MY THERAPY JOURNEY – Critical Research Journal

The nature of the Self, and the widening role of Congruence in the Person-Centred Approach of Carl Rogers

The nature of the Self

In Rogers’ theory, the Self plays a central role in how congruence and incongruence develop. Understanding this concept helps explain both psychological distress and therapeutic change.

Carl Rogers uses the term Self to describe the set of perceptions a person holds about who they are. This includes views about personal traits, roles, values, abilities, and limits. The Self is not fixed as it develops through experience, especially through relationships with significant others. Over time, it becomes a reference point against which we judge new experiences.

Rogers distinguishes between experience and the Self. Experience refers to what a person feels, senses, and lives in the moment. The Self refers to what the person sees as “me” or “mine”. Problems arise when these two don’t match. If a feeling or impulse does not fit the Self, the person may use defence mechanisms to block it from their awareness completely or reshape it to protect their self-image. Whichever, this process creates incongruence.

For example, a person who sees themselves as calm and reasonable may find themselves in a situation where they feel intense anger. If this anger feels unacceptable, they may deny or try to re-label it; “I’m not angry, I am just frustrated/sad/surprised.” The experience still exists, but the Self won’t allow it in. Over time, repeated mismatches of this kind increase tension and anxiety. The person becomes less open to experience and more reliant on their defences. They are being ‘incongruent’.

Congruence develops when the Self becomes more open and flexible. The person can accept the things that they are experiencing (especially emotions and feelings) without distortion. This does not mean acting on every feeling but it does mean recognising their feelings accurately and integrating them into a more realistic sense of Self. As congruence increases, the Self becomes less rigid and more responsive to lived experience.

Rogers links this process to conditions of worth. When we believe that to be accepted by others depends on behaving in certain ways, in other words it is conditional, then the Self narrows (ie becomes less flexible) to try to protect the sense of approval.

On the other hand, when acceptance is experienced as being unconditional, the Self can expand and adapt. Therapy aims to recreate this climate so that the Self can reorganise in line with experience rather than against it.

The initial incongruence of the client

Carl Rogers used the term congruence in different ways across his writing, and these differences reflect a clear development in his thinking between 1951 and 1961.

In Client-Centred Therapy (1951), Rogers uses congruence mainly in relation to the client. He describes incongruence as a gap between lived experience and self-concept. A person may feel or act in ways that do not fit how they see themselves. To protect the self-concept, these experiences may be denied or distorted. Psychological distress develops from this lack of fit. In this early work, congruence implies internal alignment. Therapy aims to help the client become more aware of experience and revise the self-concept so that the two match more closely.

In this 1951 account, the therapist’s congruence plays a limited role. Rogers refers to genuineness, but the therapist remains largely in the background. The therapist provides conditions that allow change, rather than entering the relationship as a fully present person. Congruence is treated mainly as a client outcome rather than a therapist stance.

One later meaning – congruence as genuineness and authenticity

By On Becoming a Person (1961), Rogers’ focus has shifted. Congruence now firstly refers to the therapist’s way of being in the relationship. The therapist is no longer a neutral facilitator. Instead, the therapist’s presence becomes central to the process. Congruence means that the therapist is aware of their own feelings and does not present a false professional front. What the client encounters is a real person, not a role.

This doesn’t mean full self-disclosure. It means that what the therapist expresses is genuine and not defensive. Rogers places emphasis on moment-to-moment awareness and openness. In this sense, congruence becomes an ongoing process rather than an internal state. However, we can see that it begins to apply to both therapist and client.

The second later meaning – congruence as an essential quality of the therapeutic relationship

Rogers also makes clearer in 1961 that congruence cannot operate alone. It must exist alongside empathy and unconditional positive regard. Therapist ‘realness’ without care can feel intrusive. Care without self-awareness can feel strained. The three conditions depend on each other. Congruence supports empathy by helping the therapist remain in contact with their own inner state. It supports unconditional positive regard by grounding respect for the client in self-acceptance.

This second perspective extends congruence beyond the session – beyond the process. Rogers is implying that the therapist’s personal life and professional role need to be aligned. If there is a strong split between the therapist’s values and actions, then a tension will enter the work. Defensive habits will increase and the therapeutic contact between the two people will weaken. Congruence for the therapist therefore involves ongoing self-reflection and personal development, not just clinical skill (Rogers, 1961; Mearns & Thorne, 2013).

Later focus on the congruence of the therapist

In the 1951 position, congruence functions mainly as a client outcome. The client moves from incongruence towards greater alignment between experience, awareness, and self-concept. The therapist supports this process but does not stand under the same demand. The therapist provides conditions rather than undergoing the same task.

By 1961, Rogers is no longer treating the therapist as exempt from the process he describes. When he writes of the therapist being real, open, and without a false front, he is applying the same principle of congruence to the therapist that he earlier applied to the client. There are differences in role and responsibility, but not in the need for personal development.

Rogers is implying that the therapist’s effectiveness depends in part on the same movement the client is asked to make – towards awareness, acceptance, and integration of experience.

Of course, the therapist does not work through personal conflict in the client’s session. The direction of travel is the same, but it is not unreasonable to expect the therapist to be some way further along the journey. Both are engaged in the task of reducing internal splits so that experience can be met more directly.

This explains why later person-centred writers place such emphasis on the therapist’s ongoing personal development. Congruence is not treated as a qualification that one attains. It is treated as a continuing process. The therapist’s personal work supports their professional presence in the same way that the client’s growing congruence supports psychological health.

Ego, leadership, and the person-centred approach

On the first evening of our Person-Centred Approach course last night, the nature of ego was raised. To begin with there’s the difference between the Freudian use of the term and the lay person’s. Key here, though, is what it would look like for a leader to put their own needs and desires aside when they are supporting their team, and the individuals in it, to grow to their fullest potential with the achievement of the organisation’s goals as inevitable side products.

When ego arises in leadership, it shows itself in behaviour before it shows in thought. A leader led by ego seeks control, status, or safety. They speak to prove a point. They move to fix problems before they understand them. They listen for threat rather than meaning. Even with good intent, their actions pull attention back to themselves. On the other hand, in a person-centred frame, leadership begins when those habits loosen.

A leader who sets ego aside behaves in a distinctive way. They enter meetings without the need to perform. They ask questions and allow answers to stand, even when those answers unsettle them. They do not rush to fill silence. They notice their own wish to steer or rescue, and they choose restraint. This does not make them passive. It makes them precise. They act with care rather than impulse.

Such a leader relates to staff as capable adults. They resist using power to shape outcomes too soon. They offer clarity of role and purpose, then step back. When someone struggles, they do not turn the moment into a test of loyalty or skill. They stay present, reflect meaning, and trust the person’s drive to grow. This stance draws directly on the work of Carl Rogers, where empathy, congruence, and unconditional positive regard form a climate for change.

In practice, this means the leader does not need to be the cleverest voice in the room. They share authority and credit. They accept feedback without defence. They name limits without blame. When conflict appears, they slow the process rather than escalate it. Staff learn that honesty does not lead to harm. As fear drops, learning rises.

From this base, results follow without force. People invest in work that feels meaningful and fair. Initiative spreads because it feels safe to act. Alignment with organisational aims grows because those aims no longer feel imposed. The leader’s needs for recognition or control fade from view, not through denial, but through trust in the process.

This form of leadership does not reject the ego in the technical sense described by Sigmund Freud. It relies on a stable self that can bear doubt and restraint. What it sets aside is the need to protect status. When that need loosens, leadership becomes less about direction and more about cultivation.

And what is going on for a leader who lacks this level of self-development?

When a leader lacks this level of self-development, their behaviour often signals an inner strain they do not yet recognise. They experience leadership as exposure rather than service. Each meeting feels like a test. Each challenge feels personal. Their actions seek relief from unease rather than growth in others.

Such a leader protects the self through control. They talk too much, interrupt, or close debate early. They offer answers before questions have formed. They monitor loyalty and react fast to dissent. Feedback lands as threat, not data. These acts do not stem from malice. They arise from anxiety that has no place to settle. The leader has not learned how to hold uncertainty without defence.

In these moments, the leader’s attention stays fixed inward. They track how they appear, how they rank, and whether they feel secure. This inward pull limits empathy. They struggle to stay with another person’s account when it clashes with their own view. They confuse disagreement with disrespect. Growth in others feels risky because it might weaken their grip on authority.

From a person centred view, this pattern reflects gaps in self-trust. The leader has not yet formed a stable sense of worth that stands apart from role or praise. Without that base, they seek validation through outcomes and compliance. They need quick wins and clear signs of success. They push for alignment before meaning has formed. Staff sense this and respond with caution rather than commitment.

This pattern echoes the everyday use of ego rather than the technical sense described by Sigmund Freud. The issue does not lie in weak ego function, but in a fragile self-concept. The leader cannot yet allow others to lead parts of the work because that feels like loss. They cannot sit with silence because it feels empty rather than fertile.

By contrast, the stance described by Carl Rogers rests on inner security. When that security has not formed, the leader substitutes structure, pressure, or charm. These tools may deliver short-term results, yet they erode trust. Learning slows. Initiative shrinks. The organisation meets targets while losing spirit.

Development here does not require technique. It requires space for reflection, honest feedback, and safe challenge. Until the leader can meet their own fear without defence, they will keep meeting others through control.

References

Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-Centered Therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1961). On Becoming a Person. London: Constable.
Freud, S. (1923). The Ego and the Id. Vienna: Internationaler Psychoanalytischer Verlag.