How to Manage a Challenging MBA Recommender

Obtaining a great letter of recommendation is one of the most important aspects of the business school application process. This  is one of the only external reference points the Admissions Committee can use to evaluate your performance and future potential for success, so it goes without saying  that  your  recommendations are really, really important! For most applicants, the request and submission process for their recommenders is pretty straightforward   at top firms and large companies, many recommenders already have some experience writing recommendations and fully support the applicant’s pursuit of an MBA. For others, however, this process can be far more difficult.  Let’s discuss a few ways a recommender can prove challenging during the MBA application process, and what you can do to counter such issues: Missing Deadlines: This is probably the worst of the recommender offenses, because if a recommendation is not submitted on time, then your application is not considered complete by the Admissions Committee. Therefore, you must be confident that your recommender will adhere to all formal and informal deadlines you impose on them to write your letter of recommendation. There are many things an applicant will stress about during  the application process whether a recommender submits their evaluation or not should not be one of them. I recommend setting up faux deadlines a week in advance of the actual ones to ensure you have a few buffer days just in case your recommender slips up. Not Supportive: Not all recommenders are supportive  of applicants leaving  their company. Whether it is because they do not think the applicant is ready, do not want to replace  them,  or are just plain jealous of the opportunity, the  decision to apply to business school is not always met with a positive response. Ideally, you will have some feel for this potential problem in advance of selecting your recommender, but if you cant get around it, make your rationale for applying to business school clear and be openly  thankful of the training and inspiration provided by the firm and by the recommender. Charm and holding a polite, thankful disposition can go a long way here. A Poor Writer: Is your recommender a bad  writer?  This can be a problem if the clarity of their evaluation is impacted by their lack of writing skills. Keep in mind, you will not be  penalized for the writing of your recommender, but the better the writing, the more effective and better-received the recommendation will be by the Admissions Committee, so don’t be afraid to lean on your recommender to give it their best! Lazy: The lazy recommender is, unfortunately, more common than wed  like to see. Whether it is a case of being too busy or just putting the minimal effort into writing the recommendation, laziness  can have a very negative impact on your application.   If a recommender can’t commit to writing as thorough of an evaluation as possible, then that person is probably not your best option. The more you can support this type of recommender with information about your candidacy, the program you are applying to, and the application process, the better their evaluation will be.  Be active in providing the necessary coaching and support  to your recommender  when it comes to this aspect of the application. Be aware of these challenging profiles when reaching out to a potential recommender,  and use the above tips to make the most of your MBA letters of  recommendation. Applying to business school? Call us at 1-800-925-7737 and speak with an MBA admissions expert today, or take our free MBA Admissions Profile Evaluation  for personalized advice for your unique application situation! As always, be sure to find us on  Facebook,  YouTube,  Google+  and Twitter. Dozie A.  is a Veritas Prep Head Consultant for the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. His specialties include consulting, marketing, and low GPA/GMAT applicants. You can read more articles by him  here.

The Justification of Intellectual Property Rights - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 5 Words: 1554 Downloads: 3 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Law Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? Most of the recent theoretical writing, justifying intellectual property rights consists of struggles among and within four approaches. These theories are commonly referred as labor, utilitarian, personality and social planning theory. The labor theory that currently dominate the theoretical literature springs from the propositions that a person who labors upon resources that are either unowned or à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“held in commonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  has a natural property right to the fruits of his efforts and that the state has a duty to respect and enforce that natural right. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "The Justification of Intellectual Property Rights" essay for you Create order These ideas, originating in the writings of John Locke, are widely thought to be especially applicable to the field of intellectual property, where the pertinent raw materials (facts and concepts) do seem in some sense to be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“held in commonà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and where labor seems to contribute so importantly to the value of finished products.[1] The intuition is that the person who clears unowned land, cultivates crops, builds a house, or creates a new invention obtains property rights by engaging in these activities. The labor justification is mostly held in Europe and is included in the Berne Convention. In France it is specifically encoded in the so called droits moraux, or moral rights, that French authors have in addition to economic rights. The moral rights involve things such as the right to decide whether something is to be published, the right to withdraw it from the market, and the right of attribution. They cannot be sold by the author, and are perpetual. Th e interests that the labor justification centers on mostly are those of authors and publishers. This theory grounded on two basic propositions. According to the first proposition, the preservation of mankind is a fundamental law ofnature; it is Godà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s will. From this, it is infers that man has a natural obligation to ensure his preservation[2]. This implies that man has a natural right to his preservation and to the means necessary for his preservation (e.g., meat and drink).[3] The second proposition is that God gave the earth à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“to mankind in common.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [4] However, for man to enjoy the fruits of the earth, for those fruits to be at all beneficial to any particular man, there must to be a wayto appropriatethese fruits so that others can no longer claim them.[5] Locke the devotee of this philosophy, asserts that everyone has a property right over his own person and hence also over the labor of his body and the work of his hands.[6 ] This brings him to his famous explanation of the origin of property rights: the appropriation of a thing occurs by man applying his laborto it, by mixingthe thing with his labor. By means of his labor he adds something of his own to the thing and this way he excludes others from having a right to it. For such acquisition of property, the consent of the other à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“commonersà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  is not required, Locke maintains.[7] Appropriation can never amount to robbery of others because everyone has the right to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“his shareà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  and no more than that. à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“His shareà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  corresponds with what he can use. The consent of others could only be required if the rights or liberties of others are being violated and this cannot be the case if no one appropriates more than à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“his share.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [8] However, Locke specifies two provisos that must be met in order for the appropriation to be justifiable. The first condition is the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“enough and as goodà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  condition: there must be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“enough, and as good left in common for others.à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚ [9] Thus, things may only be appropriated if, afterwards, a sufficient number of the same or similar things remain (similar also in terms ofquality the remainder must be just as good). The second condition is the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"non-wasteà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ condition. Man is not allowed to appropriate more than he can use (even if he made the things in question himself).[10] Alternative interpretation of Lockes labor justification can be called the labor-desert or value-added theory. This position holds that when labor produces something of value to others, something beyond what morality requires the laborer to produce then the laborer deserves some benefit for it.[11] This understanding of property does not require an analysis of the idea of labor. Labor is not necessarily a process that produces value to others . It is counterintuitive to say labor exists only when others value the thing produced. It also would be counter to Lockes example of the individual laboring and appropriating goods for himself alone. The labor-desert theory asserts that labor often creates social value, and it is this production of social value that deserves reward, not the labor that produced it. On the other hand the problem with labor theory is: if one accepts that mixing labor with something occasions the coming into existence of a property right, the question remains as to the boundaries of that property right. How can one decide what exactly has become the property of the person who performed the labor? This question can also be put in terms ofthe valueof the result. A distinction should be made between the value attributed to the object of the labor and the value attributed to the labor itself (in other words, the addedvalue). Determining the proportionality of each of these values in respect of the total value of the object to which labor has been applied would seem to be very difficult.This weakens the justificatory strength of the labor theory of property. Another problem is that à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"intellectual objectsà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ usually stem from ideas of predecessors. The labor of these predecessors also forms a component in the total value of the final result a component whose valuevaries case by case. This has important implications for the question who is entitled to the value of the final result. As Edwin Hettinger explains: A person who relies on human intellectual history and makes a small modification to produce something of great value should no more receive what the market will bear than should the last person needed to lift a car receive full credit for lifting it. If laboring gives the laborer the right to receive the market value of the resulting product, this market value should be shared by all those whose ideas contributed to the origin of the product . The fact that most of these contributors are no longer present to receive their fair share is not a reason to give the entire market value to the last contributor.[12] The question also arises as to whether Lockeà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢s two provisos apply in the context of intellectual, abstract, intangible objects (as opposed to tangible objects). As for the second proviso, man may only appropriate as much property as he can use, the question arises, e.g., whether waste can occur in the case of ideas. It seems unlikely that an idea as such could be à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"wasted,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ but the possibilities offered by an idea can be. If someone acquires an intellectual property right on an idea and does nothing with it, the à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"non-wasteà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ provision would seem to be violated. If something is left unused by the appropriator, while others need it, the waste is all the greater. For example, taking into consideration the patent system (intellectual prop erty right). One aspect of this system that can certainly induce waste is that, in its present form, it does not oblige patent holders to à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"workà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ (exploit) their invention. The history of the patent system shows that this has not always been the case in industrialized countries, and in most developing countries, a à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"working requirementà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ for patented inventions has existed until recently (or continues to exist).Even if a patent is exploited, waste can occur. For the result of granting a patent is that the patentee can put restrictions on the use of the invention. Since a characteristic feature of the objects of intellectual property rights is their so-called à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‹Å"non-exclusiveà ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã¢â€ž ¢ nature (the fact that they can be used by many people simultaneously), limiting their use artificially can indeed amount to waste. The extent of the waste would seem to depend on the extent to which others need the invent ion in question. In short, one can justify propertizing ideas under Lockes approach with three propositions: first, that the production of ideas requires a persons labor; second, that these ideas are appropriated from a common which is not significantly devalued by the ideas removal; and third, that ideas can be made property without breaching the non-waste condition. Many people implicitly accept these propositions. Indeed, the Lockean explanation of intellectual property has immediate, intuitive appeal: it seems as though people do work to produce ideas and that the value of these ideas especially since there is no physical component depends solely upon the individuals mental à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“work. Bibliography. Becker, The Moral Basis of Property Rights Hughes J, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property (Georgetown Law Journal 1988) Guardian. Available [Online] at: https://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/tfisher/iptheory.html#_ftn5 [Accessed: 1/11/2014]. Hettinger C, Jus tifying Intellectual Property Locke, II, V, 25, 26, 27, 28, 31,36,37,38, 46 [1] , Justin Hughes, The Philosophy of Intellectual Property, Georgetown Law Journal, 77 (1988): 287, at 299-330 [2] Locke, II, V, 25. [3] Ibid. [4] Ibid. [5] Locke, II, V, 26 [6] Locke, II, V, 27 [7] Locke, II, V, 28. [8] Locke, II, V, 36 and II, V, 46 [9] Locke, II, V, 27 [10] Locke, II, V, 31. See also Locke, II, V, 37 and II, V, 38 [11] Becker, The Moral Basis of Property Rights, IN PROPERTY, NOMOS XXII, supra note 4, at 187, 193. [12] Erwin C. Hettinger, à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã…“Justifying Intellectual Property,à ¢Ã¢â€š ¬Ã‚  Philosophy Public Affairs 18 (1989)1: 38.

Was Marcus Garvey The Most Significant African American...

To what extent was Marcus Garvey the most significant African American civil rights leader in the period 1865-1945? The period between 1865 and 1945 saw some of the most dramatic social, political and economic changes in America. The key issue of black civil rights throughout this period was advocated and led by a range of significant, emotive and inspiring leaders. Marcus Garvey was a formidable public speaker and is often named as the most popular black nationalist leader of the early twentieth century. He believed in pan-Africanism and came nearer than any other black leader in mobilising African American masses. He was hailed as a redeemer and a â€Å"Black Moses† who tried to lead ‘his people back to freedom’. However, arguably although†¦show more content†¦In many ways it could be argued that Marcus Garvey was the most significant African American civil rights leader of this time because of his role in tackling the social issues African American’s faced. He aimed to improve the lives of African Americans by encouraging them to take control of their own aff airs and education. His role surrounding this issue is illustrated by his founding of the UNIA. This Universal Negro Improvement Association was an organisation dedicated to racial pride, economic self sufficiency and the formation of an independent black nation in Africa. Through this and the magazine the ‘Negro World’ he urged African Americans to be proud of their race, and argued â€Å"a people without the knowledge of their past history, origin and culture is like a tree without roots†. It has been said that through Garvey’s dedication to social improvement for his race he managed to capture the imagination of many blacks for whom the American Dream was a dirty joke. Although Garvey is heralded as such as strong figure in the improvement of social issues in this period, many other activists took different approaches. For example Washington was an important figure who believed the best interests of African Americans could be realised through education in the crafts and industrial skills. To implement this he founded the Tuskegee school, which had over 100

Therapeutic Boundaries in Relation To Transfrence - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theTherapeutic Boundaries in Relation To Transfrence. Answer: Counseling within the mental health service requires maintenance of therapeutic boundaries between the client and the therapist. Therapeutic boundaries are the expected psychological and social distance between the therapist and the client(Gutheil Gabbard, 2013). It involves issues such as the therapists self-disclosure, involvement with the client outside the office, the length of sessions, touch and exchanging gifts. Transference and countertransference are concepts that come up during therapy and it is necessary to maintain healthy boundaries when they arise. Sigmund Freud described countertransference as an unconscious phenomenon whereby the therapists emotions are influenced by a client and causes the therapist to react in a certain way(Kring, et al., 2013). On the other hand, transference refers to a phenomenon whereby the client transfers their feelings about a significant person in theirlives to the therapist. These feelings are usually manifested in many forms such as hatre d, mistrust, rage and extreme dependence on the therapist. This paper will focus on exploring the therapeutic boundaries needed when counselling within the mental health service in relation to the concepts of transference and countertransference. One of therapeutic boundaries involves the therapists self-disclosure. Therapists have the choice to share their own feelings and experiences with their clients but with some moderation.Excessive self-disclosure may lead the therapist to spend a lot of time focusing on their feelings and experiences and deny the client the chance to have their issues handled(Derlaga Berg, 2013). Excessive disclosure on the therapists side may also blur their ability to recognize the presence of countertransference and generally interfere with the therapeutic process since it will be based on the therapists feelings and not the clients. However, when therapists establish healthy boundaries in regards to self-disclosure, they are able to share their own experiences with their clients and they may use countertransference consciously to understand the differences between their experiences and those of their clients in order to ensure the therapeutic process is objective(Henretty, et al., 2014). Moderate self-disclosure can enable the therapist to identify the countertransference and help the client in understanding their issues better and it also makes therapists more empathetic since they understand the clients situation (Henretty, et al., 2014). The therapists are also able to recognize transference in the client when they give more time for the client to talk about their feelings and experiences (Brown 2017). It is important to recognize whenever any unconscious countertransference occurs by having healthy boundaries set when it comes to self-disclosure (Butcher, Minieka and Hooley 2013). Involvement with the client outside the office is another therapeutic boundary that is important within the mental health service. The relationship between a client and a therapist is supposed to be strictly within the counselling environment. One of the common ways in which transference and countertransference is usually manifested is through an erotic attraction between the therapist and the client(Fuertes Cheng, 2013). The client may want to initiate dates and extra meetings outside the therapeutic timeline in order to fulfill the feelings that result from the transference. It is important for the therapists to recognize the transference in their patients so that they can be aware of the motives their clients might have and even how the clients might be eliciting a countertransference in them. By limiting the involvement with clients outside the office, the therapist is able to avoid other ethical problems such as dual relationships and romantic relationships with their clients. In addition, they avoid encouraging the clients to dwell on the feelings that result from transference such as erotic attractions and instead focus on issues that will promote the wellbeingof the client. Extreme dependence of the client on the therapist can also be as a result of transference. For example, a client who experiences social isolation may make the therapist the central part of their social life, such a client might want to constantly interact with the therapist outside the office as a way to fulfill their social wellbeing. It is important for the therapist to establish their stand on maintaining a professional relationship within the counselling environment and avoid giving the client any indications contrary to this(Corey, 2015). Countertransference may also lead the therapist to be over involved in the clients situation. Once the client has shared their problem with the therapist, the therapist might remember a similar occasion that occurred in their lives and it may trigger outrage in them. For example, when the client is a rape victim and the therapist also had a similar incident happen to them or someone close to them it brings back the negative feelings that result ed from that incident and it may provoke the therapist to be either under or overinvolved with the client. Because of this, they may want to make an extra effort beyond the therapeutic counselling process to try and help their clients. This constitutes involvement with the client outside the counselling set up that may eventually compromise the outcome of the therapeutic process. In a case where the therapists considers it necessary to intervene in the patients situation, they have to clearly explain to the client their reasons for intervening to avoid misinterpretations that may arise (Pope Vaquez, 2016).Maintaining a therapeutic boundary that prevents involvement outside the therapeutic relationship can help the therapist in dealing with issues arising from transference and countertransference henceensuring the credibility of the mental health service. However, there are some unique circumstances that may necessitate an interaction with the client outside the counselling session. For example, when the client suddenly falls ill and the therapist goes to visit him at the hospital to help him deal with the vulnerability of the situation. In such a situation, the therapist has to explain to the client the significance of the visit in the context of their therapeutic relationship to avoid misinterpretation (Brown 2017). Touch and exchange of gifts between the client and the therapist are also issues that come into consideration when discussing therapeutic boundaries. These two concepts are usuallyinvolved when individuals have a nonprofessional relationship and therefore, it becomes unethical when the relationship between the client and the therapists comprises of exchanging gifts and intimate touching(Zur, 2015). It may also trigger a romantic relationship which is against the code of ethics for counsellors. In reference to transference and counter transference, touch and exchange of gifts might elevate the feelings of attraction that occurs between the client and the therapist. It will affect the therapeutic relationship since the gestures might be misinterpreted by both parties as an initiation of a relationship or a response to their romantic feelings. For example, a client who once had a loved one who constantly showered them with gifts and reassured them with intimate touching might misinterpr et a simple gesture of comfort as a show of affection because of transferring the feelings they got from their loved one to the therapist. A therapist may also experience countertransference when they receive a gift from aclient since it might trigger certain memories related to receiving gifts from someone else in their lives. Crossing this boundary interferes with the objectivity of the therapeutic process since it compromises the professional relationship between the client and the therapist (Beck, Freeman and Davis 2015). Sexual relationship between the therapist and the client should be avoided. Sexual misconduct usually results from other subsequent boundary violations, such a s exchanging gifts and meeting outside the counseling set up (Butler, Chapman, Forman 2016). Due to transference, a client may develop intimate feelings for the therapists and make moves towards achieving a sexual relationship with them. They may do this by initiating dates and offering gifts and favors in exchange for the services offered by the therapist. It is important for the therapist to recognize the presence of any transference in the therapeutic relationship with the client and help the client in acknowledging and understanding those feelings(Paul, 2015). Failing to recognize and address these feelings may eventually result in a sexual relationship with the client which ruins the professional relationship. The therapists might also see a resemblance in physical appearance or mannerisms of a client that triggers memori es of a former or current sexual partner (Henretty, et al., 2014). This may result in them thinking of the client in a sexual way. The therapists has to recognize that the feelings are not directly related to their clients but instead they are a representation of someone else. By doing this, they can be able to avoid getting into a sexual relationship with the client and disrupting the therapeutic relationship. It will also prevent further problems related to code of ethics (Henretty, et al., 2014). Therapeutic boundaries also need to be established when it comes to the length of sessions between the client and the therapist. A therapist should give each client an equal session and avoid giving preference to particular clients (Henretty, et al., 2014). The length of the session will limit the therapist from going beyond the scope of their session and instead focusing on the important aspects of the session. For example, when countertransference occurs, a therapist is more likely to talk about their experiences and feelings. This gives the client less time to have their issues addressed. When there is an allocated length of time for a particular session, the therapists can organize themselves better to ensure the client is given more time to talk about their issues. Once the therapist recognizes the presence of countertransference when engaging with a particular client, they may then organize the time they have to ensure they focus on the relevant information and avoid deviating to less important information(Sharpless Barber, 2015).Transference in counselling might occur when a client views the therapist as one of their close friend or a family member. Maybe the individual had a family member who never used to listen to them and they may take the therapist as being that close family member (Henretty, et al., 2014). They may want to talk with the therapists for longer periods and they may feel frustrated when the therapist allocates only a few minutes to them since they generalize that everyone does not like to listen to them. Before the first session begins it is important to clarify with the client the length of the sessions you will be having with them so that there is no misinterpretation on the length of time allocated to them (Henretty, et al., 2014). In therapy Transference is the transferal of patients feelings from a significant person to the therapist while counter transference is noted as the rerouting of the therapist emotional state towards the client (Henretty, et al., 2014). Therefore it is important that therapeutic boundaries are in place so that a beneficial relationship that takes place is not violated and at the same time the client is able to get the treatment he or she needs in the most professional way possible this article explores this boundaries within a mental service environment. Boundaries are important in any client patient relation, and can be violated within these different parameters which are Power, Trust, Respect and personal closeness (Brown 2017). In this case, in reference to power the client sees the therapist as all powerful, and it is because of this that the client comes to the therapist for guidance or help (Beck, Freeman and Davis 2015). It is therefore very easy for the therapist to violate this power, and infringe on the patients rights for instance, the Therapist changing the time set for therapy without liaising with the patient or forcing the patient to attend therapy would show abuse of power. In reference to counter transference the therapist might want to use the power he has to ask a victim who was maybe sexually abused by a former therapist into not reporting the incidence or even go further into making the patient believe that incident never happened (Drum and Littleton 2014). In addition, trust and respect between the patient and therapist come in handy, and are essential this is because the Clients have confidence that the therapist knows what he is doing and has the skills, and aptitudes to give the best care possible. The therapist should ensure that the client can trust him and thus confidently share whatever issues that the client might have help (Beck, Freeman and Davis 2015). In regards to Respect, Therapist is accountable in regards to a client this irrespective of color of the skin, faith, age, or health status (Khalikova 2016). Last but not least Personal closeness is also a boundary that needs to be addressed therapist that are inclined to psychoanalysis are probably not likely to touch their patients this is because their hypothetical model expect that physical contact may satisfy transference unrealities that should be comprehended, and not carried out. Some therapists affected by this school of thought are more disposed to embrace routinely toward the finish of sessions help (Beck, Freeman and Davis 2015). Personal space is important in mental health this is because some of these patients are violent and some may not want to be touched or any slight provocation would result in the client withdrawing from therapy (Khalikova 2016). Therefore, when boundaries in therapy are crossed and above parameters are upheld it is noted not to be harmful to the patient or the therapist, and is sometimes allowed in therapy but it is wise to note that in the mental health it is not advisable to cross any boundary as thi s might be detrimental, and when boundaries are violated the infringe on the patients rights, and this might also become harmful not only to the patient but also to the therapist (Geller and Srikameswaran 2015). In conclusion, a mental healthcare provider should maintain high therapeutic relationship. Therapeutic boundaries are the probable social and physical distance between the therapist and the client; this involves issues such as the therapists self-disclosure, involvement with the client outside the office, the length of sessions, touch and exchanging gifts. In this case, transference refers to an occurrence whereby the client transfers their feelings about their personal their lives to the therapist. Such feelings are usually manifested in many forms such as h mistrust, hatred rage and high dependence on the therapist. Therefore, it is important for the therapist to identify and deal with transference and countertransference that occurs during therapy by putting in place firm boundaries. The therapist should give the client a secure environment to express their feelings including the uncomfortable ones. By understanding the therapists own countertransference, he is able to manage the outcomes to ensure it does not jeopardize the wellbeing of the clients. It also provides an opportunity for the therapist to be more empathetic since they can relate to the clients experiences. The therapists ability to understand the clients transference can be a great tool in treatment since it indicates the source of the problem and the therapists can establish the proper way to help the client. The therapeutic boundaries enable us to deal with transference and countertransference in more appropriate ways to avoid harming clients. References List Corey, G., 2015. Theory and practice of counselling and psychotherapy. s.l.:Nelson Education 2(3) 56- 78. Derlaga, V. J. Berg, J. H., 2013. Self-disclosure: Theory reasearch, and therapy. s.l.:Springer Science Business Media. Beck, A. T., Freeman, A. and Davis, D. D. 2015. Cognitive therapy of mental disorders. Guilford Publications. Butcher, J.N., Minieka, S. and Hooley, J.M., 2013. Abnormal psychology. Pearson Education. 1(5) pp45- 67 Brown, G., 2017. Professional and therapeutic boundaries in forensic mental health practice. Psychotherapy, 50(4), p. 505. Butler, A. C., Chapman, J. E., Forman, E.M. and Beck, A. T., 2016. The empirical status of group work therapy: a review of meta-analysis. Clinical psychology review, 26(1), pp.17-31. Fuertes, J. N. Cheng, D., 2013. Real realtionnship, working alliance, transference/countertransference and outcome in limited counsellingand psychotherapy. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 26(4), pp. 294-312. Gutheil, T. G. Gabbard, G., 2013. Misuses and misunderstandings of boundary theory in clinical and regulatory settings. American Journal of Pychiatry, 3(155), pp. 409-414. Garety, P. A., Kuipers, E., Fowler, D., Freeman, D., Bebbington, P. E. 2014. The efficacy of group therapy at the inpatient and community mental health level. Psychological medicine, 31(2), pp. 189-195. Geller, J. and Srikameswaran, S., 2015. What effective therapies have in common.Advances in Eating Disorders: Theory, Research and Practice,3(2), pp.191-197. Henretty, J. R., Currier, J. M., Berman, J. S. Levitt, H. M., 2014. The impact of Counselor self disclosure on clients: A meta-analytic review of experimental and quasi experimental research, s.l.: s.n. Kring, A. M., Johnson, S. L. Neale, J. M., 2013. Abnormal psychology. New Jersey: John Wiley Sons. Norcoss, J. C., Zimmerman, B.E., Greenberg, R. P. and Swift, J. K., 2017. Do all therapists do that when saying goodbye? A study of commonalities in termination behaviors. Psychotherapy, 54(1), p.66. Norman, R. E., Gibb, M., Dyer Edwards, H. 2016. Effectiveness of group work in mental health. International psychiatry journal, 13(3), pp. 303-316. Nystul, M. S., 2015. Introduction to counselling: An art and science perspective. SAGE Publications. 4(31) 567- 678 Paul, C., 2015. Sexual misconduct by Psychiatrists and Psychotherapists.. European Psychiatry, Issue 30, p. 158. Pope, K. S. Vaquez, M. J., 2016. Ethics in psychotherapy and counselling: A practical guide. s.l.:John Wiley Sons. Olivera, J., Braun, M., Gomez Penedo, J.M. and Roussos, A., 2013. A qualitative investigation of former clients perception of change, reasons for consultation, therapeutic relationship and termination. Psychotherapy, 50(4), p. 505. Sharpless, B. A. Barber, J. P., 2015. Transference/ Countertransference.. The Encyclopedia of Clinical Psychology. Zur, O., 2015. Therapeutic boundaries and dual realtionships in psychotherapy and counselling.