as biracial has left me with maaannyy convoluted experiences around “belonging”and I bet you have your fair share as well. Thank you for this lovely engagement, it’s a gift to engage with heart-forward individuals online <3
Brilliant and well thought out comment. This should be an essay all unto itself. Well done. You gave me lots to consider.
Capitalism, women, children … YES! 🙌
That can be arranged!! I have many thoughts, and have read most of her books :D I actually prefer that she’s a researcher > therapist since she’s brought such great attention and clarity to the infrastructure, language, and peripheral culture that shapes therapy vs therapy itself.
Very strong argument! I love that you took the time to write this amazing response which I read with interest. You brought me back to the essence of our work. Please keep on defending the SW field!
Yes building bridges exactly!!
Thank you for your response and taking the time to educate us on your field of expertise. I love your passion and witness as the voice of the voiceless. Your work cannot be replaced especially now and after the fallout rains down from today’s messy world .
Couldn’t be said better!
Love this! Thank you for communicating all of this in manageable form! And - I have an idea for a follow-up...
I’d love to hear your idea :)
Thank you for this reply.
Fangirling over the Brené Brown brand as an institution healer is… something.
Brown didn’t rebrand. She bailed.
She got sick of being seen as “the help” who receives everyone’s trauma dumps, got tired of feigning grace, and wanted a seat at the corporate table so she could be taken seriously by bigger spenders. She knowledge vamped therapy and sold it back to leadership, turning emotions into corporate virtues to complete the feminisation of institutions.
She didn’t dare to lead. She dared to believe her ideas were a balm for workplaces, and in doing so, gave more ammo to the narcissists and corporate psychopaths to perform empathy so they can use your trust against you later. Workplace bullying and abuse stats haven’t gone down since vulnerability and empathy were sold as corporate virtues, and now the abusers have more tools to work with. Thanks Brené.
Institutions haven’t improved since her brand of leadership took over. And now she’s going to do even more.
We’re in a discernment crisis. Choose your heroes and elders wisely.
"We’re in a discernment crisis. Choose your heroes and elders wisely." - wow, yes!
This is the one. This is the take I’ve been longing to see articulated. She didn’t shift and adapt- she jumped ship. It’s as much as an indicator for the ‘field of therapy’ as it is for everything and everyone else with corporate overlords in late stage feudalistic capitalism.
Far too many corporations buy the books and hire the speakers for a superficial cultural rebranding, and not an actual attention to the things that matter in improving culture. Thanks for your comment.
I’m glad it resonated. Corporate gaslighting is lucrative!
There are not enough words for how much I admire the perspective of this post. Thank you.
Maybe my comment will seem unserious but I am being dead serious saying this: what if it was because it is because of corporate we end up in therapy?
Of course the modern capitalist system is what is making many people sick.
I occupy 2 worlds, part- time therapist, part time finance professional. I’m leaving the latter because being around that level of dysfunction is becoming too dysregulating for me. It’s endemic in that field. The workaholism, people barely holding their personal lives together & using work to prop themselves up. I can’t do it anymore.
I echo Vilma’s thoughts! And if you choose to stay in both professions, you can become a Certified Financial Therapist (CFT). There are so few globally, and I’m sure it would expand your brand and reach. Regardless, congrats on having two very cool jobs!
But think about it, what you’re doing is so cool. Not many dare two hold two very different jobs like you’ve done so far. Wow!
Agree! I cringe when my work tries to do anything resembling therapy. It generally is clumsy and impersonal.
Not at all. The number of times I mentioned capitalism in my therapy sessions is…astounding.
Completely agree.
exactly and often it is
Brené is a canny businesswoman. Until the west acknowledges that the pursuit of growth at any cost is destroying our planet and chances of survival, aiding the corporate sector is no more than an opportunist sell-out. Tweaking a psychopathic system is collusion in our destruction.
If you take empathy to the workplace and people start to see the nuances of a broken system, it could be the end of corporations has we know it.
I'm nauseated by a frankly mercenary act being extolled as virtuous revolution. What a lot of garbage. A real revolution would be seeing the mental health industrial complex for what it is and doing some good despite yourselves.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but she was never a therapist. She was a researcher. She never counseled anyone in a clinical setting.
I made a long comment above, but I noted this too. Much like the author of this piece, Brené has always been a bit out of touch with therapy — because she’s an academic. And what we need less of are people who aren’t doing the work commenting on the work.
We don’t need a rebrand to “consultant.” Can therapists consult? Absolutely. But when you start pulling us out of clinical roles and rebranding us as consultants, you lose the value of ethics, evidence, skill — all the things that make therapy what it is.
I understand what he’s saying, but it’s not a direction actual clinicians can take. Brené isn’t setting a trend here. The world doesn’t respect therapists to the degree this author imagines. People minimize, downplay, and simply don’t value the work we do.
Who’s going to hire me as a “consultant” just because of my degree and credentials? Because Brené Brown did it?
What we need are clinicians leading the charge — and a system and society that respects the work. The field isn’t “shrinking” because it needs a rebrand. It’s struggling because it needs value: better pay, less corporate and insurance regulation, and more flexibility in how we deliver care.
Yeah, I didn't find any credentials showing that she's a licensed therapist. Seems like she's only done research and never micro work with individual clients in her professional career.
The first problem with people assuming that Brené is shifting her work from the therapy realm to consulting is that she has not been working as a therapist. She is a researcher and has been a professor. She has also been speaking for a very long time on her research regarding vulnerability and shame to large organizations. Many of us who are in therapy (and many practicing therapists) resonated deeply with her messaging (and her two early TED talks), and this gave her a reputation as America’s therapist, which is not a role she ever asked for (as she discussed in a recent interview in the NY Times). I am a big fan of Brené’s work, but I don’t feel at all that the work she is doing now is anything more than a continuation of what she has been doing all along.
As I said, we have a discernment problem.
I think most “coaching” is a complete crock.
Therapy is indeed changing. It’s a shift to building resilience and agency. What happens when you walk out of the room? It’s that time that matters most. And what can we do as a collective to reach more people. Community and connection matters.
Yes
Interesting thoughts. Nothing comes to mind to add at this time, but like all systems on this planet, the therapeutic world needs to change. We’re in transition. Now that I’ve written that, one thought jumps out, it’s not so much for me about following anyone else but rather what comes to express from within me, in the world.
As someone who spent over 25 years in executive coaching before completing a master’s in clinical psychology, I find this piece both fascinating and necessary, a long overdue wake-up call for the therapeutic field.
I went back to graduate school not to pivot careers but to deepen my own inner work. When memories from early childhood trauma resurfaced, I realized it was time to understand, through both personal and professional lenses, what true healing required. It was a classic case of “healer, heal thyself.” That process reshaped my perspective on both coaching and therapy.
As a coach, I often found myself working from a more therapeutic lens. During graduate school, I found myself as a new therapist working from a more coaching lens. That overlap revealed just how artificial the divide between the two fields really is. Sitting in those classrooms, I couldn’t help but notice how upside down much of the system felt, so focused on diagnosis, billing codes, and symptom reduction that it risked producing competent technicians rather than embodied practitioners. The model still treats the human condition as a checklist instead of a living process.
There’s also the professional gatekeeping to contend with. After publishing my first book, I noticed how quickly the conversation could turn to credentials rather than lived experience. That was partly what sent me back, to earn the degree, yes, but also to integrate the experience I’d already been living and teaching for decades.
It’s time for the field to expand. The rigid state-by-state licensing boundaries and the obsession with manualized methods don’t reflect the reality of an interconnected world. The next generation of practitioners must bring both depth and adaptability, people who embody the work, not just understand it.
That’s why I resonate so strongly with Brené’s evolution. She hasn’t abandoned vulnerability or healing; she’s translated them into broader human systems where they can actually shape culture. The challenge, and the opportunity, for our profession is to follow suit. The world doesn’t just need more therapists. It needs more whole humans who have done their own work and can help others do the same, wherever that work happens to take place.
Great. What’s next? HR prescribing psychotropic meds to underperforming employees? Soma, perhaps?
You get it, this is the ultimate crock of shit from the parasitic managerial class.
Didn't ger book dare to lead get published in 2018? So she's talked about organizational development for quite some time
What factual basis is there for the statement “therapy is shrinking?”
Came here for the comments. Thank you all for already naming what I was thinking. Brene has never been a therapist. She was a researcher and has been talking about leadership for a long time. Also, from my perspective as a therapist, there is nothing shrinking about this profession. In fact, we have a therapist shortage from the demand in my area. I also see Brene as a mid-career professional pivoting to follow her authenticity as many of us do after doing something for twenty years.
Yes. When I refocused my career midlife because I was bored and ready to think differently, no one commented.