Recently, someone sent me Jeffrey Wolfsberg’s article, “When Peer Support Stops Challenging the System, It Stops Being Peer Support.” It hit close to home.
Jeffrey describes the tension that can arise when peer specialists defend mutuality and self-determination within clinical settings. His article put words to something I encounter regularly in my own work.
But that tension reaches beyond clinicians. It can involve support staff, recovery programs, housing providers, and community services. Anywhere decisions are made about someone’s life, there is a possibility that the person’s wishes will get lost beneath procedures, expectations, and other people’s ideas about what is best.
That is where the peer role matters.
When helping becomes deciding
People enter services with needs, fears, preferences, and experiences that may not fit neatly into a program’s expectations.
Someone may want support but feel uncomfortable with the service being offered. They may have questions about a recommendation. They may want to pursue a different recovery pathway or take more time before making a decision.
Those conversations can become difficult when disagreement is interpreted as a lack of motivation.
Before we describe someone as unwilling to engage, we should ask what we are asking them to engage in. Does it address a goal they actually have? Have we explained their options? Have we asked what happened the last time they sought help?
There is a difference between making support available and making agreement a condition of being treated with respect.
As a peer, I need to pay attention to that difference—including in myself.
This happens throughout the community
Consider some situations that can arise across services:
A person misses an appointment because transportation falls through, but the conversation focuses on their commitment.
Someone asks a housing worker to explain a requirement and is treated as though asking questions means refusing help.
A person wants recovery support outside the pathway a program usually recommends, and their choice is viewed with suspicion.
These examples are illustrative, but the question they raise is practical: Are we responding to the person’s circumstances, or judging them against the service’s expectations?
Sometimes a requirement has a legitimate purpose. Sometimes options really are limited. A peer cannot promise an exception or a resource that does not exist.
We can still help someone understand the requirement, identify available choices, communicate a concern, or request a review. We can also ask whether a recurring barrier deserves attention from the organization.
An explanation is useful. So is a willingness to examine whether the process works.
The peer role requires us to examine our own authority
It would be easy to make this an article about what everyone else gets wrong. That would miss an essential part of the work.
Lived experience does not give me permission to take over someone else’s recovery.
I may recognize parts of my story in theirs. I may believe strongly in an approach that helped me. I may worry about a choice they are considering.
But my experience is something I can offer. It is not a set of instructions they owe me obedience to.
Mutuality asks me to remain open to learning from the person beside me. Self-determination asks me to respect that their goals may differ from mine.
The same question I bring to a team meeting belongs in my own conversations:
Whose goal are we working toward?
Challenge needs to lead somewhere
Speaking up is only part of the responsibility. How we speak up affects whether a concern can lead to change.
A useful challenge identifies something specific: a barrier, an assumption, a decision made without the person’s participation. It gives colleagues something they can examine and act on.
For example:
- “Have we asked what made that appointment difficult to attend?”
- “Could we explain the available options before asking for a decision?”
- “Does this plan reflect the goal the person identified?”
- “Can we help them raise that concern directly with the appropriate professional?”
- “If this requirement cannot change, what support would make it manageable?”
These questions can create discomfort. They can also improve the conversation.
Professionalism includes listening to colleagues, understanding our scope, and acknowledging real constraints. It also includes raising a concern clearly when someone’s perspective has been overlooked.
People need room to make informed choices
Supporting self-determination carries responsibility. A peer should help someone identify questions, seek accurate information, consider consequences, and connect with the people qualified to address their concerns.
When someone has a treatment question, that may mean helping them prepare for a conversation with their clinician. When they face a housing or benefits problem, it may mean helping them understand a notice or find an appropriate advocate.
The goal is to strengthen their ability to participate.
Even when an urgent situation requires action, people deserve an explanation, respectful communication, and as much participation as circumstances allow.
Autonomy should remain part of the conversation when the conversation becomes difficult.
Organizations have to make room for the peer perspective
Hiring peers creates an opportunity. Protecting their ability to contribute turns that opportunity into meaningful practice.
That requires clear roles, supervision that understands peer values, and a way to raise disagreements without making every concern a personal conflict.
It also requires paying attention to what happens after a peer speaks up. Was the concern considered? Was the person invited into the discussion? Did anyone examine the barrier? Or was the peer simply expected to help the person accept a decision already made?
Peers should be accountable for their conduct and their work. Organizations should also be willing to hear the perspective they hired peers to bring.
Jeffrey’s article challenged me to think about that responsibility across the whole network of services people navigate.
I want to work well with clinicians, support staff, and community partners. I also want the people we support to have a meaningful say in their own lives.
When those goals create tension, we have work to do together.
The person should be able to recognize their own priorities in the help we offer.