Supervising The Counsellor: A Cyclical Model

Super vising the Counsellor Since Supervising the Counsellor was first published in 1994, the Cyclical Model of counse...

Author: Steve Page

6754 downloads 8914 Views 3MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Super vising the Counsellor

Since Supervising the Counsellor was first published in 1994, the Cyclical Model of counsellor supervision has been widely adopted as a comprehensive and effective framework for clinical supervision by training organisations and individual practitioners within the fields of counselling, psychotherapy, clinical psychology and nursing. This expanded second edition contains a completely revised text, and includes important new material on a number of subjects, including:

• • •

Group supervision Working with difference and diversity in supervision Supervising experienced practitioners.

Steve Page and Val Wosket provide readers with an original and accessible model that is designed to meet the needs of the trained and experienced practitioner as well as the supervision requirements of the student or trainee therapist, arguing forcefully that training and professional development are essential for effective clinical supervision. Readers looking for a supervisor will find here clear guidance on what to seek out and expect from competent supervision, while those about to move into or already engaging in supervision are provided with an excellent framework for organising and making sense of the supervision process. Steve Page is Head of Student Support Services, University of Hull. He has a background in private practice and therapeutic communities, is a BACP senior registered practitioner and author of The Shadow and the Counsellor. Dr Val Wosket is Senior Lecturer in Counselling at the College of Ripon and York St John. She is a BACP registered practitioner and author of The Therapeutic Use of Self: Counselling Practice, Research and Supervision.

Supervising the Counsellor 2nd Edition

A cyclical model

Steve Page and Val Wosket

First edition published 1994 by Routledge Second edition published 2001 by Brunner-Routledge 27 Church Road, Hove, East Sussex, BN3 2FA Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Taylor & Francis Inc. 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19106 This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2003. Brunner-Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group © 2001 Steve Page and Val Wosket Cover design by Lou Page All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Page, Steve, 1955– Supervising the counsellor: a cyclical model/Steve Page and Val Wosket—2nd ed. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-415-20773-8—ISBN 0-415-20774-6 (pbk.) 1. Counselors—Supervision of. 2. Psychotherapists—Supervision of. I. Wosket, Val, 1954– II. Title. RC480.5 .P24 2001 362.2'04256–dc21 ISBN 0-203-45991-1 Master e-book ISBN

ISBN 0-203-76815-9 (Adobe eReader Format) ISBN 0-415-20773-8 (hbk) ISBN 0-415-20774-6 (pbk)

00–067422

To all who have taught us: those who intended to and those who chanced to

Contents

List of illustrations Preface to the second edition Preface to the first edition Acknowledgements

viii ix xi xiii

1

An historical overview

1

2

From counsellor to supervisor

17

3

Overview of the supervision model

30

4

Stage 1: Contract

45

5

Stage 2: Focus

73

6

Stage 3: Space

103

7

Stage 4: Bridge

127

8

Stage 5: Review

140

9

Supervising counsellors in groups

158

10 Ethical and professional issues

180

11 Working with difference and diversity

204

12 Supervising experienced practitioners

229

13 Training and development of the supervisor

247

Bibliography Name Index Subject Index

271 290 294 vii

Illustrations

TABLES 1.1 2.1

Stoltenberg and Delworth’s developmental stages of counsellor supervision Differences between counselling and supervision

7 19

FIGURES 3.1 4.1 4.2

Overview of the supervision model. Supervision model stage 1: Contract. Boundaries and interfaces between supervision, training and therapy. 5.1 Supervision model stage 2: Focus. 6.1 Supervision model stage 3: Space. 6.2 The cyclical model as a container 6.3 Components of the supervisory relationship. 6.4 Parallel between counselling relationship and supervising relationship. 7.1 Supervision model stage 4: Bridge. 8.1 Supervision model stage 5: Review. 10.1 The supervisory relationship triangle. 10.2 Relationship structure in trainee supervision.

viii

36 45 54 73 103 104 107 112 127 140 194 198

Preface to the second edition

Since the publication of the first edition of Supervising the Counsellor in 1994, the literature on clinical supervision has witnessed something of an explosion with a dozen or so books on the subject published, or about to be published, in Britain alone. The act of supervising and the role of the supervisor are now described and analysed at great length in a number of volumes. Some of these are edited anthologies of supervision, while others have followed the format of this book in presenting discrete models or approaches. Research and thinking about supervision have evolved to become markedly more sophisticated in the seven years since this book first appeared. Numerous scholarly papers, research articles and chapters have appeared that investigate in great detail many of the components of supervision that we merely touched upon in our original model. If times have moved on, why should we wish to come back to the cyclical model, rather than acknowledging that it may have made a small contribution to the development of supervision in the United Kingdom in the 1990s and letting it rest there? In the preface to the first edition we invited feedback from those who had read the book and tried to apply the model. Feedback has been forthcoming, both directly (for example, from our workshop participants) and indirectly (from reviews and commentaries printed in the publications of others). One reason for our decision to write a revised, expanded, second edition of Supervising the Counsellor lies in our wish to respond to the feedback we have been given. The other reason is more personal for each of us. As our own professional development has continued over the intervening few years, we have each pursued interests that are separate and yet complementary. One of us (Steve) has been ix

x Preface to the second edition

exploring how practitioners deal with the darker aspects of themselves and their role, using the Jungian concept of ‘shadow’ (Page 1999a), while the other (Val) has been researching and writing about the ‘therapeutic use of self in counselling practice, supervision and research (Wosket 1999). We have realised how significantly these themes have developed our understanding and application of clinical supervision and wished to integrate these new insights into what we had previously written about supervision. In combination these two impetuses have led us into making a number of additions and revisions to the first edition of this book. These include three new chapters: supervising in groups; working with difference and diversity in supervision, and the supervision of experienced practitioners. Additionally, we have included a revised diagrammatic representation of the cyclical model that places ‘space’ more clearly at the centre of the supervisory process, and we have written more fully about the pivotal role played by the relationship between supervisor and counsellor within the supervisory encounter. We look forward to receiving more feedback, but at this stage make no commitment to further editions! Steve Page and Val Wosket, October 2000

Preface to the first edition

This is a book about supervising the work of counsellors. We use the term ‘counsellor’ in its catholic sense to embrace all those involved in the endeavour of providing therapeutic opportunities in a contractually agreed context. Thus we intend ‘counselling’ to include those activities which might, more specifically, be termed brief counselling, medium- or long-term counselling, therapy or psychotherapy. The focus of this book is primarily on one-to-one rather than group supervision, although much of what we say about individual supervision is equally applicable within a group context. In the last ten years counselling supervision has come of age. It is no longer perceived as an activity which can be bolted on to the profession of counselling and psychotherapy and something at which any half decent counsellor could make a reasonable attempt. Supervision has earned the right to be considered as a distinct discipline and can now justly claim to be taken seriously by researchers, theorists and practitioners. The development and refining of the theory and practice of counselling supervision will continue to receive the attention of writers, trainers and professionals in a hitherto unprecedented way. We wish that the model offered in this book be considered in the light of a modest contribution to that growing body of knowledge and experience, rather than taken as a definitive paradigm. The authors welcome any comments, feedback or suggestions for developing the model from those who have read this book and tried out the model. We write this book from our experience as counsellors, supervisors and as tutors on a one-year Certificate Course in Counselling Supervision. It is this latter, shared, experience that has led us to want to create a unifying supervision framework which can be used by practitioners from a broad range of xi

xii Preface to the first edition

counselling orientations. The model is not intended to be a rigid format, or a blueprint, but rather a means of organising and making sense of the supervision process. It can be used quite rigorously or simply as a loose guide for occasional reference. We come from quite different counselling backgrounds ourselves and yet the framework offered in this book is one we are both able to use. For one of us (Val) development as a counsellor, trainer, and supervisor has taken place mainly within the context of higher education and been closely informed by the work of Professor Gerard Egan and his Skilled Helper and Change Agent models of counselling and organisational development. The other (Steve) had a background in the therapeutic community field before moving into private practice. He has been strongly influenced by humanistic and psychodynamic perspectives in his work as a counsellor, psychotherapist and supervisor. We hope that the model offered here benefits from this mixture of influences and results in an end product that is both cognitively rigorous and also accessible to intuitive and individual interpretation and adaptation. Throughout the book we use examples from our own experience as practitioners. We have endeavoured to be true to the original nature of each example whilst taking sufficient measures to ensure anonymity for the individuals whose stories are being utilised in this way. Where accounts, vignettes and transcripts are given in their original form permissions have been granted to include them verbatim. In all other examples significant details and identifying features have been changed in order to ensure that the confidential nature of the material is safeguarded. Throughout the text we have used ‘he’ and ‘she’ interchangeably, and we hope in equal measure, rather than resort to the clumsy and unsatisfactory device of ‘s/he’. This book emerges from the work of the Counselling and Consultancy Unit of the University College of Ripon and York St John and is a companion volume to Training the Counsellor by Mary Connor. As such, it is a product of many years of combined experience and expertise in the field of counselling training, supervision and consultancy. It is our hope that this book will be useful both to experienced supervisors and to those starting to supervise as part of their developing work as counsellors. We hope it will also be of interest to students, trainers and practitioners in the field of psychotherapy and counselling. Val Wosket and Steve Page, January 1994

Acknowledgements

We remain grateful to those who helped us with the first edition, including Mary Connor, Tim Bond, Alan Dunnett and Christine Barker who read and commented on parts of the manuscript. Also we would like to thank Diana Buchan, Tim Gauntlett, Eileen Harrison, Peter Hawkins, Paul Keeble, Catriona Matthews, Hilary Minter, Jim Newsham, Maire O’Donnell and Eric Saunders, who all made significant contributions to the text. In addition a number of people have been particularly helpful in preparing this second edition, including Eileen Ashmore, Judi Davey, Graham Curtis Jenkins and Alison Tubbs. Also we wish to express our appreciation of the contribution made by the five members of the research supervision group—Christine Alien, Tess Bolton, Denise Gillespie, Filomena lanni and Robert Spivey— whose records of their experiences yielded valuable insights into the group supervision process. We are also grateful to the many supervisees, supervision students and clients whose experiences we have adapted to use as examples in the text. Separately we wish to acknowledge the following people: Val: I would like to make particular mention of my gratitude for the support and encouragement I received from Alan Dunnett during the writing of this second edition. Also I would like, once again, to acknowledge the support of my partner, Paul Baker, whose undiminished passion for going fishing meant he was less troubled by my preoccupation than I might have feared. Steve: I am thankful to those who were particularly supportive of me during the writing of the first edition, including Elizabeth Adeline, Jill Hall, Geoff Pelham, Robin Shohet and Joan Wilmot. For this second edition (as with the first) I am indebted to my partner, Christine Barker, for all her practical support, her patience xiii

xiv Acknowledgements

in listening to my half-formed thoughts and ideas and her tolerance of my hours of preoccupation. In addition I am grateful to Hannah and Dominic, our two children, who have generously allowed me many hours of uninterrupted use of our computer during the latter stages of manuscript preparation. The authors are grateful for permission to use copyright material granted by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) for extracts from the Code of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors and the Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors. These Codes of Practice are updated at regular intervals and while material quoted is correct at the time of going to press, readers should refer to BACP in order to update themselves of any subsequent changes.

Chapter 1


The history and development of counsellor supervision is not easy to trace or simply delineable (Feltham 2000). Nevertheless we consider it important to attempt to place supervision in its historical context in order to identify the source of some aspects of the role and to have a sense of supervision being in a process of development. To do this we would like to begin by identifying the roots and the various influences that have affected its evolution. This does not provide the whole picture but nevertheless offers a starting point. Thus we find that supervision originated as part of the training process in psychoanalysis. Fleming and Benedek ([1966] 1983) describe the development of psychoanalytic supervision from the 1920s through to the mid-1960s. Apparently within their tradition supervision was an integral part of the training process that complemented the theoretical teaching and the analysis of the fledgling analyst (Buckley et al. 1982). These three elements (supervision, teaching and personal analysis) of the training process were made a formal requirement by the International Training Commission in the 1920s, probably ‘ushered in by Max Eitingon’ (Feltham 2000:7). Thus what had started out in 1902 as: ‘a number of young doctors gathered around me [Sigmund Freud] with the express intention of learning, practising and spreading the knowledge of psychoanalysis’ (Freud [1914] 1986:82) had moved through informal apprenticeship to a training structure that provides the basic components used in most current training programmes in psychoanalysis, psychotherapy, counselling and allied fields. It is important to note that in this context we are referring to trainee supervision; that is, supervision that is part of the process of preparing the trainee practitioner. This should not be confused with 1

2 Supervising the Counsellor

supervision of someone who has completed their formal training, which we shall term practitioner supervision. This is an important distinction as there are many differences between, for example, supervising a second-year trainee counsellor and supervising a counselling practitioner with twenty years’ experience. A trainee counsellor is likely to be concerned with issues of technique, forming effective therapeutic relationships, client conceptualisation, boundary issues, understanding the material the client brings and dealing with personal feelings of anxiety and perhaps inadequacy. The experienced practitioner is more likely to be concerned with teasing out relationship dynamics, choosing intervention options, dealing with feelings of frustration or boredom towards clients and, as we shall consider further in Chapter 12, how their personal life issues and professional issues overlap and intertwine. This distinction is often not made in the literature and it is quite usual for the term ‘supervision’ to be used when what is being described is restricted to what we are calling ‘trainee supervision’. This is particularly the case in supervision literature from the United States. Having said that, there is some evidence of attention being given to supervision for more experienced practitioners. We find Rogers (1951) encouraging this as far back as the early 1950s. Although all the specific references he makes to supervision refer to trainee supervision he does also propose the usefulness of a resource person, someone with whom an experienced counsellor can consult. The British Association for Counselling made it a requirement that all its practitioner members be in supervision regardless of their length of experience (BAG 1998: B.6.6.1). This has created quite a sizeable demand for counsellor supervision in the United Kingdom, which is increasing as the proportion of practitioners with significant experience grows. There continues to be a growing interest in this development amongst experienced counsellors in Europe and America, some of whom are setting up practitioner supervision for themselves (Bond 2000). However the European picture is at present diverse (McNamara 2000), reflecting the range of ways in which counselling is viewed and practised across the continent. For many years counselling has been in the process of separating itself from various allied activities that include psychotherapy, clinical psychology, pastoral work, social work, and career guidance. In America this process of separation took place predominantly in the 1950s (McLeod 1993), whilst in the United Kingdom it has been happening since the late 1970s (Connor 1994). This has been an


3

important stage in creating an independent identity for counselling as a profession in its own right. The recent addition of ‘and Psychotherapy’ to the name of The British Association for Counselling’, which occurred at the annual general meeting in September 2000, suggests that this identity is now securely formed in the UK. Thus counselling is no longer simply an activity that someone engages in as an adjunct to some other professional role. Rather, it has become a recognised role that contains a range of possible activities. Besides individual counselling, the practitioner may counsel couples, groups or families. She may specialise in one or more areas such as bereavement, sexual difficulties, survivors of abuse, addiction or mental health. Besides her counselling work she may be involved in the training and supervision of others. The role of counselling supervisor is one of the developments to have emerged out of this professionalisation of counselling. Putting this in the past tense suggests that this process is complete. In reality this is not so; counsellor supervision is still in a state of rapid evolution and there are a number of interrelated strands in this development. We can perhaps use the development of a mechanism of transport as an analogy for this evolutionary process. We might think of the field of counselling as represented by bicycles. There are many different types of two-wheeled cycles, some different because they are designed and made by different manufacturers who give priority to a particular quality in their product. Thus some want their bicycles to be economically attractive, low priced or easily maintained; others are concerned with reliability and performance, their bikes being made with care and attention by people highly trained in their craft. Other differences result from cycles being designed for specific purposes: some for racing, others for touring or rough terrain, some for carrying baggage and most just for everyday use. At the risk of forcing the analogy we could liken counsellor supervision to the tandem, with the obvious parallel of having two riders rather than the usual single rider. Considering the historic development of the tandem then we might take the liberty of imagining (with apologies to true cycling historians) that they were found to be a necessary adjunct to single-rider bicycles, particularly if they could offer a means of an experienced rider coaching the inexperienced in the saddle. We might imagine them as offering a means to monitor the style and approach of a cyclist in a situation as close to single cycling as can be practically created.


The tandems made by specific manufacturers have, predominantly, been designed using the standard single-seat bicycle as the template. Likewise traditional approaches to supervision have taken the theory and practice of a counselling or psychotherapy model and then applied the principles and processes to the practice of supervision (Friedlander et al. 1989; Hart 1982). Thus a psychodynamic supervisor would interpret the material being presented and use an awareness of the relationship dynamics between himself and the counsellor in supervision as a means of supervising. A client-centred supervisor would be concerned to communicate the core conditions of acceptance, respect and genuineness to her supervisee (Frankland 1993). The cognitive behavioural supervisor would use such methods as goal clarification and action planning with the counsellors he supervises (Ricketts and Donohoe 2000). As the number of counselling approaches has increased so there has been an increase in the use of these approaches as a basis for supervision, expounded in anthologies such as Bradley (1989) and Hess (1980). Along with these there are now supervisors using Gestalt, Transactional Analysis, Psychosynthesis, Psychodrama, Biodynamic, Existential and other approaches (Rowan and Dryden 1988) as the basis for their supervision practice. As systematic skills models for counsellor training have been established by Ivey (1971), Egan (1998) and others, so they have also provided a template that is used as a basis for supervising. Using an approach to counselling as a model for supervision has the attraction of both being familiar to the supervisor and, usually, providing the counsellor with a model for her own counselling practice. There is certainly a compelling argument for trainee counsellors being supervised by an experienced practitioner using the approach in which the counsellor is being trained. It offers consistency and an opportunity to examine in detail the technique of the counsellor and how she is applying the approach in practice. Goodyear and Bradley (1983), however, provide a cautionary note for the supervisor who is all too ready to fall back on tried and trusted counselling theory in the practice of supervision. ‘As a mental road map, theory focuses supervisors’ attention and guides their action, but can also blind them to phenomena that are not charted on that map’ (p. 63). There is also a danger of confusion when supervision is based upon a counselling model. Let us consider an example. During the


5

course of supervision of work with a client whose marriage is breaking up the supervisee mentions that he has invited the client to stay with him. The supervisor has a responsibility to challenge the counsellor’s actions and in this situation use a considerable degree of authority in defining the boundaries of appropriateness. This is quite different to what she would normally do with a client in a comparable situation. Unless the differences between supervision and counselling are clear for both the supervisor and counsellor (see Table 2.1, p. 19) in this situation there are two possible dangers. If the supervisor is not clear about the differences then she may simply avoid confronting the counsellor, preferring to offer, for example, empathy if person-centred or interpretation if psychodynamic, and as such not discharge her responsibilities. Let us assume that the supervisor does act and tells the counsellor to change the situation, giving the choice that either he ask the person to move out or terminate the counselling relationship. If the counsellor is not clear about the differences he might take the supervisor’s behaviour as a model for how he should behave with clients that, in our example, could result in the counsellor being inappropriately directive. It is, of course, always important that the supervisor ensures that her supervisees understand the distinctions between these roles so that inappropriate role modelling is discouraged. If the counsellor in training wants to see an experienced counsellor in action he is best advised to do so from the perspective of being a client himself. A new strand in the evolution of supervision emerged when Hogan (1964) published his paper on the four stages of the development of the psychotherapist. This paper stimulated something of a plethora of developmental supervision models— according to Borders (1989) there had been an estimated twentyfive models published by 1988. It appears that this stream of developmental models has since slowed to a mere trickle. Stoltenberg and colleagues, in their major review of supervision research (1994) could find only one major developmental model of supervision proposed between 1987 and 1994. Developmental models are based on the rationale that supervisors need to acquire a range of styles and approaches which are adapted to the individual needs of the trainee counsellor as he or she moves through a sequence of, for the most part, clearly definable developmental stages. The different stages are defined in terms of the counsellor’s growing competence and awareness, with


only occasional situation-specific relapses occurring during the course of the journey from novice to ‘master’ practitioner. Given that this development follows a natural and normally predictable pattern, exponents of the approach argue that the supervisor can be trained (or at least alerted) to address the supervisee’s particular developmental needs through specific levels of competence in terms of therapeutic skills, conceptualisation of the counselling process, personal and professional development and awareness of the dynamics of the counselling relationship. So in Stoltenberg and Delworth’s model (1987, revised with McNeill 1998), by way of example, ‘Level 1’ supervisees tend to be highly motivated but anxious and largely dependent on the supervisor who therefore needs to provide a clearly structured and supportive environment where positive feedback and encouragement can allow the supervisee to begin to lessen his or her anxiety about ‘getting it right’. The four stages of Stoltenberg and Delworth’s model of counsellor development, together with requisite supervisor behaviours and styles of intervention, are summarised in Table 1.1. Such models take the developing counsellor from the point of being an initial trainee through to being an experienced counsellor. The stages of development are then, in most cases, linked to supervisor strategies and foci at these different stages (Reising and Daniels 1983). These models are attractive because they have been specifically designed for supervision and because they clearly make sense in terms of an educational process. They are, after all, simply an application of learning theories to the ‘learner counsellor’. There have been a number of research studies concerned with testing the validity of various developmental models (Ellis and Dell 1986; Heppner and Roehlke 1984; Leach et al 1997; Rabinowitz et al. 1986; Stoltenberg et al 1994, 1995; Tracey et al 1989; Wiley and Ray 1986). In general terms these studies find that there is some empirical support for a developmental process, but there are a complex set of factors influencing that process which do not fit neatly into a simple model. In our view a developmental framework is a helpful tool for a supervisor to have at their disposal, but it should be used with discrimination and in conjunction with other tools. Such a framework is certainly a useful reminder that the counsellor is in her own learning process and the supervisor’s expectations of her should be tailored accordingly. It provides a means of monitoring the counsellor’s development and is a useful reminder to the


Table 1.1 Stoltenberg and Delworth’s developmental stages of counsellor supervision

7


supervisor of his responsibility to facilitate the counsellor’s continuing growth. On occasions having the framework in mind can be helpful in deciding whether or not to make an intervention. For example, if a relatively inexperienced counsellor is struggling to get a client to leave when the session time has finished there are a number of choices open to the supervisor. She could encourage the counsellor to define strategies to get the client to go. She could focus on the implications for the counsellor in terms of his own boundary management or his reluctance to assert his needs. She could introduce questions about what this behaviour might indicate about the client. The developmental level of the counsellor would be one of a number of factors that would influence the supervisor’s choice. However, other factors, such as the counselling approach being used, what the supervisor already knows about this counsellor or this client and what has already been tried, would also play a part in determining how to proceed. Used on their own the developmental models do suffer from over-simplification when in practice the development of a counsellor is a complex process (Reising and Daniels 1983). In addition they are focused on the development of the counsellor and most pay insufficient attention to the development of the supervisor (Worthington 1987). It is as if the supervisor is an expert who has arrived at a plateau of understanding. This is quite inconsistent with a developmental view that must allow that the supervisor is also in a process of learning in parallel with the counsellor. The third main limitation of the developmental models is that they mainly focus on the trainee counsellor. As such they become decreasingly useful as the supervisee becomes more experienced. This is a reflection of the fact that the majority of the developmental models have originated in the United States where the focus of counsellor supervision is almost entirely upon trainee supervision. For the reasons already stated there is more of an emphasis on practitioner supervision with the experienced counsellor in the United Kingdom. A revised edition of Stoltenberg and Delworth’s Developmental Model (Stoltenberg et al. 1998) has addressed a number of these limitations (see Chapter 3 for a fuller account). As developmental models of supervision appear to have fallen somewhat out of favour they have been replaced by functional models that put more of an emphasis on the tasks and roles of


9

supervision (Rapp 1996). Holloway (1995) in the United States and Carroll (1996) and Inskipp and Proctor (1994, 1995) in Britain have made notable contributions to the supervision literature in this area. What these texts have in common is a movement away from counselling-bound models of supervision towards recognition that the supervisory process is a separate and distinct activity that demands a different mix of knowledge, understanding and skills. These authors have demonstrated a commitment to articulating the precise elements of the supervisory task and process as, essentially, a learning alliance designed to enhance the development of autonomy in clinical practitioners. In the development of supervision over recent years we find an ongoing process of the incorporation of concepts and ideas taken from psychotherapy and counselling but made supervision specific. Perhaps the most notable single example is in refinements of the ‘reflection process’ (Searles 1955) or ‘parallel process’ (Wilmot and Shohet 1985). These terms describe the observed phenomenon that at times the relationship dynamics between the client and counsellor in the counselling setting become ‘reflected’ or ‘paralleled’ in the relationship between the counsellor and supervisor in the supervision setting. Whilst this is an observable phenomenon which supervisors may discover for themselves (Mattinson 1977), the roots for making sense of the process lie within the psychoanalytic tradition. The reflection process can be understood using the theoretical understandings developed to describe the transference process (Jacoby 1984). These understandings having themselves been developed to make sense of observed phenomena first described by Freud over a hundred years ago (Freud [1895] 1980). Nevertheless in the supervision field the notion of parallel process is often accepted by practitioners from a range of traditions who would not necessarily be as comfortable with thinking about their counselling relationships from a transference perspective. THEMES We would like to pause at this point in the chronological story of counsellor supervision to consider several themes that have emerged as important. We feel it useful to identify some of these themes here because they form the basis of some of the principal issues to which supervisors have to attend.


Client welfare The responsibility of the supervisor to protect the interests of the client emerges as a central component of trainee supervision (Feltham and Dry den 1994). Attention to client welfare is equally important but usually less central in practitioner supervision. It is symptomatic of this responsibility that within the psychoanalytic tradition supervision was originally called ‘control analysis’ (Davidson 1987). This term suggests that the role of the supervising analyst is to control the analytic process. Alongside this protective or monitoring role there is another, arguably of equal importance, which is that of facilitator of the development of the trainee. The tension between these two roles can be difficult to contain and the supervisor is tempted to gravitate towards one pole or the other. However, such polarisation can lead to the supervisor being experienced as over-controlling, as if he is trying to make the trainee act as an extension of himself. One of us was reminded of this when a supervisee, who had only been practising for a few months, reported feeling like a ventriloquist’s dummy as she heard herself repeating to her client much of what had been said to her in the previous supervision session. The other extreme of this spectrum is the supervisor who always accepts whatever the trainee is doing, perhaps with the rationalisation that it is a ‘useful learning experience’. We can find evidence of the struggle to maintain a balance between these two aspects of the role within the analytic literature (Davidson 1987; Edwards 1997; Searles 1962). Essentially this struggle is part of a larger one and is not confined to the psychoanalytic tradition. Leddick and Bernard propose that there is a spurious assumption within the supervision literature that ‘authoritative relationships and facilitative relationships are mutually exclusive.’ (1980:192). In our view any supervisor who is not endeavouring to balance these two fundamental elements of the role is avoiding one of the central aspects of effective supervision. The boundary between supervision and therapy Another identifiable theme is demonstrated by Boyd (1978) in his chapter entitled ‘The Psychotherapeutic Approach to Supervision’. In this he mixes together, in a way that now seems muddled, a


11

psychodynamic approach to supervision with therapy for the supervisee making no apparent distinction between the two. He seems to imply that this mixture is a necessary consequence of the psychoanalytic tradition of requiring trainee analysts to be in personal analysis, despite the clear distinction made many years earlier between training analysis and trainee supervision (Fleming and Benedek [1966] 1983). In our view this is another of the tensions within the supervisor’s role. For example if, in supervision, we are confronted by a counsellor who is feeling angry towards a client then we would want to examine this, with the supervisee, from the point of view of what it might suggest about the client. However, if we are to avoid the danger of colluding with the counsellor we must also ensure that we consider what part the counsellor’s own emotional and psychological material might be playing in this interaction (Page 1999a). Thus it is not only appropriate but indeed necessary to engage in what amounts to therapeutic work with the counsellor. In our view this is legitimate within supervision provided that the purpose remains that of understanding the counselling process and the overall intention is to enhance the work being done with the client. It can be difficult to maintain these boundaries appropriately. There may be pressure to overstep them from the counsellor and there may also be pressure within the supervisor to do so. This can be particularly difficult for the relatively inexperienced supervisor who may be much more familiar, and possibly therefore more comfortable, with the role of counsellor than that of supervisor. Thus each new supervisor has to struggle with this dilemma in much the same way as the counselling tradition has had to struggle to define the boundaries between the roles of counsellor and supervisor. There is no simple solution or single definition that separates counselling and supervision neatly without overlap or ambiguity; rather, they are necessarily interwoven activities that only become effectively separated through the practice of the individual counsellor and supervisor. We will return to this theme a number of times, and in Chapter 10 some specific criteria to use in determining what degree of personal work is legitimate in supervision will be suggested. In Chapter 12 we shall come full circle and suggest that when experienced supervisors are supervising experienced counsellors they may need to focus increasingly on the counsellor’s personal issues as these will more and more overlap with their professional issues (Wosket 2000b).


Power in the relationship The third theme that becomes evident when reviewing the supervision literature from a historical perspective is that of the balances of power within the supervision relationship (Holloway 1995; Kaberry 2000; Lawton 2000; Robiner 1982). There is an imbalance of power resulting from the difference in roles between supervisor and supervisee. In order to fulfil their respective roles the supervisee is regularly exposing his shortcomings and difficulties in a way that is not the case for the supervisor. This difference in degree of vulnerability, along with the authority within the supervisor’s role, leads to a natural imbalance of experienced power (Rogers 1978) within the relationship. In the case of trainee supervision this inequity is exacerbated by a structural power imbalance. In the contracts we have to supervise trainee counsellors there is always a clause requiring us to give feedback to the college if we have serious concerns about the trainee. This is necessary to fulfil our obligations to the trainee’s clients, in this instance both his current clients and potential future clients who are put at risk if the trainee’s difficulties are not resolved. It does, however, create an imbalance because the supervisor has influence over the student’s future in a form that is not reciprocal (Liddle 1986). There are also likely to be imbalances resulting from the personal material that the trainee counsellor brings to the supervision relationship—for example, unresolved issues about being judged and assessed, or distress from previous relationships with an authority figure. These power dynamics offer a rich source of material to explore how these (or similar) dynamics may be at work in the relationship between counsellor and client. However, in order for this to happen the supervisor and counsellor have to find a way to acknowledge the dynamics and examine them with some degree of openness and objectivity. There is research evidence (Kaberry 2000; Lawton 2000; Webb 2000) that makes it clear that this is not easy to do. The three themes discussed are all, in different ways, concerned with balance: the balance of providing control and allowing freedom, which for the supervisor includes balancing their responsibilities to clients with their responsibilities to the counsellor; the balance between the degree of focus upon the client and the degree of focus upon the counsellor; and also the balance of power in the supervisory relationship. Maintaining a sense of balance is a central requirement


13

of the supervisory role. We will develop this notion further as we go on to elucidate our model and its components in later chapters. THE RECENT PAST AND THE PRESENT Since the early 1980s, the unprecedented growth of the movement to integrate counselling and psychotherapy (Beitman et al. 1989; Norcross and Grencavage 1989) has meant that many counsellors who systematically draw upon a range of theories and techniques in their work have had to adapt their supervision needs to what was on offer from more traditionally purist counsellorsturnedsupervisors. If the boot did not quite fit, or was the wrong kind of footwear for the weather conditions or the task in progress, so much the worse for the wearer (the supervisee) who had to make do and be grateful at least for some support, coverage and protection. This is not satisfactory and there are signs that a change is taking place. Out of this change it becomes possible to identify two quite distinct groups of counsellor supervisors. The first group, which is the more traditional, comprises approach-oriented supervisors. These may be from any of the many distinct counselling approaches and they supervise within that approach. Often such supervisors will be attached to a training organisation or counselling institution with the same approach. Approach oriented supervisors offer a service that is useful for counsellors at three different levels of their development. First they are useful to trainee counsellors who are in training in the particular approach in question. This flows into the next level, which is the more experienced counsellor who works in that particular approach, but has perhaps widened their reading and experience to incorporate insights from different counselling disciplines. The third is the experienced counsellor who may come from a different approach altogether, which might be specific or might be eclectic or integrative. This counsellor comes to the approach-oriented supervisor because they want something that this approach offers. For example, if you felt that it was important to go to a supervisor who would encourage a focus on the quality of the therapeutic relationship you might well seek out a client-centred supervisor. If you wanted to understand more about the unconscious dynamics you might choose a psychodynamically oriented supervisor. If you wanted to increase your repertoire of techniques to use directly with clients you might decide upon a behavioural—or a


Gestalt-oriented supervisor. Some approach-oriented supervisors welcome an opportunity to supervise someone with a different approach and enjoy the dialogue this creates. Others will only wish to supervise counsellors from a similar background or those wanting to become adherents of their particular approach. The second group of supervisors are eclectic in their supervision approach, hopefully with a supervision model that they can use to guide themselves through the supervision process, regardless of the supervisee’s counselling orientation. It is not necessary for such supervisors to be eclectic in their own counselling work. They can in fact operate from one distinct approach. However, they do need to have a clear conceptual framework for understanding and managing supervision (Wosket 2000a). In the United Kingdom the Process Model outlined by Hawkins and Shohet (1989, 2000) has gained popularity as just such a framework since the publication of the first edition of their seminal text Supervision in the Helping Professions. In summary, this model conceptualises the supervision process as a series of six separate foci located within two interlocking matrices: the clientcounsellor system and the supervisor-counsellor system. In the first of these matrices attention of supervisor and supervisee is directed towards the therapy sessions themselves through the three foci of (1) reflection on the content of the session with particular regard to the client’s perspective; (2) consideration of interventions and strategies employed by the counsellor with a view to determining effectiveness and possible alternatives; (3) exploration of the dynamics of the process and relationship through attention given to the boundaries of the session, non-verbal behaviours and intangibles such as images, hunches and metaphors in relation to the material presented. In the second of the two matrices the supervision process itself becomes the vehicle through which supervision issues are raised and addressed through the next three foci. These are: (4) the counsellor’s counter-transference responses (unaware reactions to the client stemming from the counsellor’s internal processes) which the supervisor helps the counsellor to bring into awareness in the here and now of the supervision session; (5) parallel or mirroring processes in which changes in the dynamics of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee are taken up for consideration as clues to hidden or unfolding dynamics within the counsellor—client relationship; and (6) the supervisor’s countertransference where significant material which


15

may have been missed by the counsellor from a counselling session is received and manifested in the supervisor by apparently unrelated feelings or sudden changes in mood or composure (for example, boredom, tiredness or embarrassment). In their second edition (Hawkins and Shohet 2000) the authors put considerable emphasis on the seventh mode—that of the supervisory context. They include within this the impact of the organisation in which supervision may take place, professional codes of ethics to which therapist and supervisor ascribe, the effect of economic constraints, and the social context and expectations upon all involved. In addition to a conceptual framework eclectic supervisors must also have sufficient understanding of a broad range of approaches to be able to speak the same language as their supervisees. This group of supervisors can work with a broad range of counsellors and are able to adapt their way of supervising accordingly. This adaptability will be a great asset on occasions and will enable the supervisor to expand the range of supervision they are equipped to undertake, if desired. Thus they may be equipped to supervise therapists from different disciplines: art therapists or drama therapists for example. They might also be able to supervise those using counselling skills in other disciplines—for instance managers, teachers or doctors. However, supervisors from this group are probably not best suited for the counsellor in training in one specific approach. Inevitably they will offer less depth of knowledge on the counsellor’s core approach than the practitioner who only operates from the same orientation. It would be an oversimplification to believe that this is a straightforward division into two groups. There will be many supervisors who would place themselves somewhere between the two positions we have outlined. Making this distinction, however, does identify the importance of a sound theoretical and conceptual model of supervision. In Chapter 3 we will start to look in more depth at the models and frameworks available to meet this need. Before concluding our review of the history of counsellor supervision we will address one final issue: the use of the term ‘supervision’ in the context of counselling. THE TERM ‘SUPERVISION’ The word is derived from Latin: super meaning above or over and visio meaning sight (Collins 1986). The pure derivation would seem


then to fit the role the term is intended to describe. However, the current understanding of the meaning of a particular term is often different from the original derivation. The term ‘supervision’ does have a long history of use in managerial practice where it has come to mean not just seeing from above but also concern with standards and measurement of effectiveness. It has been argued that using this term in the counselling world brings with it connotations which distort the way the role is understood (Williams 1992). The term can be seen to emphasise the managerial function and diminish the educational and supportive functions (Kadushin 1985). It certainly takes attention away from the equality within the relationship and emphasises the difference. However, the supervision relationship does contain an apparent paradox. The supervisor and supervisee are equal in their common endeavours to make the counselling of this client as therapeutic as possible. At the same time they are unequal because the supervisor has a responsibility to monitor the supervisee’s work in order to safeguard the interests of the client, if necessary putting those interests above the supervisee’s. It is difficult to imagine that any term will readily embrace both these components of the role with equal measure. There have been suggestions of ‘consultative support’ or ‘consultation’ but both these flounder in different ways because they minimise the authoritative component. From time to time other suggestions are made about possible new or different terms for counselling supervision. In our view the resulting discussions help to deepen understanding of the supervision role. For this reason such debate is to be welcomed, although there is always the danger that energy for development is dissipated in unproductive arguments about terminology. In our view the term ‘supervision’ is good enough for the purpose to which it is being put in the counselling context, whilst accepting that it is not ideal. We consider that other terms proposed (such as ‘consultation’, ‘consultative support’, ‘mentoring’ or ‘support’) each describe identifiably different although closely related activities. At times supervision may move into one or other of these but that does not mean that supervision is one of these activities. Rather it embraces these activities just as it embraces the activities of teaching, guiding, counselling and directing. If it becomes any one of these activities to the exclusion of others then it has lost some of its breadth and is no longer what we understand to be ‘supervision’.

Chapter 2

From counsellor to super visor

WHAT IS COMMON AND DIFFERENT IN COUNSELLING AND SUPERVISING There is an increasing recognition within the United Kingdom counselling field that it is generally preferable for a supervisor to be a practising counsellor (BAG1 1996: B.2.1). This parallels a shift away from managerial supervision to non-managerial supervision or consultative supervision (Bond 2000). As we predicted in 1994, Britain has seen a significant increase since then in the number of counsellors taking on the role of supervisor. Indeed this remains the most common route by which people become involved in counsellor supervision. There are exceptions to this, with some supervisors of counsellors coming from backgrounds in training, management, social work, education or consultancy; but these are in the minority. Alongside the possibility of movement into training, consultancy or management, supervision is the obvious additional career option available to the practising counsellor. In predicting this development for the United Kingdom we were reflecting a process that had already taken place in the United States of America, where the counselling profession has been established for somewhat longer. This may seem a natural progression because in outward appearance counselling and supervising seem remarkably similar. Two or more people come together, identify their respective roles and endeavour to 1

As already noted in Chapter 1, in September 2000 The British Association for Counselling (BAC) formally changed its name to The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy’ (BACP). This and other BAC references refer to the Codes of Practice or other publications in print prior to this name change coming about.

17


assist those in the consumer role, whether clients or supervisees, with difficulties they bring to that setting. This is done using a range of interpersonal and therapeutic skills. Some of these skills are fundamental to both roles: being able to listen, hear, empathise, reflect, form and maintain a healthy and appropriate relationship, support, challenge, make connections, and intervene at a level appropriate to the recipient. All this takes place within agreed boundaries of time, place, regularity, confidentiality and payment. The practitioner, counsellor or supervisor, needs to be of sufficient emotional competence to fulfil their role. This Heron (1991) defines as being ‘able to work on their distress and suffering, and take charge of it enough to liberate their helping from it’ (p. 12). Despite the areas of commonality there are fundamental differences, which have considerable significance for the practitioner. Indeed these differences call into question the assumption that an experienced and competent counsellor will prove to be equally effective in the role of a supervisor. Others have voiced challenges to this assumption (Bernard and Goodyear 1992; Carroll 1988, 1996; Fine and Fennell 1985; Pickvance 1997; Worthington 1987) and we would like to add evidence to this challenge by examining some of the differences between the roles of counsellor and supervisor. In some ways we are setting ourselves a difficult task here. It is relatively easy to distinguish the roles in an intuitive fashion. We can think of counselling as a journey that the counsellor undertakes with the client: the vehicle used and the degree of clarity about the intended route and destination are all variables affected by both participants in this shared journey. Every once in a while the counsellor steps aside from this journey, meets their supervisor and reflects upon the progress being made by themselves and their client. However, this analogy tells us little about the differences between the roles in practice. This requires a more specific examination of those differences. To make this comparison we have broken down each of the roles into a number of constituent parts: aims, presentation methods, timing, relationship, expectations and responsibilities. We have then summarised key elements in each of these components in Table 2.1. In looking at counselling we have used medium- to long-term therapeutic work as our norm. Under supervision we have included supervising both the trainee and the experienced practitioner. Consequently aspects of what is in Table 2.1 may not apply to a specific counselling or supervising approach or to short-term work.


Table 2.1 Differences between couns selling and supervision

19


The differences between the components included under the headings ‘Aims’, ‘Presentation’, ‘Timing’ and ’Expectations‘ are quite concrete and readily understood. We will look in more detail at those included under the headings ‘Relationship’ and ‘Responsibilities’, as they are rather more complex. Relationship In principle there are quite different qualities of containment or holding required in the two types of relationship. In counselling the containment is principally an emotional holding of the client. The result of this is that the counsellor is generally subjected to a greater intensity of emotional demand than the supervisor. This is because the distress and pain of the client is usually a more central focus in counselling than the distress and pain of the supervisee is in supervision. Even when the supervisee’s distress is present in supervision, and needs to be held by the supervisor, it should be understood that it remains primarily the responsibility of the supervisee to manage their distress. This is not necessarily the case in counselling where providing the client with emotional containment may legitimately be a major component of the counsellor’s role (Casement 1985). Thus supervision tends to be less emotionally demanding than counselling. The containment in supervision is that of holding the counsellor to their task and providing an additional layer of containment for the client’s material. This may need to be done in a variety of ways. It may include challenging the counsellor to identify the areas in which they are blind, deaf, dumb or numb to what the client is endeavouring to communicate. It may involve assisting the counsellor to untangle their responses to the client, distinguishing those which come from the personal material of the counsellor from those which are called up by the client (Jacoby 1984; Page 1999a). It may include encouraging the counsellor to be more emotionally available to the client: to allow themselves and the client to get closer to one another (Shainberg 1983). We can think of the relationship difference from a Transactional Analysis perspective (Berne 1964). The counselling relationship can be thought of as containing a more developed Nurturing Parent-Child component. In contrast the supervising relationship contains a more developed Adult-Adult aspect. However, the supervisory relationship is curiously paradoxical in that it is both


21

more equal and simultaneously more authoritative than the counselling relationship. Thus in addition to the Adult-Adult part there is a Critical Parent-Child component. This difference can be seen in the different ways that we would expect boundaries to be maintained. The counsellor can anticipate that some clients will test out the boundaries in the relationship and may well breach practical boundaries. Provided it remains within manageable limits such behaviour may well provide fruitful therapeutic material and, we hope, would be tolerated. In contrast the supervisor will normally expect the supervisee to be adult in sharing responsibility for maintaining these boundaries. Any significant boundarybreaking behaviour is likely to be challenged with the expectation that the behaviour would change. This difference is also reflected in the way in which relationship dynamics are, ideally, addressed. A counsellor may be aware of dynamics and choose not to raise them with the client, judging that such an intervention would interrupt the flow by inviting the client to examine their process. In supervision it can reasonably be expected that either party may initiate discussion about the dynamics of the supervisory relationship. This is the ideal, although Lawton’s research into counsellors’ experiences of supervision (2000:35) has left her to conclude ‘that the dynamics operating in these supervisory relationships were rarely discussed at all despite a requirement to do so in the BAC Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervision of Counsellors’. This is a salutary reminder that practice does not always meet expected standards. Responsibilities We have included moral responsibilities under the counselling role. In so doing we are acknowledging that there may be occasions when a counsellor feels morally obliged, within their personal code of behaviour rather than any professional code of practice, to take some action which may not be in the best interests of the client. This is separate from legal responsibilities to give information to the civil authorities when required so to do by law. We will examine the substance of these issues in more detail in Chapter 10, but feel that an explanation is necessary at this point. The differences under the heading ‘Responsibilities’ make it clear that in our view supervisors need to be prepared to exercise a more readily identifiable authority than counsellors would


typically do, which includes monitoring the practice of the supervisee (Bradley 1989; Feltham and Dryden 1994; Hawthorne 1975). This does involve assessment, judgement, and on occasion being prescriptive about what the other person should or should not do. One of us had a poignant example of this with a longstanding supervisee. We had to arrange an emergency session because he had just been diagnosed as having cancer and could be called to hospital for treatment within the week. Although the prognosis was good he faced surgery, followed by protracted treatment with some potentially very unpleasant side effects. All the natural responses of the supervisor were to empathise with his difficult situation and give space for the powerful emotional responses he was experiencing. Nevertheless the priority task for the supervisor was to look at how the needs of the people he counselled and supervised would be met. This included confronting the supervisee with elements of denial evident in his desire to hold onto one or two people, either through telephone contact or occasional meetings. Although the supervisor endeavoured to act with care and sensitivity, staying with the task which had to be completed was demanding of both people involved. At one point the supervisee said that he felt he had to prepare for death and he wasn’t ready to die yet. This is an extreme example but highlights how being an effective supervisor may require tempering one’s natural concern and compassion for the supervisee when supervisory responsibilities demand a different focus. There is useful debate (see, for instance, Feltham 2000; King and Wheeler 1999; Shipton 2000) about where along the continuum between supervisor and supervisee responsibility lies. There is also recognition that supervisors can be experienced as persecutory (Kaberry 2000; Lidmila 1997; Webb 2000) when exercising what they consider to be the responsibilities of their role. However it is important for the novice supervisor to recognise that there is an important distinction between the responsibilities a counsellor has towards a client and those a supervisor has towards a supervisee. RESOURCES So far we have focused on the differences between counselling and supervision. If a counsellor has satisfied herself that she wishes to supervise then she must also consider what additional resources she


23

requires in order to be properly equipped for the new role. Arguably the most important piece of equipment for any supervisor is a conceptual understanding or model of supervision. Without this they are operating with what Bernard and Goodyear term the ‘no model’ approach: By this we mean that the supervisor has failed to address the role of supervisor as different to the role of therapist. The nomodel practitioner has not yet made a conceptual leap to supervision and has identified no assumptions, goals or behaviour that are unique to supervision. The only assumption made by this approach is that a good therapist will make a good supervisor. (Bernard and Goodyear 1992:10) This will lead to the supervisor having no clear sense of where she is going so that whether or not she arrives at a useful place is left in the hands of fortune. Borders (1992) makes the simple but fundamental point that in making the transition from counsellor to supervisor, the becoming-supervisor needs to make a cognitive shift from thinking like a counsellor to thinking like a supervisor. This involves, primarily, a shift in focus from the client to the counsellor. She suggests that supervisors who think like supervisors, rather than like counsellors, will be inclined to ask themselves ‘How can I intervene so that this counsellor will be more effective with current and future clients?’ Supervisors who fail to make this shift are more likely to approach sessions ‘well prepared to tell the counsellor what they would do with this client’ and, as Borders advises, the likely result then is that ‘supervisees become surrogate counselors who [merely] carry out supervisors’ plans for counseling’ (Borders 1992:137–138). Beginning to think like a supervisor is an important prerequisite to the ability to integrate and make effective use of a model of supervision. We will discuss supervision models and approaches and present our own model in detail in subsequent chapters; at this point it is enough to note that a model is an essential piece of equipment for the new task. The second major resource available to any new supervisor is his or her own experience of being a supervisee. Counsellors who have been active in identifying what they are seeking from supervision and deliberate in negotiating supervision contracts suitable for their needs will have a good basis for entering this new


role. There are useful guides to being a proactive and aware supervisee (Inskipp and Proctor 1994; Page 1999b), which emphasise the importance of the supervisee taking authority in this process. It is important, for example, that the ‘supervisee assesses whether this supervisor has the skills, knowledge, approach and commitment to meet their supervision needs’ (Page 1999b: 183). A supervisee who has been a proactive partner in their own supervision will be much better prepared for the transition to the role of supervisor than a supervisee who has been a more passive recipient of whatever their supervisor has chosen to offer. PITFALLS FOR THE UNWARY SUPERVISOR We will now go on to identify other traps into which the inexperienced supervisor may fall. Some of the internal pressures experienced in supervision mirror those of counselling—for example, there can be a strong pressure to come up with answers for the supervisee just as a counsellor might experience when with a client. However, there are other internal pressures that are unique to supervision. For example, there may well be occasions when the supervisor feels that he would do a better job if he were working with the client being discussed. If such responses are not effectively contained they are likely to lead either to trying to take over, perhaps trying to tell the supervisee what to do or, worse, to counselling the client vicariously through the supervisee. Either behaviour is inappropriate because they both, almost inevitably, result in the counsellor feeling demoralised and deskilled. There may of course be a grain of truth in the notion that one could do a better job than the counsellor, particularly if she is inexperienced or the client brings issues with which one has a particular degree of expertise. Nevertheless, except in the unusual circumstance where it is adjudged that the counsellor is acting in a way that is unethical, the supervisor’s task is to support, encourage and affirm her in the work she is doing, rather than take over her work. There is the trap of setting up in competition with the supervisee. Indeed this may be what underlies the desire to change places and become the client’s counsellor: ‘Stand aside, I’ll show you how to do it properly.’ The dynamics of competition can be complex, often with roots in rivalrous sibling relationships (Jacobs 1986). Generally, unconscious and honest self-reflection by the


25

supervisor is required in order to bring such a process to awareness. It is because of this kind of unconscious dynamic that it is important that a supervisor has an opportunity to examine the work he is doing. We will look at this in more depth when we come to consider supervision for the supervisor. There is another trap that we would like to term the ‘ethical inquisitor’ position (Daniels 2000). This involves examining all that is reported in supervision with a view to finding mistakes. Indeed, if taken to extremes it can mean scrutinising all aspects of the supervisee’s counselling work, thereby undermining the counsellor’s opportunity to take responsibility for the counselling work he is doing and bringing difficulties to the attention of his supervisor. It is very important that a supervisor has an awareness of the ethical issues she may meet, has an understanding of what is involved and some idea of how to proceed (Bond 2000). However, it is possible to be heavy handed on occasions where there are ethical concerns, leaping to solutions or action to alleviate the anxiety such situations can generate. To do so is unproductive and often results in a larger mess than first existed. We will explore these issues in much greater depth in Chapter 10; it is sufficient at this point to recognise the danger, be aware that it is driven by the supervisor’s own anxieties and recognise the importance of developing a lightness of touch. At the other end of the spectrum to the ‘ethical inquisitor’ lies the equally dangerous ‘passive optimist’. We have already made reference to this position without naming it: it is where the supervisor is faced with issues which need confronting but chooses to simply affirm and encourage the supervisee. This can be a result of not seeing the issues, not realising that what is being reported, or not reported, should be a cause for concern. For all of us this is inevitable on odd occasions but if it happens with a degree of regularity then the supervisor must be deemed unfit to fulfil the role. It is also possible for passive optimism to be a result of seeing the issue but hoping that affirming and encouraging the supervisee will be sufficient and that the issue will simply go away. This is a form of abdication (Hawthorne 1975) driven by the supervisor’s reluctance to confront. This reluctance may be fuelled from a number of sources such as desire to be liked, fear of hostility or lack of confidence in one’s own judgements. What is clear is that the problem lies with the supervisor and it is for him or her to resolve.


BENEFITS OF BECOMING A SUPERVISOR For the reader who is considering taking on supervision work what we have written so far could be read as a catalogue of reasons not to do so. Although this was not our deliberate intention it does honour the long-standing tradition of testing apparent vocation by facing the would-be practitioner with the difficulties they may expect to encounter (Hume 1977). However, in order to redress this balance we will now consider some of the benefits of becoming a supervisor. Taking on the role of supervisor can, as Borders (1992:145) has argued, provide a pivotal experience in the development of the experienced counsellor. Taking on responsibility for the work of other counsellors, she suggests, ‘propels them to higher levels of professionalism’. Additionally, integrating the skills and functions of counselling, educating and consulting into the role of supervisor can enable the practitioner to identify more clearly their own individual style of working and ‘help them solidify a new professional identity’ (ibid.). It frequently happens, then, that the act of supervising the work of another provides the supervisor with a new opportunity to examine his own work. Casement (1985) uses the image of a spiral to describe how supervising others can appear to take us back to the beginning of our own practice, although in reality it takes us to a new place that has familiar elements. He goes on to suggest that it is often easier to see how another counsellor could have acted more therapeutically and then apply that to our own practice than it is to see our own inadequacy in isolation. Just as we can see our own errors more clearly in others, so too in supervising others. Here there are endless opportunities for therapists to re-examine their own work, when looking closely at the work of the person being supervised. Not infrequently supervisors will see reflections of their own difficulties with technique. We do not always do as we teach others to do, but we can learn a lot by trying to do so. (Casement 1985:33) This is not a new phenomenon; as counsellors we have both heard ourselves saying things to clients and realised we could usefully say the same things to ourselves. Likewise as supervisors we


27

sometimes find ourselves offering the very perspective to the supervisee that we need to apply to a piece of our own counselling work. These are the times when we are conscious of the parallel. There is also an unconscious process at work, for in supervising the work of others we are developing our ability to stand back and reflect upon the counselling process as it is being reported to us. As we become able to do this whilst we are counselling (or supervising) someone so we are utilising the function which Casement (1985) has termed the ‘internal supervisor’. If the real depth of this function is to be understood then it must be appreciated that it does not simply mean the ability to reflect; rather, it involves the ability to reflect upon the therapeutic process as it is occurring. Essentially this means reflecting on and being involved in the therapeutic process at the same time. This can be thought of as being able to operate at two parallel levels simultaneously, or at least in sufficient proximity for the reflection to inform the involvement as it proceeds. A practising counsellor may feel that they have already developed this function, but supervising others will strengthen and refine the ability. The other major benefit of being a supervisor is that it provides a contrast to counselling. For the practitioner who spends most of their working time counselling clients this contrast can be quite significant. When we examined the differences between counselling and supervising relationships it became clear that the counselling relationship is generally the more emotionally demanding. It is often the case that the supervision relationship is more intellectually stimulating because there is a place for exploring what is going on at an intellectual and theoretical level with a supervisee in a manner that is seldom appropriate with a client. There is a somewhat broader reason why taking up supervision is beneficial. It provides a step in the career path of a counsellor and can lead on to other areas. For example, when familiar with supervising the work of counsellors some move into supervising the work of others, so applying skills beyond the counselling field. It can, when combined with other skills and frameworks, lead into allied areas of consultancy. These provide the practitioner with avenues for potential development and also offer ways in which the skills and experiences that counsellors and supervisors accumulate can be utilised more broadly than within the confines of therapeutic practice.


STARTING TO SUPERVISE Having decided to start supervising other counsellors there remain the questions of ‘when’ and ‘how’. ‘When’ is likely to be partially dictated by circumstances: an individual may be asked to take on supervision or it may be part of an employment role as a counsellor. However, it is important not to allow oneself to be rushed or pushed into supervising others. The ‘when’, in ideal circumstances, would always be ‘when ready’. ‘How’ to start supervising may also be determined by the situation, but it is worth considering the options. The traditional method has been simply to jump in and get on with it: the sink or swim approach. The problem with this is that there are inevitably casualties, be they the supervisor, the counsellor or the client. The second method is the mentor approach, embarking on supervising under the tutelage of an experienced supervisor. This can be effective provided that the mentor has a good grounding in theory as well as practice. If not then one is likely to become proficient at technique but lack some of the awareness of process and conceptual frameworks which a sound theoretical base provides. The third method is to do a training course in supervision. There are now a number of good-quality courses specifically in counsellor supervision available in Britain. There is also generally a supervision component in counselling courses at a Masters level, both in the United Kingdom and America, although such a component may well not be as rigorous in the aspects of theory, technique and practice as a course specific to counsellor supervision. In Chapter 13 we will look in more depth at the training and development needs of both the new supervisor and the experienced supervisor. SUPERVISION OF SUPERVISION It should, by now, be clear that supervising the counselling of others is a complex and demanding task. At times the dynamics can be more complex than in counselling because there are at least three people involved, each bringing their own intra-personal dynamics to bear. Indeed, in many supervision situations there are additional complications resulting from the impact of the organisation within which counselling takes place or the trainee


29

counsellor’s training institution. Supervising can also raise difficult issues that may not have been met before. For example, the balancing of the authoritative and facilitative aspects of the role, which we outlined under the theme of client welfare in Chapter 1, is unlikely to come up in counselling in quite the same way. The supervisor may have to decide how long she can allow the counsellor to proceed in a direction which she, the supervisor, feels has significant risk for the client. The very notion of deciding whether or not to ‘allow’ may never have occurred in the counselling role. These are examples of the complexity of the supervisory task. Because of this complexity it is essential that every supervisor should have some arena within which they can explore the supervision work they are doing. Ideally this is a supervision forum, individual or group, which is specifically arranged for this purpose. It is possible to look at supervision issues alongside counselling issues within one’s counselling supervision. However, this creates the danger that one or the other aspect of the work will suffer because the other is more time consuming. Dividing the time between the two may end up being determined more by the needs of crisis management than by the learning needs of the practitioner. We feel that it is essential that inexperienced supervisors have some form of supervision that is solely for their supervision work. This provides a place to examine their supervision work in depth and with regularity. As supervisors become more experienced they will come to know when they need to seek consultation over specific supervision issues and can develop a more flexible arrangement that reflects this maturity (Jacobs 2000a). CONCLUSION In identifying the differences between counselling and supervision it becomes apparent that these are distinct roles, each offering the practitioner a range of opportunities and challenges. The principal purpose of this book is to examine, in some depth, the nature of the supervision process. This we will embark on in the next chapter.

Chapter 3


A model is a framework, or a map, which incorporates both process and function. It can be contrasted with a theory, which seeks to explain what is observed in the setting under scrutiny, and with an approach, which provides a way of addressing or describes an attitude towards a subject. A model of counsellor supervision, by comparison, articulates both what is going on and also how it is done. It embraces both methodology and objectives and enables practitioners to locate themselves in the process by mapping out the terrain or territory. An effective model is clearly understandable and can be readily put into practice and adapted to the demands of the situation and the needs of its users. Although the model of supervision presented here has been developed specifically for use in counsellor supervision it can also be adapted to a range of supervision situations. We have used elements of it to good effect in the supervision of social workers, managers, health care professionals, teachers and others who routinely use counselling skills in human resource management. Since it was first published the model has been adopted for use in the supervision of clinical psychologists, nurses and other mental health professionals (Hardy and Park 1997), and as a core training model by a number of training institutions and counselling associations in Britain and Ireland. THE NEED FOR A MODEL OF COUNSELLOR SUPERVISION Traditionally, as we have already seen, approaches to supervision have taken the theory and practice of a counselling or psychotherapy model and then applied the principles and processes to the practice 30


31

of supervision (Friedlander et al. 1989; Hart 1982; Hess 1987; Miars et al. 1983; Rabinowitz et al. 1986). This tradition has led to the development of the ‘approach-oriented’ supervisor. Such a supervisor is well able to supervise the ‘purist’ therapist, exclusively practising one counselling approach and drawing only upon the theory and practice of that particular orientation. Nowadays, however, many supervisors offer their professional services to a range of counsellors emerging from different training ‘stables’ to their own and are required, if they adhere to the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy’s Code of Ethics and Practice for the Supervision of Counsellors (1996), to ‘monitor the limits of their competence’ (BAC 1996: B.2.4). We believe that, particularly for the experienced counsellor, there is richness and creativity to be had from receiving supervision from a supervisor working from a different theoretical orientation to one’s own. However, we also feel strongly that a supervisor who undertakes to offer supervision to a variety of practitioners should have synthesised a range of supervision-specific skills and competencies within a systematic framework in order to practise legitimately as a supervisor of counsellors from different fields (Wosket 2000a). And whereas eclectic and integrated counselling models proliferate in the literature—Norcross and Grencavage (1989:228) counted fifty books synthesising various counselling concepts and techniques back in 1989—supervisors wishing to work eclectically have until recently lacked systematic, comprehensive and pragmatic models of supervision (Ellis 1991). There are those who have made the conceptual leap beyond the ‘counselling model’ of supervision and have come to grips with providing frameworks which more clearly take the process and function of supervision as their starting point. The most popular examples of this endeavour in the United States are provided by the developmental models of supervision which according to Holloway (1987) became the zeitgeist of supervision thinking and research in the 1980s. (For a selection of these see Blocher 1983; Blount 1982; Friedlander et al. 1984; Grater 1985; Hart 1982; Hess 1986; Loganbill et al. 1982; Sansbury 1982; Yogev 1982.) Perhaps the most fully conceptualised and clearly articulated of these is the ‘Integrated Developmental Model’ propounded by Stoltenberg (1981), Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) and Stoltenberg, McNeill and Delworth (1998). A summary of this model is given in table form in Chapter 1.


Developmental models have the virtue of being designed specifically to address the process of supervision, rather than being overlays from counselling theory adapted to fit that process. They are supervisee-centred in that they encourage independence and stress the need for the supervisor to allow the counsellor to work through issues and grow at his or her own pace, whilst tailoring interventions to fit the stage the supervisee is at. Stoltenberg and Delworth’s work, in particular, has spurred researchers to examine particular aspects of counsellor competency within specific developmental domains (Leach et al. 1997; Stoltenberg et al 1994, 1995), including that of transcultural competence (López et al. 1989). Nevertheless, criticisms of developmental models have abounded and their limitations have been acknowledged even in the American climate in which they thrive (Borders 1989; Holloway 1987; Worthington 1987). Deficiencies that have been most often noted in developmental models are, firstly, that as stage theories they present too neat and unrealistic a process of the development of the counsellor and, secondly, that they fail to address the important issue of how transitions between stages occur and how such transitions can be facilitated by the supervisor. Hess (1987) has highlighted the danger present in developmental models of giving pre-eminence to the chronological stage, rather than the psychological needs, of the supervisee. Research conducted by Tracey and colleagues (1989) into the supervision preferences of beginning and advanced trainee counsellors found that the generalised assumptions on which developmental models are founded may obscure individual needs and differences. For instance, this research shows that the argument made by most developmental models, that supervisees require and prefer less structure in supervision as they gain experience, is importantly moderated by personality traits of supervisees and by the content of supervision sessions. Where there is crisis content, for instance in the discussion of a suicidal client, all seventy-eight trainees in their study, even those in advanced training, preferred a more structured approach. Blocher (1983:33) has pointed to the risk of the framework of a developmental model ‘obscuring’ the personal qualities required to ‘energize the model in practice’. Additionally, most developmental models initially failed to address the developmental stages of the supervisor, the influence of individual learning preferences and contextual factors such as training cultures and organisational constraints, all of which can play a vital


33

role in shaping the experience of the developing counsellor (Carroll 1988, 1996, 1999; Copeland 1998, 2000; Holloway 1995). Certainly the most persuasive criticism from a British perspective has been that these models conceptualise supervision as a learning rather than a consultation process, which makes them clearly most appropriate to supervision of the trainee and novice counsellor and virtually irrelevant to the experienced and competent practitioner (Borders 1989). It is to be welcomed that a revised edition of Stoltenberg and Delworth’s Developmental Approach (Stoltenberg et al. 1998) has taken account of many of these criticisms. Key adjustments to the model that have been made in the revised text include: 1 an acknowledgement that more account needs to be taken of the non-linear characteristics of counsellor development: ‘Although there will be periods of rather smooth growth in knowledge, skills and proficiencies, change over time tends to occur in spurts and periods of delay (and sometimes regression)’ (p. 2); 2 a survey of findings from research and clinical practice which suggest that broad band levels to describe counsellor development are too simplistic (e.g. a therapist may be confident and competent when dealing with familiar client issues and inexpert when faced with unfamiliar ones); 3 acknowledgement that identifiable areas of transition tend to occur between development levels (e.g. a counsellor who is negotiating the transition between levels 2 and 3 will be in the process of developing awareness of their responses and reactions to clients while at the same time gaining greater understanding of their own limitations and areas for development); 4 making the case for a more central role played by the supervisory relationship in facilitating counsellor development and mediating supervisor styles; 5 greater acknowledgement of the requirement for supervisors to take account of individual differences, particularly in relation to gender, ethnicity and sexual orientation; 6 the recognition that extensive preparation and training of supervisors is required before they are competent to take on the supervisory role; 7 the inclusion of a chapter on supervisor development and training that proposes a developmental process that parallels that of the counsellor development model;


8 an acknowledgement that ideally supervision should be ongoing, even for counsellors who have attained competence at level 3 and beyond. In the United Kingdom the current stage in the development of supervision models can perhaps best be characterised as multidimensional. Thus Hawkins and Shohet (2000) have developed their earlier work (Hawkins and Shohet 1989) to provide a more comprehensive model, which includes a developmental dimension to fit alongside their well-known process model. Similarly Carroll (1996) and Inskipp and Proctor (1995) seek to identify, and where possible integrate, a number of theoretical dimensions of supervision. In differing ways these different authors seek, with success, to provide comprehensive and systematic treatment of the entire supervision process. When we first put forward the cyclical model we perceived a need for a model that provided a clear map of the entire process of supervision and also suggested a workable methodology for accomplishing supervision objectives. The need for such an integrated model had been acknowledged in the supervision literature both in this country and in America (Bartlett 1983; Bernard and Goodyear 1992; Blocher 1983; Carroll 1988; Ellis 1991; Friedlander et al 1989; Kagan 1983; Leddick and Bernard 1980). Hart was typical of those writers and researchers who lamented the lack of systematic training and of conceptual models for the development of competent practitioners: Few supervisors have received formal training and even fewer have been given a conceptual framework for organising their supervisory activities. Most supervisors begin their supervisory tasks by relying on memories of their previous supervisors and on their clinical approach to therapy as guidelines. One can imitate an outstanding supervisor, but without theory or a conceptual model one does not really understand the process of supervision. (Hart 1982:27) Back in 1980, Leddick and Bernard commented on the fragmented state of supervision theory, saying that ‘there are few formulas for the successful practice of supervision, but there are many implied directives’ (p. 186). In 1983 Blocher lamented ‘the deplorable


35

extent’ of the ‘theoretical and indeed intellectual malaise’ relating to the literature on counsellor supervision and added that ‘supervision is something done rather casually with a “seat of our pants” approach’ (p. 27). Matters appeared to have moved little by 1988 when Carroll, surveying the British scene, joined the cry for a systematic framework and theory for the understanding and practice of supervision. Acknowledging the different conceptualisation of the process and function of supervision here compared with how it is understood across the Atlantic, he indicated the need for a model adapted to the requirements of British counsellors. We need to be careful that we do not transport theories that work well in other climates to Britain without serious investigation that they will adapt well to the changing environment. Counselling supervision may not be a good traveller. (Carroll 1988:389) In 1991 Ellis was still lamenting the void in relation to generally accepted approaches to supervision. ‘Apparently, the repeated appeals for a theoretically driven, programmatic, and empirically based approach to the practice of supervision have mostly gone unheeded’ (Ellis 1991:238). In our view these criticisms have now been well met, and a range of effective models and frameworks is currently available to new and experienced supervisors alike. We consider the cyclical model to be one such model. A CYCLICAL MODEL OF COUNSELLOR SUPERVISION The model presented in this book attempts to provide an overarching framework for the supervision process, as it applies to both novice and experienced practitioners, which can encompass process, function, aims and methodology. The framework is integrative and designed to provide a firm yet flexible structure into which a range of different approaches can be incorporated. Thus we hope that it can be viewed as entirely compatible, for instance, with Hawkins and Shohet’s (2000) process model and with the various developmental models. Our intention is that this framework will be of interest and value to counsellors and other supervisors from a number of persuasions and professions.


STAGES OF THE SUPERVISION MODEL The supervision model has five stages and each stage subdivides into five further steps. The five main stages of Contract, Focus, Space, Bridge and Review are shown in Figure 3.1. Although the stages and steps are presented here as a linear process this is not meant to imply that the supervisor should insist on starting each supervision session at Stage 1 and have worked systematically through to Stage 5 by the end of the session. The model is designed to be used with flexibility and pragmatism and can be entered at any stage. At all times the welfare of the client is preeminent and this may well determine at which stage the model is entered, or which step of that stage is used as the access point. How this is likely to work in practice will become clearer as we move through the model stage by stage and chapter by chapter.

Figure 3.1 Overview of the supervision model.


37

Stage 1: Contract Contracting in supervision, as in counselling, performs a vital function in underpinning the entire process and relationship. A contract is an agreement entered into by both parties that contains, supports, gives structure and provides direction and purpose to the work undertaken. A clear and specific contract sets the agenda for the task and process, reduces anxiety by helping to de-mystify the process and lays down the ground rules. Contracting should occur at the beginning of any supervisory relationship. It can also occur as recontracting throughout the ongoing work, and the fact that recontracting is occurring at various stages is usually the sign of a healthy and growing relationship and a developing task. Stage 2: Focus The focus of a supervision session is the subject or material under consideration at that particular point or stage of the supervision process. Focusing normally starts with the supervisee presenting some aspect of their work for the supervisor and counsellor to explore together. The function of the focus is to ensure that supervision starts with a significant issue for the supervisee and is relevant to the client work. Focusing as a process develops the supervisee’s responsibility for making the best use of the supervision opportunity. It encourages intentionality (direction and purpose) and reflection, and ensures that the supervisee has prepared for the supervision in advance of the meeting. Stage 3: Space Creating a space is at the heart of the supervision process. It is the place where the counsellor is held, supported, challenged and affirmed in his or her work. Space is where movement and insight can occur as a result of the exploratory work undertaken by the supervisor and supervisee. It is also the place where ‘not knowing’ and confusion are accepted and tolerated in the belief that time and attention given to the client and to the supervisee are beneficial to the counselling endeavour, even when a comfortable resolution of issues may not be achieved.


Stage 4: Bridge The function of a bridge in supervision is to provide a way back into the work which the supervisee is undertaking with the client. It is a process which, at its best, ensures that learning and awareness from the supervision are integrated and applied with caution and sensitivity in the counselling relationship. In the same way that the supervisee is asked to come to supervision with a focus to make sure that the supervision work is relevant to the client work, so too the counsellor is helped to go away from supervision with the recognition that the process will have made a difference, even if the difference is simply an awareness that nothing tangible needs to change. Stage 5: Review Review in supervision may take the form of evaluation or assessment of the supervisee’s work. If this is so, it should not be the only review which is happening. Whether or not the supervisor has some formal assessment role to fulfil in relation to the supervisee’s development, there should also be regular, ongoing mutual feedback taking place. This should happen to some extent in every session at a micro-level. It should also occur at the macrolevel at regular intervals where the supervisor and supervisee stand back from the immediate work to evaluate the progress and current state of their relationship and task. Building in review as an integral part of the supervision process ensures that both partners actively reflect upon and monitor the standard and quality of their own professional practice and their mutual endeavour. DEVELOPMENT OF THE SUPERVISION MODEL The model of supervision presented here has been developed from practice, and by this we mean from our practice as counsellors, trainers, consultants and supervisors. It is also imbued with the awareness that we bring from our own ongoing experience of being clients within a counselling or psychotherapy relationship. The idea for the model grew particularly from our experience of running a Certificate (now a Diploma) in Counsellor Supervision at the College of Ripon and York St John. Although we covered a wide


39

range of theories and approaches over the twelve months of the course we increasingly found this to be a rather fragmented way of training counsellors to become supervisors. Counsellor training courses that are accredited by The British Assocation for Counselling and Psychotherapy are required to provide a core theoretical model which underpins and imbues all aspects of the course, and such a core model appeared to us to be lacking on our own supervisor training course. While we did not want to lose our integrationist approach to the education and development of supervisors, we increasingly felt the need to offer a more holistic framework and methodology as our training medium. We wished to do this without reducing our coverage of a range of different models and approaches as we felt that this was a strength of the course and was something that the students themselves valued highly, since they were thereby encouraged to develop their own style and ways of working, rather than being forced into a theoretical straitjacket. Thus while we were clear about what we wanted to cover on the course, an opportunity for development became apparent as expressed in the questions which sometimes arose from students— questions such as:

• • • • •

I’m just beginning to supervise, can you tell me how to get started? How do we choose which approach to use, when? Can you recommend one approach over another? I understand the theory but how do I actually use it in my supervision work? Can you (the tutors) explain to us your approach to supervision?

Perhaps the real test of any learning is whether that learning can be conveyed to others in a way that is understandable and able to be duplicated in practice. Although we were comfortable with our own practice of supervision and were able to demonstrate and discuss this with students, we began to realise a need to articulate some of the principles and assumptions underlying our practice more clearly and to delineate the process and methodology in a more systematic manner. In particular we have attempted to answer two fundamental questions about the supervision process through the development of our own model:


What are we aiming to do and what are we actually doing? What works and why does it work? Because as individuals our backgrounds and training in both counselling and supervision have areas of divergence and areas of convergence, the model which we have developed is a synthesis of those differences and similarities.We hope that this adds richness and variety to the model in so much as it is developed from a combination of our two counselling backgrounds which together encompass humanistic, psychodynamic and cognitive-behavioural elements. Additionally we have brought to bear our continuing experience of being trainers, consultants, and counselling clients. We hope that this process has enabled us to consider the subject from a variety of perspectives and to overcome some of the blindspots and limitations unavoidably inherent in a one-person, one-school approach to the topic. In so doing our hope and intention is that we have produced a model which is synergetic and accessible rather than disjointed and incoherent. In allowing our theory to evolve and emerge from our practice we are attempting to follow in the tradition of such influential figures in the field as Carl Rogers and Norman Kagan, both of whom articulated clear theoretical bases to their operational procedures a number of years after their therapeutic and training approaches appeared to be fully conceptualised in terms of practice and application (Goodyear et al. 1983). Patterson (1983:21) reminds us that ‘models are essentially hypothetical statements’ without intrinsic validity until tried and tested in the field, while Goodyear and Bradley (1983) highlight the limitations of a theory that is too narrow to take account of the exigencies of the situation it is designed to address. We have called the model a Cyclical Model of Counsellor Supervision as the notion of a circle conveys the seamless pattern and recurring rhythm of the supervision process as we see it. We conceptualise supervision fundamentally as a twoway, interactive, process in which the supervisor and supervisee act upon and influence one another throughout a sequence where the end (recontracting), is also mirrored in the beginning (the contract). Good supervision, we believe, should allow for a twoway flow in which both supervisor and supervisee are responsive to each other’s input. Supervision therefore becomes


41

a dynamic learning and developmental process in which both parties learn and grow together. This is not to say that we conceptualise the relationship necessarily as one of equality (unless the process is one of consultancy rather than supervision there is normally a legitimate power imbalance in favour of the supervisor), although it is certainly one of partnership where collaborative investigation provides the basis for the work done. Inherent within this conceptualisation of the supervision process as an interactive one is the notion that both supervisor and supervisee are open to challenge and feedback given in honest and constructive ways. ASSUMPTIONS UNDERLYING THE MODEL The model is firmly grounded in a set of assumptions about supervision that govern and inform our practice. The most important of these for us are: 1 The primary purpose of supervision is to enhance the therapeutic value of the counselling process. 2 An important secondary function is to promote the growth of therapeutic competence in the supervisee. 3 Where the client’s welfare may be at risk, addressing this should supersede any other task or function. 4 Supervision is primarily a containing and enabling process, rather than an educational or therapeutic process (although learning and healing are often important by-products of the work). 5 Supervision should be supervisee-centred and take place within a relationship where the supervisor offers the core conditions of warmth, respect, genuineness and empathic understanding. 6 Good counsellors do not necessarily make good supervisors, and a counsellor requires training and a clear conceptualisation of the practice and process of supervision in order to function effectively in the role of supervisor. 7 Supervisors require ongoing supervision of their supervision work in the same way that counsellors require supervision of their counselling. In addition to these important assumptions there are a number of guiding principles that govern our work as supervisors. These are:


• • • • • • • • • • •

The unconscious mind exists and influences the process of supervision. We do not have to understand everything that is happening in supervision and can accept that ‘not knowing’ is a valuable and necessary part of the process. Supervision, to be effective, must be exploratory. It may also be action-oriented, but this is not always necessary in order for it to be effective. The act of the counsellor and supervisor reflecting together upon the counselling process in supervision is, of itself, facilitative of that process. Sometimes the act of reflecting in supervision appears to move the client’s process by itself—this is mysterious but observable. Supervision on the counselling with one client can free up the work with another. Aspects of the counsellor’s work with the client are often replayed in some form (normally outside of immediate awareness) in the supervision session. The supervisee will unconsciously both censor the material presented and also give clues as to what most needs addressing. Dealing with the dynamics of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee is an important aspect of the supervision process and will frequently throw light on the work with the client. Supervision can be experienced as more exposing for the counsellor than being a client in their own therapy. Supervision helps to maintain a ‘field of learning’ within which client, counsellor and supervisor are all learning. The maintenance of this field somehow increases the potential for the client to grow. Thus the learning of the counsellor can in itself facilitate growth in the client.

The assumptions and guiding principles summarised here are integrated within the model and will be explained more fully within the stages and steps to which they particularly apply. We would suggest that it is important for any supervisor to examine their own core values and beliefs about supervision in order to develop their own guiding principles and make explicit those assumptions that underlie their practice. It behoves every supervisor to reflect upon their own philosophy of supervision in order that they are able, when called upon, to explain and justify their chosen style and


43

approach to their supervisees, in the same way that counsellors should be able to explain the rationale for their counselling conceptualisation and choice of strategies to their clients. One of our prime objectives in developing and disseminating a coherent and accessible model of supervision is to take one step further the important and necessary process of de-mystifying the supervision process (Webb: 1983) in the same way that the counselling process has become more open to scrutiny over the last few decades. In summary, two criteria have been important in the development of the model. Firstly, it needed to be sufficiently complex to encompass the realities of the supervision process and its application, and secondly it needed to be simple to understand and use (given the existence of requisite skills in the would-be supervisor). Building on these important criteria, we have produced a model that offers a framework for the practice of supervision at two levels—both within individual sessions and also from session to session. A final word of caution needs to be added about the application of this, or any, model of counselling or supervision. A model needs to be humanised if it is to be applied with care, flexibility and sensitivity. If this does not happen the practitioner merely operates as a technician and the recipient, whether client or supervisee, may well feel devalued or treated as an object. As well as internalising a useful process model, the truly competent supervisor will possess the personal qualities and interpersonal skills to bring that model alive, so that it is used within a caring and respectful relationship (Wosket 1999). Donald Blocher has made this point emphatically, using strong language to highlight the danger of the mechanical application of supervisory models by practitioners who lack the ability to bring basic, person-centred, qualities to the practice of their profession: The supervisory relationship is by its nature one in which the counselor begins, at least, by feeling inadequate and vulnerable. The possibility always exists that an immature, inadequate, and insensitive supervisor may intimidate, bully, and even damage a supervisee. No theoretical model of supervision is idiot proof and bastard resistant. When such destructive events occur in supervision it is more likely to be due to the personal inadequacies of the supervisor than to deficiencies in any well-thought through theoretical model. (Blocher 1983:30)


In the following five chapters the stages of the supervision model will be described and explained in some depth. Each chapter will provide a rationalisation for that particular stage with an examination of the skills and processes pertaining to its application. Examples of the model in practice will be included to give the reader an illustration of how the steps of each stage can be applied to specific supervision situations. Each chapter will therefore cover theoretical, pragmatic and empirical components of the model and will conclude with a summary of key points. We have used discrete labelling and numbering of steps and stages to guide the reader more clearly through what may be unfamiliar territory. We wish to re-emphasise that this is primarily a device to provide clear mapping and is not done to invite slavish or prescriptive application. Often steps and stages overlap, shade imperceptibly into one another or become redundant in practice, and the practitioner is encouraged to take what is useful, when it appears useful, and leave the rest.

Chapter 4

Stage 1: Contract

If supervisor and supervisee have some tools and a framework for addressing the beginning of a supervision relationship they are able to make an ordered and intentional start to the work. If they lack the necessary skills and working knowledge to do this, the beginning may be ragged, confusing and blemished with stops and starts as the participants attempt to sort out the necessary details as they go along.

Figure 4.1 Supervision model stage1: Contract

Establishing a contract is a good way to ensure that supervision gets off the ground as smoothly as possible in order that the client work can then become the sustained focus of attention. As Hewson (1999) has argued, effective contracts work to minimise hidden 45


agendas and create mutuality that guards against the abuse of power in supervision. Contracting in supervision has several important aspects. These are highlighted in Figure 4.1 and will be considered in turn. It is not envisaged that every initial contract will need to take account of all aspects, although most are likely to be touched on at some point in the process of the supervision work. The parts of contracting shown in the diagram can also be viewed as separate steps to be worked through in the process of establishing a contract, or to be revisited at any point where recontracting is required. By contracting, we do not necessarily refer to the drawing up of a written contract, read and agreed by both parties, although this may sometimes occur. Neither do we conceive of contracting as an injection given at the start of the supervision to stimulate the subsequent work. Contracting is often a process that occurs regularly, or irregularly, over a number of sessions and the supervisor should be sensitive to the needs and preferences of the supervisee in the way that the contract is constructed and implemented. Two examples will serve to illustrate this flexible use of contracting. In the first example a new supervisee (an experienced counsellor) arrived for the initial session with a clear and comprehensive written account of his expectations of supervision, his preferences for ways of working and the practical issues he wished to address before discussing his client work. The first half of the session was taken up with negotiating a contract by considering each of the items on his list in turn. It subsequently emerged in a later session that the counsellor had recently had a negative experience of supervision, which he had terminated prematurely, because of the supervisor’s apparent inability to maintain clear boundaries around the supervision relationship. Through his approach to contracting with his new supervisor, the counsellor was clearly safeguarding himself by making his expectations and requirements explicit from the outset and thereby hopefully preempting a repetition of his difficulties with the previous supervisor. In the second example a new supervisee, who was relatively inexperienced and still undertaking her counselling training, was about to receive non-managerial supervision for the first time. She arrived eager to discuss her work and it was the supervisor who introduced the notion of a contract at a point where the supervisee appeared about to plunge straight into a presentation of her material. At that stage the supervisor merely highlighted the aspects

Stage 1: Contract

47

of the contract which might need to be addressed during the course of the supervision work and indicated which of those he felt it was necessary to cover in the early stages. The supervisor and supervisee then agreed to give the last ten minutes of that session to covering the practical arrangements required for the work to proceed next time and negotiated to make the space for other contracting issues as, and when, they appeared relevant to the work in progress. At the end of the session the supervisee disclosed that she had felt very anxious about presenting her work, but also very needy because of her lack of supportive supervision. It had been important for her to get into the work straight away as this had felt like the best use of valuable supervision time and had helped her to overcome her ‘performance’ anxiety. GROUND RULES: STEP 1-A By ground rules we mean the principles by which the supervision task and process are to be regulated in order to run as smoothly and efficiently as possible. The establishing of ground rules for the organisation and administration of supervision is, as in counselling, necessary for the work to commence and then to proceed in a structured and orderly fashion. The purpose of establishing ground rules is to reach agreement between the supervisor and supervisee as to how the task will be managed and maintained. Clear ground rules help to prevent misunderstandings and unnecessary repetitive negotiations each time an administrative or procedural issue arises. Ground rules are likely to cover the following issues. Duration, timing and frequency Duration refers both to the duration of the contract—how long both parties are envisaging that the supervision relationship will last— and to the duration of the sessions themselves. To take the first meaning of the term, the length of time over which a supervisor and counsellor may choose to work together can be governed by a number of factors. In general, it is unsettling and confusing for a counsellor, particularly one in training, to switch supervisors frequently. On the other hand, a practitioner who stays with the same supervisor for many years may be in danger of falling into a comfortable, even collusive, relationship. They would certainly be denying themselves the sharpness and freshness of a different


perspective on their work and perhaps, by implication, their clients too might be receiving less incisive counselling. We have also known counsellors who have stayed with the same, incompatible, supervisor for several years because they lacked the assertiveness to address the incompatibility, either by leaving, or by discussing it with their supervisor. Sometimes supervision that is unsatisfactory for the counsellor proceeds because of an assumption that the supervision will stretch ahead regardless, without opportunities ever being given to review the work or the relationship. As a guideline, we would suggest that supervision lasting less than a year is unlikely to develop the kind of open and trusting relationship where work that is both probing and challenging becomes the norm. Newly qualified counsellors and those in training are likely to benefit from the experience of being supervised by a different supervisor every two years or so. Experienced practitioners, more able to be self-challenging and self-affirming, may choose to stay longer with a supervisor who seems to ‘fit’ their preferred way of working and their requirements for consultative support. There is still the need to beware of complacency, and any counsellor who has had the same supervisor for five years or more might do well to ask themselves whether the discomfort of losing a familiar and valued supervisor would outweigh the benefits to themselves and their clients provided by a fresh and possibly more challenging perspective on their work. Contracting for the duration of the supervision arrangement should always, in our view, contain an agreement to review that contract after an agreed period or time, say six months, or before then if either party feels concerned about compatibility (Page 1999b). Compatibility issues may arise in terms of personality, expectations, goals, outcomes, styles or approaches used by either supervisor or counsellor. Supervision which lasts for periods shorter than those recommended above can still be effective and beneficial to both the supervisee and their clients, although in this case prioritising the work and considering how to manage termination would be important issues to consider from the start of the contract. One of us recently entered into a contract with an agency to supervise several of their workers for a period of, initially, six months. The limited contract was offered because of funding problems and in the event did not continue, for this reason, beyond the initial period agreed. The contract established at the beginning of the

Stage 1: Contract

49

work with one of the supervisees contained, at the supervisee’s request, an agreement that if the supervision were not to go beyond six months then he and his supervisor would together spend some time in the final sessions compiling a report to be delivered to the management committee of the agency. The report contained a recommendation that the continuation of outside supervision should be a priority for the workers, despite the very real squeeze on funds. In support of this recommendation the supervisor and supervisee compiled a list of benefits that the supervisee felt he had gained for himself and his clients, despite the relatively small number of sessions, which were limited to one hour, every three weeks, over six months. Benefits listed included:

• • • • • • •

The regenerative function of debriefing difficult experiences with an objective and supportive listener. The supervisee’s increased capacity for self-affirmation in an environment where colleagues were often demoralised and clients slow to make progress. The development of less judgemental and punitive attitudes towards clients who appeared intent on self-harm. Clearer role definition and greater awareness of areas of competence within each working role. Increased knowledge about the process and function of supervision, which could then be utilised in the establishment of a peer supervision group for workers, until it was possible to reestablish outside individual supervision. Greater clarity about the counselling process and an increase in the range of therapeutic techniques and interventions available to the supervisee. Heightened awareness of the negative effects of the intrusion of the supervisee’s personal material into the counselling relationship and of the need for ongoing personal counselling where this occurred.

The second aspect of duration is the actual time given to each supervision session. Different supervisors and supervisees will have differing preferences and arrangements. Whether the supervision session lasts for fifty minutes, an hour, or an hour and a half, a proportion of the time, perhaps five to ten minutes, needs to be given over to reviewing and recontracting. It is important that the supervisor and supervisee have ample time to explore issues arising


from the material presented but do not continue beyond their ability to maintain a conducive level of energy and concentration. This consideration is particularly important given that lapses in concentration and energy that are not merely a result of fatigue can throw important light on the dynamics of the relationship between counsellor and client. It is therefore important for the supervisor and supervisee to be able to attribute such changes to their correct source. Timing and frequency give consideration to the optimum number of supervision hours undertaken in relation to counselling hours and to the actual time of the day in which the session takes place. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) stops short of prescriptive directives about the amount of supervision required for all counsellors, but does provide some useful guidelines and recommendations (BAG 2000b). Counsellors who are accredited by BACP are required to have a minimum of one and a half hours’ personal supervision a month, and may well need more than this to ensure that their case work, if it is substantial, is well supervised. BACP does make particular stipulations regarding the amount of supervision required by counsellors in training, where a ratio of one hour of supervision to eight hours of client work is strongly recommended, as an absolute minimum, with every trainee having an opportunity to receive supervision on their counselling practice at least once a fortnight (BAG 1990:23). The timing of sessions is important in that bad timing can easily detract from the efficacy of the work. It is often easier for the supervisor and supervisee to arrange for a meeting to take place at the end of a busy working day, or in a squeezed lunch hour, than to make time during a hectic daily schedule. This can mean, at best, that the work is conducted when neither party is at their peak of energy and attention. At worst it can manifest as an overworked or exhausted supervisor struggling to give time and concentrated attention to a rushed and stressed supervisee, who perhaps has a head full of the jumble of a just-completed intensive day’s counselling, where too many clients have been seen in a period with insufficient breaks or administration time. Ideally, the supervisor and supervisee should arrange, in advance, to meet at regular intervals and at times where they can make the psychological space for the work. For the supervisee, particularly, this might mean giving half an hour before the meeting

Stage 1: Contract

51

to a quiet time for reflection and composure. If the counsellor is in a fairly relaxed state for the supervision it is likely that this will enhance insight and awareness as he or she will be less distracted by extraneous thoughts and more open to the emergence of ideas, feelings and images generated by the material under discussion. Giving attention to the setting in which supervision takes place is also important. Supervisees should expect to receive the same respect and uninterrupted attention as they routinely offer to their clients (Frankland 1993). This may mean that the supervisor needs, for example, to divert telephone calls or switch off the phone during the supervision meeting. It can also be helpful to tell the supervisee that knocks on the door will be disregarded if it is inappropriate to display the equivalent of a ‘do not disturb’ notice. We feel that it is the responsibility of both supervisor and supervisee to ensure that they are mentally, as well as physically, as fully present as possible for the supervision work. Supervision, as much as any other activity, can suffer from the phenomenon of ‘presenteeism’ (Proctor and Ditton 1989:3) where physical attendance belies an absence of full engagement with the task in progress. Occasionally the rigours of professional practice mean that supervisor, supervisee, or both arrive for the supervision meeting feeling rushed, drained, preoccupied or otherwise distracted. In extreme circumstances this might necessitate either party cancelling and rescheduling the session. In our experience such a contingency is rarely necessary as supervision normally has a remarkably regenerative effect on both participants. (If this is not the case, it is usually worth considering whether fatigue or boredom are a clue to ‘something else’ going on in the dynamic between supervisor, supervisee and client.) We have had several experiences where counsellors have arrived for supervision in, or close to, tears and yet have been determined to carry on with the task after a few minutes of talking about the immediate difficulty with supervisors who show themselves to be sufficiently flexible and accommodating to allow that personal material can intrude into, but need not diminish, the supervision work. Such instances occur at the interface of supervision and counselling, yet we believe that the supervisor can legitimately listen to and acknowledge the personal distress of a supervisee without slipping into therapy. In less extreme instances it is normally sufficient for either person to acknowledge their immediate difficulty and ask for a


minute or two to ‘fully arrive’, perhaps taking the necessary time for themselves by describing their journey or briefly outlining the ‘sort of day’ they have had. Where it might unnecessarily burden a client for the counsellor to make such a disclosure, the more collegial nature of practitioner supervision can sometimes allow for self-disclosure of this kind to be made by the supervisor without it having a detrimental effect on the supervisee. On the contrary, one could argue that by so doing the supervisor is modelling appropriate self-management, congruence, and the legitimacy of being ‘good enough’ without being infallible. Fees It is important to determine the method and level of fee payment at the contracting stage, and it is the supervisor’s responsibility to make explicit the fee required and method of payment if this is to be paid directly by the supervisee. One of us had an early experience of a supervisor who denied the importance of the fee, saying ‘money didn’t matter’ and asked the supervisee to suggest a sum. After agonising over this for some days, the matter was settled by the counsellor suggesting that they paid the same fee to the supervisor as they themselves charged for counselling. This was met with the rather off-putting response from the supervisor that she paid a lot more than that for her own supervision! Our view is that it is unfairly burdensome on the supervisee to ask him or her to suggest an appropriate sum. After all, counsellors who are paying for their own supervision can normally choose to go elsewhere if the fee quoted appears too high at initial consultation. Where the supervisor is being paid by an organisation it is important to establish by whom he or she has been appointed so that a named person can be contacted if any problems over payment arise. Codes of ethics and practice Many agencies and organisations, particularly those in the fields of health and social work, have their own codes of ethics and practice to which counsellors working for them are bound. It is therefore important for the supervisor to be aware of any such codes, as these will affect the management and direction of the supervision. Where both counsellor and supervisor are members of BACP it is

Stage 1: Contract

53

useful for them to spend some time together considering the Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors (BAG 1996) as these provide clear guidelines about the nature of the work, issues of responsibility, competency, confidentiality, boundaries and the management of the task. Contact and cancellations An apparently watertight contract can founder over issues of whether and how to contact a supervisor between sessions or how to proceed in the event of the cancellation of an appointment by either party. If such issues are not explicitly dealt with at some point in the contracting process worried counsellors may find themselves dealing with, for example, dangerously suicidal clients and not knowing whether they can contact their supervisors in such an emergency. Supervisors may find themselves in the position of not knowing whether to charge for sessions cancelled at short notice, when they are left with insufficient time to offer that session to another supervisee or client, yet they have not explicitly stated that payment is expected in such circumstances. The consideration, at an early stage, of procedures to handle such occurrences can prevent later anxiety, annoyance, uncertainty and misunderstanding. BOUNDARIES: STEP 1-B The establishment and maintenance of clear boundaries to structure and hold the work is as important in supervision as it is in counselling. Boundaries provide safety and containment and thereby encourage risk-taking and non-defensive engagement. While boundaries in supervision need to be clearly defined this does not also mean that they are narrowly restrictive. A boundary zone, for example, can include a transitional area where negotiation and overlap take place and such a space can be viewed as the interface between two fixed boundary points. Figure 4.2 shows the boundaries and interfaces between supervision, training and therapy. As well as the boundaries and interfaces between supervision, training and therapy, other important boundaries to consider are those applied to confidentiality, to roles that conflict with the supervisory relationship (for example friendships and overlapping work roles) and to sexual relationships. Let us consider each of these in slightly more detail.


Figure 4.2 Boundaries and interfaces between supervision, training and therapy.

Supervision and training Kadushin (1985) gives equal weight to the educative function of supervision when placed against its administrative and supportive functions. Traditionally, as we have seen, the American paradigm has conceptualised supervision as having primarily a training function. Hosford and Barmann (1983:51) are typical of theorists who see supervision ‘as a teaching-learning situation or as an educational process’. Our own view, paralleling that of Horton (1993), is that there is little place in supervision for the pupilteacher aspects of training where the supervisee is viewed as a ‘recipient’ of the acquired wisdom and knowledge of the more experienced supervisor. Supervision is not the place to initiate basic training or undertake extensive remedial training with the developing counsellor. A supervisee in need of the acquisition of basic skills, theoretical knowledge and counsellor characteristics should be directed to a suitable training course where such needs can be addressed systematically and methodically, rather than be dealt with in an ad hoc way in supervision. The supervisor should expect (and respect) the amount of knowledge, skill and competence that even a novice counsellor brings to their counselling work and to the supervision. The job of the supervisor is to help the therapist enhance and fully utilise these attributes as they are brought to bear on the work with particular clients. Rather than being teacher-pupil, supervisor and

Stage 1: Contract

55

supervisee are fellow participants in an exploratory activity where the hierarchical relationship, if such exists, is more one of mentor or guide. As such, the supervisor should not underestimate their potential influence as a powerful role model, through whom much learning as ‘interpersonal influence’ (Strong 1987; Yesenosky and Dowd 1990) may take place. Learning that enhances the counsellor’s skill in using techniques and interventions can take place in a number of ways which do not involve direct or didactic teaching—for example, through role play, feedback, coaching and the sharing of information and experience. These aspects of the interface between training and supervision will be considered in Stage 4 (Bridge) of the model. Supervision and therapy Although supervision is not counselling or therapy, it does encompass elements and functions of both. This means that although a boundary between the two certainly exists, and should be adhered to, the boundary is not always immediately apparent until further work at the interface between the two has been undertaken. An example will make this clearer. A female supervisee may present with difficulties in relating to an older, male client. In the course of the discussion the counsellor begins to realise that part of the difficulty concerns her unresolved feelings towards her own father. The supervisor helps her to more fully articulate some of these feelings in order to bring them into awareness and to enable her to decide which are countertransference feelings and which legitimately relate to the here-and-now of her working relationship with the client. This exploration frees the counsellor to use some immediacy (Egan 1998) or ‘you and me talk’ with her client in the next session, which results in a more positive and constructive therapeutic relationship. This supervisee can be contrasted with a second counsellor who has several older male clients, all of whom remind her of her father in some disquieting way. The wise supervisor soon refrains from attempting to help the counsellor with examination of these difficulties as if they are purely client-related and indicates the need for her to explore her relationship with her father more deeply through her own personal counselling. As indicated in these examples, our view is that personal issues arising from the material presented in a supervision session can legitimately be addressed if, by so doing, the benefit gained


for the client work through increased therapeutic potential generated in the supervisee is not outweighed by the loss of focus on the client which such work necessitates. Villas-Boas Bowen, writing from the perspective of a person-centred supervisor, endorses such a view: When the behavior of the clients brings out in the supervisees feelings or attitudes that interfere with their ability to listen and to understand, it becomes important to explore in supervision the factors in the supervisees’ life that might be contributing to their difficulty in being empathic. Although at such moments the focus of the supervision becomes the relationship of the supervisee with someone other than the client, it is only relevant because it is interfering with the supervisee’s interaction with the client. (Villas-Boas Bowen 1986:298) A number of writers on supervision have examined some of the differences and similarities between counselling or psychotherapy and supervision, while making clear that the two should remain separate in practice (Blumenfield 1982; Bordin 1983; Carifio and Hess 1987; Ekstein and Wallerstein 1972; Friedlander et al 1989; Houston 1990; Patterson 1983; Patterson, in Freeman 1992; VillasBoas Bowen 1986; Whiston and Emerson 1989). Ekstein and Wallerstein (1972:251–252) list as elements common to both activities such aspects as:

• • • • • •

The affective relationship with the helper. The wish to change, coupled with resistance to change. The struggle with being independent/dependent. The occurrence of unconscious repetitive ways of addressing a problem. The attempt to master new experiences. The linkage of past helping experiences with the present helping experience.

Whilst recognising these similarities, Ekstein and Wallerstein understand the essential difference between psychotherapy and supervision to be one of purpose. While both are helping processes, the main task of psychotherapy is the resolution of inner conflict, whereas the main task of supervision is leading the

Stage 1: Contract

57

supervisee towards greater therapeutic skill with his or her clients. Villas-Boas Bowen (1986:298) has differentiated between the two in terms of focus: ‘In psychotherapy the client has absolute freedom to talk about any realm of experience, but in supervision there is a primary focus—the interaction between the supervisee and the client.’ We find such differentiations invaluable in helping us to avoid the sometimes seductive trap of falling into therapy with our supervisees (we are, after all, counsellors first and foremost), or in pulling us back from the brink when we get close to mixing the two. We agree with Blumenfied’s caution, voiced from a psychodynamic perspective, that the supervisor should refrain (from respect if nothing else) from treating the supervisee as if he or she were a client: There are many reasons for the supervisor to resist such a temptation. The supervisee has not come as a patient. There has been no history taken, no diagnosis made, no framework for the therapy established… The supervisee may be completely unaware of emotional illness, or if aware, has not agreed to expose it to the supervisor. In the absence of full information, the supervisor cannot know what conflicts he or she may be stirring up in the supervisee… Interpretations made on such a basis must suggest (and by example, teach) ‘wild analysis’. (Blumenfield 1982:7–8) Whiston and Emerson (1989) have highlighted the particular vulnerability of the trainee counsellor when invited to enter a counselling relationship with their supervisor, who may also have an assessment role: Trainees consent to be supervised; they do not normally consent to be counseled. If they do consent to be counseled, the consent may not be completely voluntary… Trainees could feel compelled to acquiesce to counseling because of their perceptions of the consequences of refusing. (Whiston and Emerson 1989:321) Whiston and Emerson see a power issue at the heart of the argument against supervisors engaging in counselling with their supervisees. Supervisees may, quite understandably, be reluctant to


disclose personal material that they fear may have a negative effect on the supervisor’s evaluation of them. In their view the inequality of power in the supervision relationship is likely to transpose to the counselling relationship, in which case ‘it is expected that the counseling would proceed at a slower pace and that identification of underlying issues may never occur. In attempting to counsel trainees, the supervisor may, in fact, preclude the trainees from seeking the assistance they need’ (ibid.). Blocher (1983) goes a step further in expressing a viewpoint that places uninvited therapeutic interventions in supervision alongside the abuse of power. To assume that the supervisor has the right… to function purely in a self-appointed, unrequested therapy role is the epitome of egocentric insensitivity, and verges closely upon the unethical and unprofessional’ (p. 29). In a study that investigated changes in supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of the supervisory relationship over ten sessions, Kauderer and Herron (1990) discovered that while supervisors tended to have clear boundaries between supervision and therapy, supervisees did not. Supervisees were found to have ‘a tendency to blur these boundaries, since they saw self-exploration as a positive characteristic of their participation’ (pp. 478–479). It is therefore an important responsibility of the supervisor to monitor and maintain the boundary between supervision and therapy, as this may not always be apparent to the supervisee engrossed in their own introspective work. Although supervision is not counselling, and should not be used by the supervisor as an occasion for covertly influencing the supervisee to disclose personal material which he or she may later regret, it can be the medium through which the counsellor makes their way into personal therapy (Sharratt Wise et al. 1989). Sometimes, the experience of being involved in supervision which is therapeutic (but not therapy) leads a supervisee to consider under-going personal counselling for the first time. In a study of 142 advanced graduate students’ experiences of supervision, Allen et al. (1986) discovered that a quarter of their sample entered counselling or psychotherapy as a result of their involvement in supervision. Supervision can be therapeutic in the same way that it can be educational, while remaining a discipline that is separate from both training and counselling. Patterson has described the interface where training, supervision and therapy dovetail to form a seamless join.

Stage 1: Contract

59

Supervision, while not therapy, should be, like all good human relationships, therapeutic. Supervision is a relationship, which is therapeutic, and in which the student learns. But the learning is not the kind of learning which takes place in the usual classroom. It is more like the learning that takes place in counselling and psychotherapy. (Patterson 1983:25) Confidentiality Confidentiality is fundamental to the ethical and safe practice of supervision, as it is to counselling, and there is no excuse for fudging the boundary. It is the supervisor’s responsibility to make explicit at an early stage in contracting any limits to absolute confidentiality. We believe that all counsellors should inform their clients that they receive supervision. As we know some counsellors would disagree with us, perhaps we should state our rationale for this belief. Firstly, telling our clients that we discuss our work with a supervisor makes explicit the boundaries of confidentiality. Secondly, this gives a message about the level of professional standards to which we work and lets the client know something of what they should expect from good counselling practice. Thirdly, we hereby model for our clients that it is acceptable to need the help and support of another person—in other words we are practising what we preach—and, fourthly, it lets our clients know that an additional level of support and containment exists for their benefit. In disclosing that we receive supervision we recognise that the client is being asked to take an enormous leap of faith. Not only are we asking clients to entrust their innermost thoughts and feelings to their counsellor, we are also expecting them to entrust their disclosures, second hand, to an unknown third person—the supervisor. It is therefore of the utmost importance that the parameters of confidentiality are watertight, and in supervision this sometimes involves introducing particular safeguards. Supervision and counselling are fairly ‘incestuous’ professions due to the many interlocking networks created by a finite number of counsellors and supervisors within a particular community. Extra precautions are therefore often required in the management of confidentiality to prevent seepage and to ensure that anonymity is maintained. At the time of writing this chapter one of us was


involved in the following overlapping counselling and supervision relationships:

• • • • •

The person from whom I received supervision for my supervision work was also the counsellor of one of my supervisees. My therapist and I shared the same counselling supervisor (although we negotiated that she would take issues from her work with me to a separate supervisor). One of my supervisees had a client who was a student of mine. Two of my supervisees worked together in the same agency and shared many of the same work-related issues. One of my supervisees, who is also a supervisor, had a supervisee who was one of my students.

This may sound complicated, but it was by no means an unusual interlocking of roles and responsibilities. In order to manage the mind-boggling complexities of these relationships those of us involved had to negotiate confidentiality through careful and specific contracting to ensure that any discussion of clients and supervisees within supervision would be done without names, the playing of recognisable audio or video tapes, or the mention of any distinguishing characteristics. Role boundaries A further dimension of the boundaries needed to contain supervision relationships effectively concerns those separating supervision from friendships, work roles, social and sexual contact. We are doubtful that friendships or close working relationships mix well with non-managerial supervision, due to the difficulty in keeping the supervision separate and untainted by other relationship dynamics. In particular the twin dangers of collusion and avoidance are almost certain to threaten the efficacy of the work where the participants have a vested interest in maintaining a sound working, or social, alliance over and above their joint responsibilities to the supervision relationship. The addition of more than a little personal knowledge is also likely to cloud the clear vision and objectivity required by supervisor and supervisee for incisive supervision. Where an overlap of work or social roles with a supervision relationship exists the supervisor is responsible for making explicit

Stage 1: Contract

61

the boundary between them and for ensuring, as far as is possible, that one relationship does not intrude on the other. The damaging nature of power abuse by a counsellor misusing a privileged position to obtain sexual gratification has been well charted in recent years (Garrett 1994; Herlihy and Corey 1992; Masson 1990; McLeod 1993; Russell 1993, 1996; Rutter 1989; Szymanska and Palmer 1997). Similarly, the power component in the role of supervisor can lend itself to the sexual exploitation of supervisees, should the supervisor seek to abuse their position in this manner (Kaberry 2000). The current BACP Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors explicitly states that ‘Supervisors must not exploit their supervisees financially, sexually, emotionally or in any other way. It is unethical for supervisors to engage in sexual activity with their supervisee’ (BAG 1996: B.I.7). The powerful and complex dynamics surrounding the use and misuse of power in supervision relationships mean that abuse can also occur in more subtle and insidious ways. The BACP Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors has spelled out a number of responsibilities that supervisors hold to ensure that boundaries are not transgressed, both within the supervision relationship and beyond its termination. The issue of power in supervision is discussed more fully in Chapter 11, where we consider working with aspects of difference and diversity in supervision. ACCOUNTABILITY: STEP 1-C Some writers on the subject, for example Williams (1992), see an uneasy fit between confidentiality and accountability and foresee the danger of a ‘police-officer’ role for the supervisor trying to accommodate both within non-managerial supervision. We believe that though the two may sound like uneasy bedfellows, in practice a happy marriage is possible as long as any contractual obligations enjoined on the supervisor are taken into account when confidentiality is negotiated with the supervisee. BACP stresses the need for clarity in this area and stipulates that where a counsellor works in an organisation or an agency ‘the lines of accountability and responsibility are clearly defined: supervisee/client; supervisor/ supervisee; supervisor/client; organisation/supervisor; organisation/ supervisee; organisation/client’ (BAC 1996:3.3.6). Hess sees this requirement as a necessary prerequisite to an open and nonpunitive encounter between supervisor and supervisee.


Any conflict from dual relationships in cases in which free disclosure by the student can penalize the student because of the supervisor’s obligations for evaluative functions (such as the supervisor’s also serving as an employer or as a member of a credentialing body) must be clarified, minimized, or avoided. (Hess 1987:253) Supervisors who are appointed or employed by a training institution may have responsibilities to feed back something from the supervision work to that organisation. This will normally take the form of a report, or some other kind of evaluation or assessment of the supervisee, and the supervisor should be open and honest about such responsibilities from the outset. It is also important for the supervisor to clarify any such requirement with the employing organisation and to ask, if necessary, for written guidelines on what feedback is required and how this is to be given. The following guidelines are given to supervisors appointed to students on a Graduate Diploma in Counselling: Supervisors and students are required to draw up and submit, as part of the course assessment, an agreed summary of learning and development (Joint Learning Statement) at the end of each year of the course. Confidential aspects of supervision will not be intruded upon in respect of this requirement … In the event of serious professional concern about a student, supervisors will, in consultation with the student, inform the College so that a meeting between supervisor, student and College tutors can be arranged. If you have concerns about a student’s practice which you are not able to resolve with the student, you have a responsibility to contact the College to relay those concerns. Safeguarding confidentiality between student and supervisor is obviously balanced against safeguarding the needs and interests of clients and supervisees. The College may thus similarly, in consultation with the student, wish to liaise with the supervisor to enhance the professional development of the student. Any student who has concerns about their supervision may, in consultation with their supervisor wherever possible, raise these with the course tutor. (Wosket 1998)

Stage 1: Contract

63

As part of accountability we believe that supervisors should also inform supervisees of their own arrangements for consultancy or supervision of their supervision work. If the supervisor is undergoing training they should obtain permission from their supervisee(s) to take anything from the supervision work into the training course (for example where the supervisor-in-training receives supervision of their supervision practice within a peer or tutor-led group). EXPECTATIONS: STEP 1-D We will consider expectations of supervision in three categories: those of the supervisee, the supervisor and the organisation (although this does not always apply). Expectations cover such fundamental issues as the aims, goals, functions and purposes of supervision, together with the preferences, anticipations and responsibilities of the parties concerned. Given that ‘supervisory effectiveness is enhanced by the presence of mutual goals and expectations’ (Leddick and Dye 1987:139), it is of fundamental importance that the functions, purpose, aims and goals of supervision are commonly agreed between supervisor, supervisee and organisation. Within non-managerial supervision, which is the main focus of this book, the agreed aim of supervision is likely to be couched in terms which emphasise the support, development and monitoring of the supervisee. Kadushin (1985) has named the three functions of supervision which underpin such an aim or purpose as educative, supportive and managerial, while Proctor (1988) has termed them formative, restorative and normative. By educative or formative is meant developing the skills, understanding, abilities and professional identity of the supervisee through exploration and reflection on the supervisee’s work with clients. The supportive or restorative function of supervision enables the supervisee to debrief and deal with the emotional effects of intimate therapeutic work through containment and affirmation provided by the supervisor. The managerial or normative function provides the quality assurance aspect of supervision, where the supervisor helps the counsellor to ensure that the needs of the client are being addressed within clearly defined standards of ethical and professional practice. These functions will be considered in more depth in Stage 3 (Space) and Stage 4 (Bridge) of the model. At the contracting stage suffice it to say that it is important for supervisor,


supervisee and, if appropriate, the employing organisation to have reached common agreement on the balance or emphasis that will be given to each of these functions within the supervision. It is worth looking more closely at the range of responsibilities that pertain to the supervisor and the supervisee in relation to the work undertaken in supervision sessions. If these are not made explicit the work may become untidy, lose focus or boundaries, or degenerate into a muddled and imbalanced encounter where both supervisor and supervisee are ‘fishing around in the dark’. It is the supervisor’s responsibility:

• • • • • • • • •

to ensure that the needs of the client are being addressed through good standards of ethical, professional and nondiscriminatory practice; to ensure that the time is managed, that the work starts and ends promptly and is divided according to the needs and priorities of the supervisee (or the perceived needs of the client if these appear to be different and paramount); to ensure that boundaries between supervisor and supervisee and between counsellor and client are maintained; to ensure that the work is focused and that an appropriate balance is maintained between supervision and elements of training/therapy; to inform the supervisee of the methods, approaches and supervision style which he or she characteristically uses; to address the issue of how the supervisee will prepare and bring material to supervision (e.g. case notes, audio tapes, transcripts); to provide a facilitative relationship and to ensure that the work is supervisee-centred by taking into account the supervisee’s preferred style of learning and of being supervised; to provide feedback which is constructive, balanced and given at regular intervals, and to be open to receiving feedback from the supervisee; to provide opportunities to review the work in a formative way, regardless of any summative assessment requirements.

As well as letting the supervisee know what are his or her responsibilities, the supervisor should also explain clearly what he or she considers to be the supervisee’s responsibilities and allow for negotiation where this is needed. Supervisee responsibilities include:

Stage 1: Contract

• • • • •

65

preparing for the supervision and being clear about objectives for the session; being open to feedback and asking for this when it would be welcomed and is not forthcoming; developing a non-defensive attitude to the exploration of issues; being honest in bringing doubts, difficulties and concerns related to work with clients; opening up a dialogue with the supervisor when there are difficulties in the relationship, or in the way the supervision is conducted, which are not being addressed by the supervisor.

As Hart (1982) points out, the term ‘expectations’ in supervision covers both ‘beliefs’ and ‘desires’ or, in other words, anticipations and preferences. It is useful for the supervisor to help the supervisee make a distinction between these at the outset as such discussion can provide reassurance and confidence in the supervision process or, at the other extreme, lead to an early termination of the contract if it appears that the supervisee is unlikely to get what they want from the relationship. As Blocher (1983) notes, supervisees ‘come with their own unique and worthwhile learning styles and past developmental histories’ (p. 33) and it is expedient of the supervisor to spend time eliciting some of these from prospective supervisees as an aid to planning the supervision experience (Webb 1983). Asking the counsellor to say something about what they found positive and negative in previous supervision or learning experiences, and how this then fits with what they want and don’t want from the current supervision experience, can do this. A study undertaken by Allen et al. (1986) to evaluate comparisons ‘of best and worse psychotherapy supervision’ discovered that ‘worst experiences are most easily characterizable by what they fail to provide rather than what actually occurs’ (p. 95) and early discussion of expectations can hopefully forestall some such omissions. A counsellor receiving supervision for the first time may anticipate a rather daunting process whereby their weaknesses in counselling are to be scrutinised and deficits systematically addressed. To hear that, contrary to such beliefs, the process and relationship will be supportive and enabling can inspire confidence and openness in an otherwise anxious and defensively self-protective counsellor. Horton (1993), Rice (1980), Patterson (in Freeman 1992), Bahrick et al. (1991) and Bartlett (1983) are amongst writers who


have emphasised the importance of preparing counsellors for the supervision relationship through role induction. Bahrick et al. (1991) see this in terms of a parallel with the counselling relationship ‘in that both may be viewed as social systems with implicit expectations and rules of behavior’ (p. 434). Imparting to beginning supervisees knowledge of the tasks, ‘rules’ and process can be done through outlining a model of supervision such as the one presented here and discussing how this will be used in practice. Although Bartlett is considering benefits afforded to supervisors when he states that one outcome of providing such a framework is ‘to provide supervisors of counseling with specific information on what constitutes effective supervision’ (p. 9) the same can equally be said in relation to supervisees who will then be clearer about what to expect from thorough and competent supervision. RELATIONSHIP: STEP 1-E In supervision the relationship can be thought of as having two different aspects: (i) the affective or qualitative relationship between the supervisor and the supervisee and (ii) the working or ‘functional relationship’ (Hart 1982) through the operation of which the tasks of supervision are accomplished. Here we shall consider the quality of the affective relationship, and the working relationship will be examined in Stage 3 (Space) of the model. The importance given to the kind of relationship established between supervisor and supervisee varies between theorists. Minnes (1987:285) suggests that it is of paramount importance. ‘Regardless of the content and style of supervision, its ultimate success depends to a large extent upon the quality of the supervisor/supervisee relationship.’ Hess (1987) has reviewed a number of studies which indicate that supervisees rate the quality of the relationship as a crucial factor in determining satisfaction with supervision. However, those who conceptualise the supervision relationship as hierarchical and primarily concerned with training the novice practitioner (see Bartlett 1983) are likely to give less attention to the establishment of a warm and facilitative relationship—an omission which has given rise to a comment of puzzlement by Kagan (1983) that models of supervision do not appear strongly to advocate ‘respecting the counselor in much the same way that we ask the counselor to respect the client’ (p. 71).

Stage 1: Contract

67

Our view on the subject accords with that of Patterson, who states that ‘the supervision process is a relationship and it shares, therefore, the basic principles of all good human relationships’ (Freeman 1992:220). Although the presence of hierarchy in all forms of supervision (other than, possibly, consultancy and cosupervision between same-level practitioners) has been well charted (see Nelson and Holloway 1990), we believe, like Hart (1982), that the detrimental effects of hierarchy can be greatly mitigated by the quality of the relationship. Observing that hierarchy ‘is based on the type and amount of power the supervisor uses in order to influence the supervisee’ and that it ‘is not an absolute truth but a quantity determined by perceptions of both parties’, Hart argues that ‘the hierarchical distance can and does differ between various supervisor and supervisee dyads’ (p. 37). In a recent study, Webb and Wheeler (1998) surveyed ninety-six counsellors about their experiences of disclosing sensitive material in supervision (e.g. sexual feelings towards clients, strong feelings towards their supervisors and instances of unorthodox practice). They found a positive correlation between supervisees’ perceived levels of rapport with their supervisors and their ability to disclose sensitive issues in supervision. Similarly, a negative correlation was found to exist between the level of rapport with the supervisor and inhibitors of disclosure of sensitive issues. Webb and Wheeler’s research indicates that the quality assurance function of supervision may be importantly mediated by the quality of the supervision relationship if, as their findings suggest, poor rapport between supervisor and supervisee is a key determining factor in supervisees’ willingness to disclose difficult issues and dilemmas. A process of negotiation at the contracting stage may serve to promote the quality of the supervisory relationship from the outset and thereby increase the likelihood that the quality assurance function of supervision will be adequately served. Thus, while it is indisputable that supervisors have a clear mandate to monitor the practice of their supervisees to ensure that clients’ welfare is protected, how this will happen in practice can be talked through with the supervisee. A question during initial contracting like: ‘If I am concerned about your practice, how would you like me to address this with you?’ can come as something of a relief to the supervisee and lead to a useful dialogue in which the concerns and expectations of each person are aired in a constructive and open manner. Being allowed to have some say in how their work will be monitored will help the supervisee feel more


like an involved party in a true partnership, rather than a potential culprit waiting to be ‘caught out’. The findings of Webb and Wheeler’s research are in line with those of two earlier studies (Hutt et al. 1983 and Worthen and McNeill 1996). In Worthen and McNeill’s research, eight intermediate to advanced level psychotherapy trainees were interviewed about their experiences of good supervision. They found that ‘the most pivotal and crucial component of good supervision experiences that was clearly evident in every case studied was the quality of the supervisory relationship’ (p. 29). Participants identified as positive those attributes of supervisors that provided good supervisory relationships such as empathy, a non-judgemental stance, a sense of affirmation or validation, and a tendency to encourage exploration and experimentation in supervisees. Worthen and McNeill infer from their findings that a good experience of a supervision relationship is likely to have a lasting impact on the supervisee’s clinical practice and professional development. The experience may well ‘continue to serve as the base of all good therapeutic and professional training, suggesting that the learning and acquisition of professional skills and identity may be delayed, hampered, or not fully developed outside the context of an effective supervisory relationship’ (p. 32). One of us recently asked a supervisee whom we had supervised for six years to write about her experience of supervision. In relation to the current discussion, it is interesting to note that she chose to comment particularly on the supervisory relationship. These are her words: ‘As a humanistic practitioner, I recognise my supervision mirrors the qualities I hope to provide in the counselling relationship. The quality of the relationship I have with my supervisor has enabled me to work at a much greater relational depth, both in my supervision and in my counselling practice.’ In another exploratory study, Hutt and colleagues (1983) looked in depth at six supervisees’ positive and negative experiences of supervision. Their investigation uncovered the centrality of the supervision relationship as a determining factor in supervisees’ satisfaction with supervision. Research subjects in their study rated the supervision relationship, where it was deemed unsatisfactory, as the most significant aspect of negative supervision. Supervisees who had experienced relationship difficulties with their supervisors learned to protect vulnerable areas of the self by hiding certain problems and conflicts in their work from their supervisors from

Stage 1: Contract

69

fear of an unsympathetic reaction. The researchers uncovered that this experience found a parallel in supervisees’ client work as they then learned to use avoidance tactics to manage difficult interpersonal relationships with clients. Conversely, positive relationships with their supervisors contributed significantly to the supervisees’ overall satisfaction with the supervision they received. The authors’ analysis of their interview data suggested the following key indicators about the significance of the supervisory relationship:

• • • •

The relationship is not an end in itself, but importantly expedites the task and process in positive supervision. In particular, supervisor self-disclosure and genuineness appear to move the process of supervision forward and encourage open exploration whenever the supervisee feels vulnerable, resistant or inhibited. In unsatisfactory supervision supervisees become very focused on negative characteristics of the supervisory relationship. In particular, inflexibility on the part of the supervisor seems to seriously inhibit supervisees’ productive exploration and can lead to irreconcilable impasses.

A study conducted by Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman (1999) into 105 trainees’ experience of the supervisory relationship focused more closely on the second element of this list; namely, selfdisclosure by the supervisor and its impact on the working alliance. Their research uncovered that the legitimate use of self-disclosure by the supervisor serves two important but slightly different purposes in supervision. The first is that of building and enhancing the supervisory relationship and the second is of repairing the relationship when it becomes problematic. The latter use of selfdisclosure was seen to be particularly important in providing modelling to supervisees about how to address conflicts and tensions in their relationships with clients. Significantly, Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman’s study also revealed that the degree of supervisor self-disclosure appears to predict the strength of the supervisory working alliance. Their data showed that ‘the more frequently a supervisor self-disclosed, the greater was the agreement between the supervisor and the trainee on the goals and tasks of supervision and the stronger was the emotional bond between the two’ (1999:156). The authors of this


study recommend that intentional self-disclosure, used with discretion, is an effective supervision intervention that can be introduced by the supervisor to enhance the quality and productiveness of the supervisory encounter significantly. In particular, their analysis of the data provided by trainees suggested that the willingness of a supervisor to share their vulnerability through disclosing their own struggles with therapeutic dilemmas was particularly appreciated by supervisees and helped to correct the power imbalance in the relationship. It is important to note, however, that Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman also found that excessive or inappropriate self-disclosure by the supervisor tended to significantly undermine the supervisory process and relationship. They warn, for instance, that ‘supervisor self-disclosures that emphasize the specialness of the supervisor may be a form of countertransference whereby the supervisor attempts to satisfy her or his needs for approval and adequacy’ (1999:153). Jacobs et al. (1995:159) have also considered the potentially harmful impact of the supervisor’s self-disclosure and suggest that the following guideline is observed. The litmus test of self-revelation in supervision is the degree to which it contributes meaningfully to the therapy of the patient and the education of the therapist. Will the self-revelation relate to or interfere with the basic goals of supervision?’ Findings from these studies support our view that a sound supervisory relationship forms the cornerstone of effective supervision. However, as Bernard (1994:168) advises, although ‘the forming of a relationship may be the nucleus of supervision, it is not an appropriate outcome goal’. While establishing and maintaining the relationship is crucially important in assisting the tasks of supervision it is important to remember that forging the relationship does not constitute an end in itself, as it may, on occasion, do in counselling or psychotherapy (Kahn 1997; Patterson and Hidore 1997; Wosket 1999). A supervision relationship that offers the Rogerian core conditions of respect, empathy and congruence (Rogers 1961) can enormously enhance the quality of the supervision work. The establishment of such a relationship builds a safe and secure framework within which the supervisee can risk exploring difficult and even painful issues, which, if worked through, can prove extremely efficacious to the counsellor’s client work. Though hierarchical, the supervision relationship can be experienced as facilitative and even therapeutic, as indicated by Patterson, a

Stage 1: Contract

71

leading exponent of client-centred supervision. ‘It is not threatening in that the student knows I am not judging. I am trying to help by providing essentially the same relationship the student should be providing in therapy’ (Freeman 1992:221). One of us recently worked with a counsellor who was about to move to another part of the country and wanted to explore the issue of the forced endings with several of his clients that this change would necessitate. Because the supervisor and supervisee had done some work at the interface of therapy and supervision, where the supervisee had disclosed having once suffered a sudden and shocking bereavement, the supervisor was sensitive to the importance of loss issues for the supervisee. During the course of the supervision session the supervisee was able to lessen his grip on the need to make every ending neat and tidy for his clients (a need stemming from his own experience of sudden and calamitous loss) in favour of providing his clients with opportunities and strategies to help them voice their feelings, even when negative, about losing their counsellor. During the review period of this session the supervisee commented that he had felt understood and accepted by the supervisor who had acknowledged his difficulties with endings and loss without prying, or making him feel it was wrong to have such feelings. Sensing that the supervisor would respect him in this way had made it possible for him to bring up the issue, knowing it would be safe to expose his vulnerability in this context. Although trust, respect, empathy and genuineness cannot be taken for granted and have to be demonstrated and earned in a relationship, it can be very reassuring for a supervisee to hear their supervisor voice the hope and intention of providing these at the start of the supervision work. If this is done at the contracting stage it begins already to imbue the work with humanity and warmth and, equally important, encourages immediacy when this might be necessary within the relationship. Such measures during contracting can go a long way towards helping to redress the inequalities inherent in a hierarchical supervision relationship, as well as providing modelling for the supervisee about how to establish a facilitative and therapeutic relationship with clients. This section will conclude with a supervisee’s perspective on the place and value of contracting within supervision. These are her words: The contracting session with a supervisor for me is vital to underpin the whole of the supervisory relationship. It is


important in giving the opportunity to negotiate not only what is expected of me in terms of preparation prior to supervision and the nitty-gritty issues of payment, frequency, etc. but also for me to say what I want and need from supervision—what I expect. This gives a real sense of mutual respect which significantly heightens my preparedness to bring those issues that concern me the most in my counselling work—to put myself on the line. I need a supervisor who has the skills and insight to really challenge me and my work and also to support and encourage me, not only by what they do, but by who they are. If my supervisor models contracting effectively and efficiently it gives me a real sense of their competency. CONCLUSION A contract in supervision is an ongoing process which shapes and provides structure and direction to the relationship and the task. It covers the management and administration of the work and delineates the boundaries between supervision, therapy and training. It also ensures that the supervision is contained within ethical and professional boundaries such as those governing confidentiality and work, social and sexual relationships. Contracting deals with issues of accountability and responsibility and clarifies mutual expectations. It establishes the kind of relationship which will govern the supervision and enables the supervisor and supervisee to discuss how they would prefer to work together. Effective contracting ensures that a firm foundation is laid and disperses much of the uncertainty and mystery which can otherwise imbue the supervision process.

Chapter 5

Stage 2: Focus

Following the establishment of a contract, the work of supervision can begin. The point of entry into the work is called the focus. The focus then continues to be the material under consideration at any point of the supervision session. A focus is both a locus of attention and a point of convergence and, in supervision, is the topic or issue upon which both supervisor and supervisee are directing their concentrated energy and attention at any one time. In gestalt terminology it is ‘figure’, while the context of the client work constitutes the ‘ground’ from which the focus emerges. As in counselling, it is important for a focus to be established and maintained in order that the work develops systematically and does not degenerate into erratic fits and starts. Staying with a focus ensures that issues are explored in some depth and irrelevancies are minimised.

Figure 5.1 Supervision model stage 2: Focus.

73


The steps which comprise the process and task of focusing are given in Figure 5.1. Not all steps are required to be worked through in every individual supervision session, although sometimes this is necessary. It is, for instance, important for the supervisee to come up with a supervision issue in each session. However, it is conceivable that the approach the supervisor will use in helping the counsellor to explore the issue may have been predetermined at the contracting stage, particularly if the supervisor favours one orientation or style of supervision. Supervisors who work in a more eclectic or integrated fashion may gear their approach, session by session, to what appears most useful in matching the supervisee’s particular issue or issues as they arise. ISSUE: STEP 2-A Wherever possible the supervisee should be allowed to start the session with an issue for supervision. Only in the case of overriding concerns of great account should the supervisor take this privilege away from the counsellor by introducing his or her own agenda at the start of a session. An example of such an occasion might be where the supervisor needs to indicate immediately to a supervisee that this will be the last occasion they can meet for some time due to a personal crisis necessitating a sudden and unexpected absence by the supervisor. In a situation like this it would be crucial for the supervisor to give early notice at the start of the discussion, to allow time for dealing with the supervisee’s feelings about this forced termination and for alternative arrangements for supervision to be addressed. Stating that the supervisee should be allowed to start with his or her issue is not the same as saying that the supervisor has no say in what is covered in the session. As we shall see in Step E (Priorities), it is legitimate for, and on occasion incumbent upon, the supervisor to introduce a different focus if more pressing requirements (often linked to the welfare of the client) become uppermost in his or her awareness. The issue that the supervisee brings for the start of supervision may be one of several kinds. It can (more often than not) be prepared in advance so that the supervisee is clear about the issue they wish to work on when they arrive. On occasion the supervisee may choose, or may negotiate, with their supervisor to come ‘unprepared’ and free-associate when they start. If such is the case,

Stage 2: Focus

75

it is still, of course, important for the supervisee to prepare themselves psychologically for the supervision as indicated in the previous chapter on Contract. The example below illustrates this approach of using free association to bring an issue into awareness at the start of a supervision session. An experienced counsellor who normally came to supervision with clear issues outlined in written form, negotiated with his supervisor to come to one session with nothing prepared. Although he did not work psychodynamically himself, he was in therapy with a psychodynamic counsellor and, having experienced the power of ‘free association’ in getting to the heart of his own issues, wished to try this approach in supervision. The session was tape-recorded and an extract from the beginning of the session is presented here. COUNSELLOR: We agreed at the last session that I would not prepare this time. That feels a bit scary. So all I’ve done is just look briefly through my file and it feels quite strange. In a way I’m sitting here, not terribly sure what to do, because I’m used to being very well prepared. I feel quite anxious now… SUPERVISOR: …and a bit, sort of, adrift from it? COUNSELLOR: Yes, because we agreed that I would do that and that we would work psychodynamically, and yet I’ve never done that before and so I’m thinking ‘What am I supposed to be doing?’ So I may need some help. SUPERVISOR: OK, perhaps I can give us a hand in getting started. COUNSELLOR: Please. SUPERVISOR: You said all that you did was look through your file. Did anything come up when you did that—about any of the people you’re working with? Or now, when you think about going through your file, does anything come to mind? COUNSELLOR: I think what comes to mind is—how many people I’m seeing and the messiness of it. That’s how it feels now, quite messy. And I think that’s reflected in—you said ‘adrift’ before—and I think I feel a bit adrift in my counselling. Not in the actual process, but how I’m handling the overall counselling—the beginnings and the endings—the whole series of counselling sessions. In this illustration it is apparent that the supervisee did have a clear issue which the supervisor helped him to bring into focus very early


in the session, even though the issue had not been prepared in advance. Enabling the supervisee to clarify their supervision issue is an important part of the supervisor’s task in the focusing stage. Although the issue that the supervisee chooses to bring will often relate very directly to a particular client—for example a sense of stuckness or impotence—it may, as in the illustration above, be more generalised. If this is the case, the supervisor needs to make sure that the discussion remains focused on the issue in a way that ensures that it is likely to lead to enhancement of the therapeutic value of the counselling or helping process, as it pertains to the supervisee’s client. The following items are indicative of the kind of more generalised issues which we have dealt with in supervision. Against each topic is an indication of how the issue can be kept relevant to the client work. Keeping issues relevant shouldn’t be an onerous task for the supervisor; that is, they shouldn’t find themselves constantly dragging an unwilling supervisee back to the client. Rather, the supervisee should be a willing ally in this process if the ground has been well prepared by the supervisor in the Contract stage. Organisational issues A counsellor working in a busy General Practice explored in supervision how issues such as lack of communication between counsellor and doctors; insufficient breaks and administration time between sessions; pressure to move clients on to make room for new referrals from a growing waiting list, and lack of information about changes in clients’ medication were proving inimical to effective counselling work. These aspects were then discussed in relation to one particular client whose anti-depressant medication had recently been increased. This had occurred without the counsellor being informed, to the apparent detriment of the counselling process. As the discussion progressed, the counsellor became aware of a strong sense of frustration and of feeling undermined in his work. An outcome of the supervision was the counsellor’s objective to request attendance at a meeting of the partners and to put some of his organisational issues on the agenda for discussion. Stress A counsellor working for a busy voluntary agency brought the issue of management of case-load. Given that several of her colleagues

Stage 2: Focus

77

were absent from work for extended periods, she had felt under pressure to increase her intake of clients to cover the shortfall created by the absence of other counsellors. The increased workload occasioned by this move meant that the counsellor often worked throughout the day and into the evening, when she felt drained and emotionally exhausted. The supervisor encouraged her to explore the effect that her exhaustion had on those clients seen in the evening slots. She began to recognise that distraction and edginess caused by tiredness and resentment at her lot might leave her clients feeling unheard and misunderstood. She also became aware that the pressure to increase her case-load had come, not so much from outside pressure, but from her own, possibly misguided, belief that all troubled people who approached the agency had to be seen immediately. As a result of the supervision the counsellor became open to considering other options, such as referring would-be clients to another agency, or giving them an appointment for a time in the future when another counsellor would be available to see them. Motivation All counsellors and helpers who are in the profession for more than the most superficial of reasons will, on occasion, question their motivation for the work. Inevitably too, they will feel lack of motivation at certain times, and one of us has written elsewhere about how counsellor motivation can affect the counselling process (Wosket 1990). Such doubts and uncertainties are natural and particularly common as part of the ‘learning curve’ for trainees, where they are often linked to the normal and passing phase of feeling deskilled and ineffective. It is therefore important that the supervisor has created a relationship and structure within which the supervisee can take the risk of disclosing doubts and anxieties which may go to the core of their professional sense of self (Eckler-Hart 1987). If these concerns are not allowed expression and are not accepted and tolerated by the supervisor they are likely seriously to undermine the work with clients, for example where the counsellor attempts to overcompensate for feelings of ‘fraudulence’ by trying too hard. Half way through a two-year Diploma course a counsellor disclosed in supervision that she was feeling as if she had nothing of any use to offer any of her clients, couldn’t think of any reasons for wanting to continue her training and was wondering whether


she had ‘just been kidding herself when she had started the course believing she had some kind of vocation for the work. Without minimising these feelings the supervisor gently encouraged and supported the counsellor to continue with her work at a level at which she felt competent, which entailed mainly listening to and supporting her clients. He disclosed to the counsellor that he had suffered a similar ‘crisis of conscience’ mid-way through his own training and that it had lasted for some time and was not quickly resolved. The counsellor was given plenty of space in the subsequent supervision sessions to express her self-doubts and gradually regained her commitment and confidence over the following months. Having taken time to listen and respond empathically to the supervisee’s doubts about motivation, it is often helpful to encourage the supervisee to discuss them in relation to how they affect the work with a particular client. The counsellor can then be affirmed and gently challenged to acknowledge what they are doing well with the client, despite very real self-doubts. If selfdoubt stems from unrealistic expectations of the counselling process, such as a belief by the counsellor that he or she should be able to help everyone who presents for counselling, the counsellor can be challenged to become more of a realist and less of a perfectionist through the supervisor helping him or her to explore the negative effect which such a ‘grandiose’ sense of self (Brightman 1984) can have on particular clients. It can also help if the supervisor points out, when appropriate, that temporary lack or questioning of motivation is a healthy and natural part of the learning process. Personal issues Although we hope to have shown clearly (Chapter 4) that supervision is not and should not be personal therapy for the counsellor, a supervisee’s personal issues can, and often do, intrude on their counselling work. Again it is important that supervisors provide a climate in which the counsellor feels able to disclose personal material which may be affecting their work. Counsellor and supervisor can then together, in a spirit of collaboration, examine the extent of the ‘contamination’ and consider strategies for minimising or avoiding this. If the necessary work on establishing the boundaries between supervision and therapy has

Stage 2: Focus

79

been well done in Stage 1-B (Boundaries) of the model, the counsellor should feel able to risk disclosing relevant personal material without fear that he or she will be reprimanded, denounced as inadequate, or, perhaps worse, pushed unwillingly into stirring up stuff that will leave them feeling raw and exposed. A supervisee disclosed early in a session that his partner had just suffered a miscarriage and that he was concerned that his feelings about this might be affecting his work with a pregnant client. The supervisor encouraged him to talk about these feelings and how they related to his client. As they talked, the counsellor realised that he had been attempting to deny his own feelings of loss in order to ‘be strong’ for his partner and this denial had manifested as irritation and anger towards his client who, he felt, was not caring for her unborn child as well as she should. As an upshot of this increased awareness the counsellor and supervisor were able, more objectively, to discuss how the counsellor could obtain help and support in dealing with his own issue and the question of whether he should refrain from working with his pregnant client until he had resolved more of his own distress. Success Supervision necessarily deals most frequently with a counsellor’s difficulties, deficits and ‘failures’. Facilitative supervision should, after all, provide the space where mistakes can be aired and viewed as learning opportunities. If a supervisee were never to bring such issues to supervision the supervisor would, quite rightly, have serious concerns about the counsellor’s self-awareness and even probity. The importance of acknowledging and celebrating success should not, however, be lost by this concentration on reconstructive work. Valuable learning and integration also take place through highlighting strengths and achievements. It is important for the supervisor to instil the good, but all too often infrequent, habit in the counsellor of recognising what they have done well, as well as what they feel they have messed up. So, for example, where a supervisee has spent some time delineating their own deficits or exploring difficulties in relation to a client, it can be pertinent for the supervisor to ask ‘And what are you doing well with this person?’ Encouraging the counsellor to acknowledge what is more positive, alongside the frustrations of the work, serves to redress the balance and can give them the confidence and determination to return to the


‘fray’. Such interventions by the supervisor also have an educative function and can provide invaluable modelling for the counsellor in how to challenge strengths and resources in their clients. Where supervisors have counsellors who are far more skilled at disparaging their weaknesses than displaying their strengths it can be useful for the supervisor to encourage the celebration of successes by indicating that these can be legitimate issues to bring to supervision. A counsellor who is reluctant to do this can be helped by the supervisor giving permission at the end of a session for the counsellor to come back next time and ‘tell me how it worked out’. Supervisors, like their supervisees, also have a natural need to know they are doing ‘OK’ and it can be affirming for both participants, in what is after all a mutual endeavour, to savour from time to time the successes accomplished by good teamwork. To ensure that successes are consolidated the supervisor can ask the supervisee to identify what particularly helped to achieve the success, and how the counsellor can now make that a part of his or her repertoire of counselling competence so that it is more freely available for use with future clients. An example of this would be where a counsellor has been successful in using advanced empathy (Egan 1998) with a client through ‘playing a hunch’ based on clues given by the client and which the supervisor has helped him or her to spot. Acknowledging the value and effectiveness of such intuitive work can enable the counsellor’s own ‘internal supervisor’ to more readily suggest using advanced empathy at opportune moments in future counselling sessions. In the foregoing paragraph the notion of listening for clues was introduced in relation to the development in the counsellor of the ability to used advanced empathy. The ability to pick up clues is also a vital skill for the supervisor to access at the focusing stage. The way that the supervisee introduces the issue will often yield important information about the nature of the issue itself and what may need addressing. A fundamental question for the supervisor to keep in mind at this step is ‘Why have you chosen to bring this issue (or client) to me today and to present the work in this manner?’ The supervisor here can be likened to a detective whose senses are alert to picking up evidence or clues to the real nature of the ‘incident’, which may be lurking below the surface and only available to the trained and discriminating eye. A clear example of such ‘detective’ work relating to the session extract transcribed above will be given in Presentation, Step 2-C, later in the chapter.

Stage 2: Focus

81

OBJECTIVES: STEP 2-B An important part of the focusing stage is clarification of objectives by the supervisee, the supervisor, and, where applicable, the organisation or training institution. Establishing objectives encourages intentional work and provides the basis for review and evaluation (discussed in Stage 5 of the model). By objectives we mean that the supervisee has some idea of what he or she wishes to cover and achieve in the supervision session so that purpose, direction and outcome are established as a dynamic process which shapes the work. A supervisee’s objectives for a session might, by way of example, encompass the following four goals:

• • • •

Take a few minutes at the start of the session to tell my supervisor how the work is progressing with the client I received supervision on last time. Divide the rest of the time equally between discussion of two clients. Minimise presentation of background information about the clients in favour of getting straight into the supervision issues. Let my supervisor know I would particularly appreciate her help with challenging my blindspots with these clients, as I feel I am missing something important with both.

The reflective and self-challenging supervisor is also likely to have formulated some specific objectives for the session. These might range across such goals as ensuring the session ends on time with the last ten minutes given to review; finding a way of sensitively challenging my supervisee to cut down on the amount of background information he normally gives about each client before we get to his issue; monitoring my tendency to offer advice and suggestions early on and, instead, encouraging my supervisee to consider his own alternative strategies. An organisation’s or training institution’s objectives may need to be addressed in the session when, for example, a joint learning statement or report needs to be compiled, or when new directives governing the counsellor’s work within an agency, which may affect the supervision, need to be communicated to the supervisor. Where it is unavoidable for such considerations to enter into the supervision session they should not unnecessarily cut into the time allocated for supervision of client work. A joint learning statement


can, for example, be drafted between meetings and then reviewed and finalised in one session, or compiled during short periods allocated to it over a number of sessions. It can be helpful for objectives to be made explicit at the start of a session in order to engage the co-operation of both parties. Where the supervisee has stated how they would like to divide the time, for example, the supervisor can then help with the timekeeping and more easily respect the supervisee’s need to move on. On occasion the explicit statement of objectives might be detrimental to the work or the relationship, in which case it may be preferable that these remain private, or only acknowledged in retrospect during the session review. An example here might be where the supervisor has the objective of being more challenging in their style of supervision. To convey this intention to the supervisee might increase the supervisee’s anxiety unnecessarily or make both individuals unhelpfully self-conscious. On the other hand, a supervisor who is working with a counsellor who has difficulty knowing how best to make use of the time, or what to bring to supervision, might decide to be more overtly proactive in encouraging the supervisee to set and state objectives at the start of each session. PRESENTATION: STEP 2-C Presentation covers both the method used by the supervisee to bring his or her issues for supervision and any background given to contextualise the issues. Appropriate methods for presenting issues are audio and video tapes; case-notes; sections of session transcripts; verbal reports; free association; and creative approaches such as sculpting with objects, free drawing and role-play. Method A particular method of presentation may be chosen to fit the supervisee’s issues in counselling or objectives for the supervision session (Goldberg 1985). Thus a counsellor who is concerned about a tendency to be over-directive in their work may wish their supervisor to hear a section of audio tape which appears to show this happening in a session. A counsellor wanting to discuss a general difficulty in ending sessions on time may wish to report verbally on several occasions where this occurred in recent sessions.

Stage 2: Focus

83

Audio or video tapes are particularly useful in the supervision of trainee counsellors, where the supervisee may request help with the evaluation of specific strategies or interventions. Aveline (1997:80) has argued that tape recordings ‘give direct, factually correct access to the therapy session which cannot be matched by the common, indirect method in supervision of recollection’. Tapes have the merit of giving the supervisor an immediate and true flavour of the moment by moment counselling practice which is being undertaken and, as Rice has pointed out, can encourage an objective and collaborative review of session material: It seems to me that the constructive use of tape-recordings can help to establish an impunitive focus in supervisory sessions. The therapist and supervisor can join in listening for clues to process, letting the tape speak for itself. One can focus on points at which the therapist’s response seems to have been especially facilitative, scrutinizing it to see what is so very good about it. Even in poorly handled sessions, the focus can be on spotting the point at which the process started to go wrong, and discussing how it might have been handled. (Rice 1980:140) Rice contrasts this ‘impunitive’ (or non-punishing) approach with the less constructive, but frequently encountered ‘extrapunitive’ (blaming the client) and ‘intropunitive’ (counsellor self-blame) tendencies in supervision. Where tapes are used it is normally helpful for the counsellor to edit or set the tape at a place which gives the dialogue from which the supervision issue arises, rather than expecting their supervisor to undertake the onerous and time-consuming task of listening to the whole session. Occasionally the supervisee may wish the supervisor to gain a more holistic or qualitative perspective on their work by hearing a complete session—for example, where the counsellor is giving attention to the pacing of sessions or issues of boundaries and structure. Where this happens it is important for the supervisee to negotiate any extended listening time with their supervisor in advance, rather than simply arriving at a session expecting to play an hour’s tape. In such instances it may be best to give the tape to the supervisor beforehand to give him or her a chance to listen and reflect upon it prior to the meeting, or to negotiate a longer supervision session where viewing and


discussion can take place concurrently or consecutively. The supervisee should be prepared for the supervisor requiring an additional fee if extra time is given to such an enterprise. The playing of audio or video tapes in supervision should always be done with the consent of the client. He or she should have been clearly briefed on the use of the tape, including who will hear or view it, in what context, and what will then happen to it afterwards. An example of the wording used on a ‘client consent form’ governing the use of tapes in a supervision group on a Graduate Diploma in Counselling is given below. USE OF AUDIO AND VIDEO TAPES ON COUNSELLING COURSES To the Client:

Please ensure that you clarify the purpose of this tape and what you wish to happen to it after it has been used on the course.

Client: I give permission for this tape to be used on a counselling course and I wish that after it has been used on the course it................................................... .................................................................................................. .................................................................................................. Signature:

Date:

Counsellor: I undertake to protect the confidentiality of this client in accordance with ethical standards of the British Association for Counselling and I promise that this tape will not be played to any person other than the Course Tutors, Course Members and Examiners. Signature:

Date:

Verbal reports, normally supported by case preferred way for many counsellors to bring supervision. In compiling pre-session notes it is supervisee to have such questions as the following

notes, are the their work to helpful for the in mind:

Stage 2: Focus

• • • • •

85

What is my particular difficulty or problem in working with this client? If I could risk telling my supervisor what really concerns me in my counselling work, what would that be? What do I need from my supervisor to help me work more effectively with this client? What do I need to tell or off load to my supervisor so that I can work more freely with this client? Is there anything I want to celebrate or feed back to my supervisor from previous work we have done together?

Such reflections prior to supervision allow the counsellor to take a step back from the actual counselling interaction in order to see the overall picture or shape of their work. Themes, patterns and recurring issues can thereby be highlighted and supervision needs identified. Clarity stimulated by such self-questioning can help to prevent the phenomenon, which we have sometimes experienced, of the supervisee introducing an important issue which they have ‘just remembered’ towards the end of a session, when there is insufficient time to address it. Supervisors who have the necessary skills and experience may wish to encourage their supervisees to present and identify issues in more creative ways. Approaches such as sculpting, where small objects such as coins, pebbles or Russian dolls are assembled to represent aspects of, or individuals involved in an issue, or the drawing of an image or metaphor relating to a client may prove particularly useful where the supervisee is uncertain about the specific issue. A counsellor may experience a sense of unease, or of having missed something important in relation to a client, yet be unable to ‘put their finger’ on the precise nature of the issue. The following example of an experience one of us underwent of using artwork as a supervisee serves as an illustration of how this might work in practice, and also highlights the power of the approach, which should always be used with sensitivity and caution: I had a clear image of a young woman I had recently counselled sitting in a chair in the counselling room. The client normally appeared bright and animated and frequently laughed or smiled when talking. Despite my intention of drawing the client with these characteristics, I found a very different picture emerged on the paper. The final drawing showed a


fragile and waif-like figure sinking back into an enormous chair, bounded by huge arm rests. The client’s face appeared expressionless and cadaverous, with empty looking eye sockets. My attempt to touch up the face to make it look more lifelike, including adding a red mouth and darkening the eyes, merely served to make the face appear more desolate and lifeless. On being invited to share my experience of drawing the picture, I became overwhelmed with feelings of great sadness. I started to sense how vulnerable the client might be behind her show of brightness and cheerfulness. I realised that I had been colluding with her determination to minimise the damaging effects of a past incident of sexual abuse and her father’s current rejection of her. With the help of the tentative probing of the group supervisor I began to see that the huge chair arms that appeared to imprison the client in the chair were in some way representative of my feelings of wanting to ‘hold’ her in the counselling process and provide some containment for her distress which, while previously denied by both of us, now seemed very apparent as it came to light through the picture. This illustration shows that working in this way can stir up strong feelings for a supervisee and cut quickly through blindspots, deafspots and dumbspots (Ekstein and Wallerstein 1972). Clearly, with such a powerful approach it is important that it is used only by supervisors who feels competent and confident with this method of working. Supervisors should allow themselves to be invited into an exploration of a supervisee’s drawing through tentative questions and respectful observations, so that the counsellor is encouraged to draw out their own meaning from the picture, rather than being subjected to the supervisor’s interpretations. Ishiyama (1988) and Amundson (1988) have developed structured methods of visual case processing using metaphor and drawings in supervision which provide useful models for both counsellors and supervisors. In Ishiyama’s model a four-step method is outlined, the first step being for the counsellor to reflect non-visually on a specific session by completing six sentence stems designed to stimulate exploratory thought and evaluation—for example, ‘What I thought about myself as a counsellor during this session is…’, or ‘What I think the client gained from this session is…’ (p. 155).

Stage 2: Focus

87

In the second step supervisees are invited ‘to generate metaphors, images, or symbols to describe the case’ (p. 155) in response to an additional four sentence stems phrased so as to encourage visual conceptualisation. Thirdly, supervisees are invited to free-draw their perceptions of the case, based on these prior ruminations, using images, symbols, words and metaphors. Although encouraged to draw spontaneously, supervisees are given the following guidance on aspects to include in their drawings: Make sure that you include the following features in your case drawing: (a) yourself as counsellor and as person, (b) the client and his or her concerns, (c) your relationship with the client (i.e. how you and the client related to each other), (d) how the sessions went, and (e) where the case is going. (Ishiyama 1988:156) The final step in the process involves supervisees presenting their drawings ‘as visual case summaries’ (p. 156), either in group supervision or to their individual supervisors, to stimulate further exploration and discussion of issues pertaining to the client work. This method of visual case presentation is particularly valuable when used in group supervision as each presenter can then benefit from the shared responses, questions and comments of the other group members. The supervision session considered at the start of this chapter, where the counsellor decided to focus through free-association, provides evidence of the importance of allowing the supervisee some freedom in choosing how to present their material for supervision. Even this apparently small step in focusing can be empowering for the supervisee, and the way they choose to present their work can throw important light on the issue itself. This is an aspect of what we mean when we say, under the guiding principles governing our supervision work outlined in Chapter 3, that the supervisee will both censor the material presented and also give clues as to what most needs addressing. You may recall that the supervisor here used the word ‘adrift’ in an empathic response to the counsellor’s expressed anxiety and uncertainty about how to proceed with the supervision. The use of this word was not mere serendipity; rather, it was based on the supervisor’s awareness that the counsellor was unusually anxious and uncertain in beginning to present his work. On one level this could easily be attributable to


the new and different way of presenting his issue, through free association. However the supervisor was sufficiently open to the possibility that the way the supervisee was presenting might also provide a clue to his issue that the word ‘adrift’ was offered as it surfaced in the supervisor’s awareness. In the event this word resonated with the counsellor and became the one he chose to describe his current feelings about his counselling work. Background The second aspect to presentation is background. By this we mean the amount of background information which is given about a client during presentation of the supervisee’s issue. Supervisors and supervisees will have different preferences and opinions on the amount of background necessary to contextualise or frame the issue which is brought to supervision. Our own view is that little initial background material is normally required as necessary information can be brought into the discussion as and when it appears relevant. For example, when a counsellor is experiencing a client as needy and clinging or as angry and rebellious, it might well be important for the supervisor to ask the supervisee to talk about the client’s experience of being parented. Too much initial background can result in the locus of attention shifting to the client’s ‘case’, with the risk of objectifying the client and the counselling work. Supervision in the sense that we are using the term here is not principally about case work management, where the central question is the best way of handling the client (although this question may arise and require attention). Rather, the locus of attention is how the counsellor is managing herself or himself in responding to the client in terms of the interventions offered and the dynamics of the relationship. A counsellor with a tendency to present the supervisor with a lot of detail and history about the client may find this a more comfortable area for discussion than exploring their own doubts or difficulties in working with the client. This can be a ploy (often used unconsciously) of keeping anxiety and the supervisor at bay, and it is one with which a supervisor who is anxious about their own ability to offer useful interventions can easily collude. A supervisor wishing to challenge unnecessarily protracted presentation of background material can gently stop the counsellor to ask: ‘what is the nub of your issue with this client?’, or ‘can you express your difficulty with the client in one sentence?’

Stage 2: Focus

89

On the other hand, a supervisor who works from, say, a psychodynamic perspective may wish to encourage background information, particularly about a client’s family, early experiences and previous relationships. These would be important antecedents to unearth in relation to current transference issues in the therapeutic relationship, when these are under discussion in supervision. Where the supervisor suddenly and uncharacteristically feels the need to ask about a client’s history or background this can often be a clue to something that, if pursued, will throw light on the current issue, as in the following example. A counsellor had discussed her work with a particular client on several occasions with her supervisor. At one point the counsellor was exploring her difficulty with getting the client to engage in self-challenge in relation to generalisations he frequently made about the untrustworthiness of everyone he came into contact with. The supervisor suddenly felt the urge to ask the counsellor about the client’s father, whom he couldn’t remember having heard mentioned during any of their discussions. When he did ask, the counsellor realised that she, too, had only a vague recollection of the client having mentioned his father, although his mother was frequently referred to. Following the supervision the counsellor took an opportunity to ask the client, at what seemed an appropriate moment, to say something about his father and learned that the father had deserted the family when the client was a small child. The counsellor was then able to consider the client’s characteristic suspicion of others against the backcloth of parental abandonment, a vantage point which created far greater understanding of the client’s perspective. APPROACH: STEP 2-D We have included approach as part of the focusing stage as this aspect of the supervision process provides the counterpoint to the way the supervisee presents issues for supervision. Approach concerns the way the supervisor responds to what the counsellor presents. It covers a number of elements, in particular the theoretical models and orientations, supervision styles, techniques and interventions employed by the supervisor. Approach also importantly covers the supervisor’s ability to respond sensitively to the culturally diverse needs of supervisees. Cultural sensitivity is a required component of competent supervision even where


supervisor and supervisee appear to share a similar background and racial identity. Even supervisors/counsellors who work mainly or exclusively with same race supervisees/clients are not exempt from rigorously examining assumptions and prejudices which fail to acknowledge and take account of aspects of intra—as well as inter-cultural difference and disadvantage. These may be aspects of: class; education; socio-economic status; age; sexuality; gender; religion; spirituality; mental and physical ability or appearance; urbanicity; norms relating to marriage and childbearing, and so on. Supervision is a triadic relationship and it is important to think about how complementarity and conflict between any two of the participants will impact on the supervisory and therapeutic process. (Wosket 2000a:276–277) The subject of working with difference and diversity in supervision is covered separately and more extensively in Chapter 11. Here we will limit ourselves to considering particular aspects of style and intervention in supervision. It is as important in supervision as it is in counselling for the practitioner to have developed or evolved their own characteristic approach and style of working. Where the supervisor has not addressed this need they are in danger of operating in a haphazard fashion which, at worst, can range across a spectrum from ineffectual bumbling to wild eclecticism. The supervisee unlucky enough to be on the receiving end of such slap-dash practice will, at best, experience supervision as inconsistent and of variable quality and relevance. At worst, the supervisee may experience the supervision as unsupportive, erratic and directionless and may begin to develop feelings of wariness, disappointment and frustration at getting a rough deal. Research studies (Krause and Allen 1988; Rosenblatt and Mayer 1975; Worthington 1984; Worthington and Roehlke 1979) have indicated that supervisees have preferences for supervisor behaviours and interventions which do not always match what supervisors assume their supervisees need and want. Krause and Allen’s (1988) study revealed that supervisees reported significantly less satisfaction with supervision and less impact from it when they felt badly matched with a supervisor. It therefore

Stage 2: Focus

91

seems important that supervisors attempt to check out early in the relationship how closely their therapeutic orientation and style of supervision accords with that which is likely to prove most facilitative for their individual supervisees. Kauderer and Herron (1990) conducted a study of twelve supervisory dyads over ten consecutive weeks which showed that the more supervisors and supervisees rated themselves as compatible, the higher they rated the quality of the relationship. They found that the main areas of compatibility ‘appeared to be theoretical orientation of the dyads and their perception of the supervisory process’ and that the crucial period for the establishment of compatibility, which then set the subsequent course of the relationship and the supervision, was early on, ‘around the third session’ (p. 478). Where, initially, areas of mismatch seem apparent a measure of flexibility and negotiation by both parties may ensure that adjustments are made to make the ensuing work more fruitful and harmonious. Hart provides an optimistic view of the possibilities for adaptability without compromise of basic values and attitudes: A clinician’s therapeutic orientation is deeply rooted in personal beliefs and existing behavior patterns and would be difficult, if not impossible, to change significantly. Supervisors are advised to use the supervisory approach and techniques that are in agreement with their theoretical orientation to therapy but should be able to apply them to whatever goal is most important for the supervisee. (Hart 1982:32) Where a substantial or apparently irreconcilable mismatch in terms of approach, attitudes or orientation appears to exist, there may be a strong argument, as Rice articulates, for a change of supervisor as such a move may, in the long run, prove to be in the best interests of both the counsellor and the client: After all there exist such a variety of therapeutic orientations from which to choose, and there is so little hard evidence concerning their differential effectiveness, [that] it seems pointless to push trainees into some mold that they sense to be inappropriate for them. Also I think it is important for supervisors to have a clear feel for their own limits regarding the therapeutic approaches they are competent to supervise and


comfortable in doing so. To operate beyond these limits for the sake of being ‘flexible’ seems to me to be a disservice to everyone, especially the client. (Rice 1980:140) In Chapter 1 we acquainted the reader with two popular and accessible models of supervision—Stoltenberg and Delworth’s developmental model and Hawkins and Shohet’s process model. We would recommend these as giving good grounding for the beginning supervisor who is starting to organise their own approach. Elements of both models can be easily assimilated into current practice and both provide some key guidance on structuring the supervision process and planning supervisee-centred interventions. While it is beyond the scope of the current volume to cover the full range of existing theories and models of supervision, the interested reader is referred to two comprehensive anthologies: Bradley (1989) and Hess (1980). Between them, these provide extensive coverage of the major approaches to supervision, including those derived from Interpersonal Process Recall (Kagan 1980, 1984; Kagan and Kagan 1990) and Client-Centred, Psychodynamic, Behavioural and Rational Emotive therapies. In this section we will take a closer look at a number of supervision styles and interventions that are characteristic of these approaches. Supervisory styles A number of researchers have attempted to uncover the components of effective supervisory styles and interventions (Efstation et al. 1990). Magnuson and colleagues (2000) interviewed eleven experienced counsellors (ten of whom were themselves seasoned clincal supervisors) about their unproductive experiences as supervisees. A category analysis of data from their interview transcripts revealed ‘six aspects of supervision that were both prominent and repetitive’ in respondents’ comments about ‘lousy’ behaviours of supervisors that they had been subjected to as supervisees (Magnuson et al. 2000:193). We have summarised these ‘lousy’ supervisor traits as follows: 1 Unbalanced: The supervisor who gets hung up on detail, or focuses too much on one aspect of supervision at the expense of seeing the bigger, systemic picture or context.

Stage 2: Focus

93

2 Developmentally inappropriate: These are supervisors who are fixed and static and fail to acknowledge or respond to the changing needs of supervisees. 3 Intolerant of differences: Characterised by the supervisor who does not encourage autonomy and individuation in supervisees and, instead, tries to persuade the supervisee to become a clone or close replica of the supervisor. 4 Poor model of professional and personal attributes: These are supervisors who fail to observe professional boundaries and are intrusive, exploitative or abusive. 5 Untrained: Supervisors who enact the role without adequate preparation or professional maturity. 6 Professionally apathetic: Frequently described by research participants as the ‘lazy’ supervisor who is not committed to the profession, their supervisees and, by inference, their supervisees’ clients. These findings are not dissimilar to those unearthed in an earlier study by Rosenblatt and Mayer (1975) who grouped together ‘objectionable supervisory styles’ as drawn from fifty accounts provided by social work students. Consideration of these styles provides some useful guidance for the supervisor on how not to be with their supervisees. The most commonly recurring were labelled under the following four headings: Constrictive supervision Students experiencing this style of supervision characteristically felt that they were not given sufficient autonomy in the way they were allowed to handle work with clients. Others felt smothered ‘by the well intentioned but exclusively intense efforts of their supervisors’ (Rosenblatt and Mayer 1975:185). This style of supervision can be likened to what Rowan (1989) has termed the ‘authoritative’ style ‘where the supervisor monitors and regulates the therapist’s work very closely’ (p. 162). As Rowan points out, such a style may initially be welcomed, especially by the insecure and anxious novice counsellor, but it is soon experienced as oppressive and is then resisted, either overtly or covertly, by the supervisee. An off-shoot of constrictive supervision is found in what Rowan has coined the ‘didactic-consultative style’. Here the supervisor may adopt a quasi-teaching role characterised by


suggestions, advice giving, instructions or interpretations. The danger here, as Rowan indicates, is that this form of supervision can easily turn into a virtuoso performance by the supervisor which has the end result of disenfranchising the counsellor of his or her own case. Amorphous supervision In contrast to constrictive supervision, this style is demonstrated by the supervisor who offers too little, rather than too much direction. Rowan terms this the ‘laissez-faire’ style and it is characterised by vagueness and lack of clarity and guidance about what is expected of the counsellor in supervision. Here the supervisor ‘largely leaves the therapist alone to get on with it’ (1989:162) and it is an approach which, as Rowan notes, though possibly appropriate for very mature counsellors, may be experienced as unsupportive and ‘is quite unsuitable for immature therapists, who need much more in the way of leadership’ (ibid.). Unsuppor tive supervision Also referred to as confrontational supervision, this approach may take the form of coldness, aloofness, criticism or hostility displayed by the supervisor towards the supervisee. Counsellors unfortunate enough to suffer this approach are likely to receive unsympathetic or even punitive responses if they express doubts, difficulties or lack of motivation in their work. This type of supervision may well exacerbate rather than allay fears and anxieties which the supervisee brings. Therapeutic supervision This style of supervision drew forth the strongest objections from students in Rosenblatt and Mayer’s (1975) study. Typically, a supervisor employing this approach first indicates that they find some feeling or behaviour disclosed by the supervisee, in relation to self or a client, inappropriate. ‘He then ascribes the difficulty, not to some aspect of the situation or context, but to “deficiencies” in the student’s personality. These then are explored in considerable detail’ (p. 186). Students experienced this style of supervision as particularly invidious as they found such subjective

Stage 2: Focus

95

and judgemental responses difficult to refute and often experienced them as negative evaluations of themselves as people, rather than, as would have been more tolerable, criticisms of work-related behaviours. Experience of this style of supervision may leave the counsellor feeling exposed, inadequate and distressed. It is worth noting that none of the students surveyed in Rosenblatt and Mayer’s study openly confronted their supervisors on aspects of the supervision which they found objectionable. The apparent reason for this was the fear of antagonising a powerful assessor who might be in a position to curtail their training or endanger a future career. The majority of students coped with difficulties with their supervisors through the strategy of ‘spurious compliance’—where the appearance of assent or submission was given in supervision, with the student then proceeding to go their own way in their client work. It would seem, given this apparent tenacity of supervisees to resist unpalatable supervision interventions, that supervisors who are able to find the means to discuss compatibility of approach openly and in a spirit of collaboration with their supervisees, stand a far greater chance of the work being productive and mutually enhancing. In contrast to the objectionable supervisory styles outlined above, Rowan (1989) briefly presents two approaches which appear to receive more favourable responses from supervisees. The first of these is termed ‘insight-oriented’ supervision where a probing and questioning approach is maintained to encourage the supervisee to reflect upon issues and work through problems with the supervisor’s support. The second more positively received style is termed ‘feelings-oriented’ and here the supervisee is encouraged to ask self-reflective questions in relation particularly to his or her affective responses to the client. A supervisor’s chosen style, as revealed in his or her responses to the supervisee, will be governed by a number of complex factors (Borders 1991; Borders and Leddick 1987). Foremost amongst these are likely to be:

• • • •

theoretical orientation as a therapist or helper; experience of being a supervisee; previous personal and professional roles, for example teacher, parent, counsellor, manager; short- and longer-term goals for the supervision process (both for self and for the supervisee);


• • • •

confidence, interest and experience in the role of supervisor; level of self-awareness and personal development; awareness of the supervisee’s preferred learning style and feedback mode; consideration of the supervisee’s experience level and current developmental issues.

It can be an informative exercise for the supervisor to reflect upon the key influences governing their own supervisory style in terms of the factors outlined here, plus any others from their individual experience. Although research studies (Nelson 1978; Worthington 1984) appear to militate against generalised approaches in favour of individual negotiations with supervisees, it is worth noting that a number of studies (Allen et al 1986; Guest and Beutler 1988; Heppner and Roehlke 1984; Hutt et al. 1983; Rabinowitz et al 1986) have consistently indicated that although trainees may welcome supervision that has a high level of support, more experienced supervisees prefer supervisors who are able to offer a balance of support and challenge in their interventions. Over and above any specific stylistic variations and idiosyncrasies, one finding of Nelson’s (1978) study deserves especial note, namely that ‘trainees valued interest in supervision over all other supervisor characteristics, including experience as a therapist and theoretical or technical knowledge’ (p. 548). Nelson’s findings are confirmed by Russell and Petrie (1994) who reviewed the literature on the qualities of an effective supervisor. They concluded that increased experience of supervisors did not, of itself, enhance the effectiveness of supervision, but that supervisor interest and investment in the supervisory process did. These findings may be of particular comfort to beginning supervisors as they suggest that limited experience in the role may in some part be compensated for by interest and investment in the activity. Perhaps most importantly, the approach adopted by both novice and experienced supervisor should be such that it encourages optimum autonomy, within safe boundaries, so that the supervisee is enabled to develop freely and to practise their own preferred style of counselling. As Villas-Boas Bowen points out, this involves a willingness on the part of the supervisor to tolerate and encourage the individual differences of supervisees:

Stage 2: Focus

97

It is important that the supervisor respect these differences and trust that supervisees have the resources necessary to develop their own effective ways of doing therapy. The function of the supervisor, then, is to create the atmosphere that will enable the supervisee to find her or his own style of being a therapist. By so doing the supervisor also models the growth promoting environment of congruence, acceptance and empathy. (Villas-Boas Bowen 1986:296) Supervisory interventions The manner and type of interventions employed by the supervisor will again be governed largely by his or her theoretical orientation as a counsellor or therapist. A supervisor with a client-centred training is likely to engage in more reflective and empathic responses than, say, the supervisor from an REBT or Behavioural background, who may more frequently use instructive, informationgiving or questioning interventions. As we have emphasised previously, it is important that supervisors do not assume that the same style and pattern of responses will ‘do’ in supervision as have always ‘done’ in counselling. A client-centred counsellor may well find that they need to increase their range and frequency of authoritative responses as they move into the field of supervision. A useful tool for the supervisor to help him or her review intervention and communication skills is that provided by Heron’s (1991) model of ‘Six Category Intervention Analysis’. Heron defines an intervention as ‘an identifiable piece of verbal and/or nonverbal behaviour that is part of the practitioner’s service to the client’ (p. 3). The emphasis in the definition of each category of intervention is on intention—that is, what the intended effect, point or purpose of the intervention is when used by the practitioner in ‘responding appropriately to a given situation’ (p. 3, author’s italics). We would add that the way the client, or in our case the supervisee, receives, understands and responds to the intervention provides a good measure of whether it has been used appropriately. Heron’s six categories, with examples of each type of intervention as it might be used in supervision, are given briefly below. The interventions are divided into ‘Authoritative’ and ‘Facilitative’, the former tending to be hierarchical in the sense of involving the supervisor in some responsibility on behalf of the


supervisee, while the latter are less hierarchical in encouraging supervisee autonomy, self-awareness and affirmation. A uthoritative Prescriptive Give advice or direct the behaviour of the supervisee. ‘You need to re-establish time boundaries with your client.’ Informative Give information or instruct the supervisee by imparting knowledge or ascribing meaning. ‘If you challenge your client that fiercely so early in the process you might scare them off.’ Confronting Give direct feedback or non-aggressively challenge in order to raise the supervisee’s awareness or overcome a blindspot. ‘You appear to have introduced your own agenda here, possibly as a result of over-identifying with your client.’ Facilitative Cathartic Enable the supervisee to connect with and discharge feelings or release tension. ‘How did you feel when your client dropped that bombshell?’ Catalytic Encourage reflection and problem-solving to develop self-directed learning in the supervisee. ‘How have you dealt constructively with this kind of resistance before?’ Supportive Valuing and affirming the worth of the supervisee and his or her work in an unqualified manner. ‘You really stayed with your client well and helped to hold all that distress.’

Stage 2: Focus

99

No category, of itself, is inherently less valid, significant or important than any other as all are legitimate in the appropriate supervision situation. However, Heron emphasises that the six types of intervention are valid only when they are rooted in the core qualities of respect, empathy and genuineness in relation to the client or supervisee. They are invalid when used degeneratively or perversely. A valid intervention is one that is appropriate to the supervisee’s current stage of development and to the developing supervisor-supervisee relationship. To say that it is appropriate is to say that: (a) it is in the right category; (b) it is the right sort of intervention within that category; (c) its content and use of language is fitting; (d) it is delivered in the right manner; and (e) it is delivered with good timing’ (Heron 1991:9). Degenerate interventions, while not normally deliberately malicious, are those that are used inappropriately through lack of sensitivity, skill, experience, self-or other awareness, or through insecurity or defensiveness. In supervision they might range from the merely incompetent to the manipulative or even abusive. Perverted interventions, rather than being rooted in lack of awareness, experience or training, spring from the shadow side of supervision and are deliberately harmful or damaging to the supervisee. An example of such an intervention in supervision might be where the supervisor deliberately and maliciously provokes a psychological attack on a supervisee through envy or sadism. Fortunately such perversions are rare and not normally to be found in supervision practice. It is, nevertheless, important to acknowledge their existence so that the alert supervisee can be ‘forewarned and forearmed’ in the unlikely event that they might stumble across such a villain. Supervisors who wish to take a closer look at their own intervention style can use Heron’s model to analyse their in-session behaviours. This can be done in a straightforward manner by the use of tape recordings or feedback from an observer and a ‘supervisee’ within a training situation. More will be said about the use of training groups in supervision in Chapter 13. PRIORITIES: STEP 2-E Although we have indicated that it is invariably the supervisee’s prerogative to choose the focus for the supervision session, there are


occasions where the supervisor may have an obligation to redirect or change the focus. This normally happens when the supervisor believes that addressing some other aspect of an issue, or even a different issue, becomes a priority. When this occurs it is often in response to the supervisor’s concern for the welfare of the client or the supervisee. Changing the focus requires sensitivity, good timing and assertiveness on the part of the supervisor if it is not to result in the supervisee feeling taken over, jolted out of their own track on the subject, or put down. What follows are some examples of situations where it would be legitimate for the supervisor to alter the focus of the supervision in order to deal with a more pressing priority. Unacknowledged personal issue obtruding on the work with the client As Whiston and Emerson (1989:320) have declared, The supervisor . . . must intervene when personal issues are affecting services to the client.’ Even where the supervisor does not have a direct responsibility for the counselling work, for example in cosupervision with a same level colleague, we believe it is an ethical imperative for the supervisor to raise the issue, and give an opinion where warranted, on the level of ‘contamination’ and possible action to be considered. A counsellor mentioned ‘in passing’ that she would have to cancel the following session with her supervisor as she would be away for a few weeks, looking after her father who had been taken ill. The counsellor then began to discuss her work with a client who had recently been bereaved. The supervisor intervened to ask how the counsellor felt about working with loss issues, given her father’s illness, and how she planned to tell her bereaved client about the forthcoming absence. This resulted in the counsellor exploring how her own feelings about her father’s illness might impinge on her counselling work and in her decision not to disclose the specific personal reasons for her absence to her bereaved client. Unfinished business from previous client work af fecting current clients A supervisor was aware from a previous supervision session that his supervisee had been badly shaken by her first experience of a client making a serious suicide attempt, following which the client

Stage 2: Focus

101

had been referred for psychiatric treatment. In the next supervision meeting the counsellor chose to discuss an organisational issue which was concerning her. Knowing that the counsellor worked with several clients who were at risk of harming themselves the supervisor intervened to ask how the work was going with these individuals. In response, the counsellor acknowledged her concern about one particular client who had recently threatened suicide and mentioned her intention of phoning the client to check how he was and to ensure that he would attend his next appointment. The supervisor steered the discussion in such a way that the counsellor was able to acknowledge how her residual distress and anxiety from the previous experience might be leading her to become overprotective towards other clients. She was encouraged by the supervisor to express her feelings about the suicide attempt and then helped to decide whether she should desist from working with suicidal clients until she had resolved more of her own ‘unfinished business’ over the issue. Unaddressed boundary issues A trainee counsellor asked his supervisor to listen, in advance of the supervision session, to a tape of his first interview with a new, female client. As the supervisor listened to the tape she picked up that the client was being seen in her bed-sit and appeared to be sitting on the bed during the session, while the counsellor took the only available chair. When the supervision session started the supervisee said that he wanted to look at how he could have been more reflective and less interrogatory in order to keep the dialogue with the client going. The supervisor responded by saying that she would be pleased to look at this issue and had also become aware from listening to the tape that there might be some boundary issues that it would be important to consider at an early stage in the discussion. She was then able to invite him to consider any dilemmas that might arise for a counsellor seeing a client in such circumstances and with these seating arrangements. These examples give some indication of the supervisor picking up clues and introducing significant, but not always immediately apparent, material into the session. There may well, of course, be other occasions where the supervisee appears more blatantly or obviously to be avoiding or missing important issues, for example where a child appears to be at risk of being abused or a clear


overstepping of boundaries has occurred that is not being addressed by the counsellor. As Hess (1987:253) has stated, ‘supervision should not be a refuge for scoundrels’ and it is a clear responsibility of the supervisor to step in immediately to confront unethical or unprofessional practice which is proceeding, or in danger of proceeding, unchecked. We will look at this area of ethical practice in more detail in Chapter 10. CONCLUSION During the focusing stage both parties prepare the ground and sharpen their senses in anticipation of the exploratory work to be undertaken in the next stage, Space, which is the crux of the supervision process. If the focusing stage has been successfully negotiated both supervisor and supervisee should arrive at this point being clear what area of concern or interest will be the starting point for discussion and having some shared sense of how they might tackle the issue identified as the focus. This process often takes only a few moments and then moves imperceptibly into the next stage. On occasion, it may be protracted to a greater or lesser extent by the need to discuss priorities or by the time it takes for a hazy focus to be brought into sharper relief, even when the relief, as sometimes happens, merely emerges as the starting point for the exploration of a sense of confusion or uncertainty.

Chapter 6

Stage 3: Space

The contract has been agreed, the focus has been decided upon and at that moment it is as if supervisor and counsellor each take a deep breath and then exhale, relaxing into the space that exists before them both. This is the heart of the supervision process, the part of supervision in which reflection, exploration, recognition, insight and understanding can all occur. Within this space new possibilities can emerge, that which is blocked can be released, the counsellor can be heard and understood and go forward with new vigour and courage. These are the aspirations, the best possibilities of supervision, and this chapter is concerned with how these hopes can be brought to fruition.

Figure 6.1 Supervision model stage 3: Space.

103


The five components of Stage 3 (shown in Figure 6.1) are interrelated, each needing others in the circle in order that the supervision maintains an appropriate balance. In the microcosm of an individual session it may well be that the supervisor primarily concentrates in one or two of the areas. However, taking a longerterm view, we would propose that all five elements need to be present to a significant degree, and if that is not the case the supervision will be distorted and suffer as a consequence. At this point we would like to introduce a different way of picturing the cyclical model. This alternative version, which we have entitled ‘The Cyclical Model as a Container’ (Figure 6.2), emphasises the manner in which the four other stages provide a container for the creative potential of a secure supervisory ‘space’.

Figure 6.2 The cyclical model as a container1

By presenting the model in this format we intend to emphasise how the contract-review cycle provides the outer or structural layer of containment, whilst the focus-bridge provides the inner or

1

This version of the Cyclical model was first presented in a joint keynote address we gave entitled The Cyclical Model of Supervision: a Container for Creativity and Chaos’ at the British Association for Supervision Practice and Research annual conference in July 1999. That address is due to be published as Wosket and Page (2001).

Stage 3: Space

105

application layer of containment. When these are established and functioning well supervisor and supervisee can have confidence to take risks and be experimental within the space. This is not an invitation to fritter away this valuable time, or try outlandish techniques for the sake of novelty, but rather an encouragement to reflect deeply in a far-reaching and imaginative way on the counselling work of the supervisee. COLLABORATION: STEP 3-A In Chapter 4 we considered the nature of the supervisory relationship and explored the affective aspect, emphasising the importance of creating a safe and secure relationship as a foundation for the work of supervision. We were describing there something that we will now term the ‘basic affective relationship’. This aspect of the relationship has also been described in terms of the ‘facilitative conditions’ (Carifio and Hess 1987): empathy, respect, genuineness and concreteness, which are necessary for effective supervision. This basic affective relationship provides the foundation upon which a working supervisory relationship can be built. Webb’s research into blockages to supervisees being open with their supervisor supports this view, and holds a warning as to the dangers of not having a good rapport between supervisor and counsellor: A positive correlation was found between the supervisee’s perception of the level of rapport with his supervisor and his ability to disclose sensitive issues relating to his client. Similarly sensitive issues relating to the supervisor and the supervision itself could be discussed with greater openness where there existed a high level of rapport with the supervisor. Inhibitors of disclosure were more apparent when there was less rapport with the supervisor. (Webb 2000:64) As exploration of the supervisee’s work commences, there will be occasions when the affective experience of the supervision relationship will be far more complex than this initial description suggests. We will begin to consider two examples (which will be developed further as we move through the steps outlined in this chapter) to illustrate this. In both there is a good basic affective


relationship between supervisor and counsellor, and a sense of mutual warmth and regard with counsellor and supervisor anticipating their supervision sessions with some enthusiasm. In the first, the counsellor, David, starts uncharacteristically to feel quite angry towards his supervisor, seemingly resenting the attention given by her to his clients, which he expresses by being increasingly perfunctory in his preparation and less engaged in the supervision sessions. His supervisor feels increasingly pushed away and finds her interventions, which are focused on the experience of the clients, tend to be dismissed. This gradually builds over a number of sessions until David declares that he is considering terminating the supervision, describing how he is feeling towards his supervisor. She invites him to step aside from his feelings and reflect upon their source, and David is able to do this. In the second example the counsellor, Joyce, is describing her work with a particular client. The supervisor feels increasingly bored and disinterested in what Joyce is saying. He comments on this and Joyce responds by saying that she had been feeling that he, the supervisor, did not really understand what she was talking about. Together, they are then able to consider where this misunderstanding stems from and what it might mean. In both examples it was essential, as a first step in working with this material, that supervisor and counsellor were able to step aside from the feelings and reflect, together, on the meaning of their felt experience. The relational ability to do this bears considerable resemblance to the ‘working alliance’ aspect of the psychoanalytic relationship, the fundamental aspect of which has been described in the following terms: The reliable core of the working alliance is formed by the patient’s motivation to overcome his illness, his conscious and rational willingness to cooperate [sic], and his ability to follow the instructions and insights of his analyst. The actual alliance is formed essentially between the patient’s reasonable ego and the analyst’s analysing ego. (Greenson 1967:157) This describes the rational nature of this alliance, although it does imply a rather more directive relationship than would be hoped for in supervision. In psychoanalysis this rational component of the relationship, the working alliance, is distinguished from the transference relationship. The picture is rather more complex in

Stage 3: Space

107

Figure 6.3 Components of the supervisory relationship.

supervision, so, to avoid confusion, we will use a new term— ‘reflective alliance’—to describe this aspect of the supervisory relationship, which comes about when supervisor and supervisee are both able to step aside from their affective experience sufficiently to engage in mutual consideration of what is taking place. As can be seen in Figure 6.3, we have divided the supervision relationship into three components. In doing this we are not implying that in practice a relationship can or should be compartmentalised in such a manner; it is merely a device we are using to assist in conceptualising the dynamics of the relationship. The reflective alliance is the place from which supervisor and supervisee observe and consider, which includes not only reflecting upon the client and the counselling process but also on the supervision process itself. This reflective place can be thought of, in the terms Sterba (1934) used, as ‘an island of contemplation’: a place outside of the stream of the supervision process but from whence the process remains observable. In its theoretical conception it may seem quite detached, an observing rather than experiencing place. However, in practice it is not discrete, the supervisor and counsellor needing to move between experiencing and reflecting with the sense, at times, of merging these different aspects. Indeed if the supervision stays in a detached reflective mode most of the time this should be considered as a possible defence from the affective experience which may need to be challenged. It is in increasing this capacity to reflect upon felt experience, to move between affective experience and reflection, which assists both counsellor and supervisor in the development of their internal supervisor function (Casement 1985), as already described in Chapter 1.


In addition to the basic affective relationship and the reflective alliance, the third element of the relationship is the unconscious material. This is often experienced through its imposition upon the basic affective relationship, as has been illustrated in the examples above of David and Joyce. It is also possible for unconscious material to be recognised in a number of other ways. These include slips of the tongue, such as calling a client by the name of someone else with whom the counsellor has acknowledged relationship issues. This may be an unconscious means of suggesting that these same issues are present with the client being discussed. Physical sensations may intrude, for example one of us had a supervisee who always started to feel hungry when in the presence of a particular client, even after having eaten immediately prior to the session. It transpired that the client was starving herself as part of a selfpunitive strategy. On another occasion one of us had a supervisee who always began to burp when talking about a particular client. He seemed unaware of this until the supervisor brought it to his attention and invited him to consider whether there might be any connection (however fanciful) between his heartburn and the client. The counsellor soon found himself talking about how ‘indigestible’ he thought the client was, finding the possibility that she might be bisexual. In addition to these examples the supervisee (or supervisor or client) may behave in an untypical manner, such as ‘absentmindedly’ arriving an hour early for supervision, perhaps as an attempt by the supervisee to communicate how needy he was feeling on that day. Stray thoughts or images may intrude themselves. For example one of us supervised a counsellor who had the experience of fantasising about the need to double glaze the window in his consulting room whenever working with a particular client. On exploring this in supervision (rather than following the first inclination to dismiss it as poor concentration) it became a means of understanding how invaded this client felt on occasions. The unconscious may even go so far as to create hallucinations: as in the case of a counsellor who regularly ‘heard’ a non-existent baby crying when working with a particular client who had been abandoned at an early age. Given the range of ways material may be accessed it seems prudent to adopt an attitude that anything that occurs may have significance. It then becomes the investigative task to endeavour to make sense of what this significance may be. Before we move on from this step of collaboration let us look in more detail at the possible manifestations of unconscious material within supervision.

Stage 3: Space

109

There are three possible sources of unconscious material in a supervision session: the supervisor, the supervisee or counsellor and the client. The manifestation of unconscious material can take place via three principal mechanisms, namely transference, countertransference and parallel process. We will look at each of these mechanisms in turn. Transference Jacobs (1986:6) suggests that ‘transference’ is the term used when ‘in the relationship style(s) which the client adopts towards the counsellor there are signs of past relationships’. It is worth stepping aside for a moment to clarify the use of terms being adopted here. The term ‘transference’ refers to a specific form of more general phenomena of ‘projection’, which is a description of the process whereby person (a) acts towards person (b) as if person (b) were person (c). Transference is used to describe a projection that is specifically from a client onto their therapist. Adopting this same custom in the supervision setting means that the only person who can directly engage in transference is the supervisee. Any projections of the client can only be present via the supervisee and any projection from the supervisor directed towards the supervisee is categorised as a form of counter-transference. Thus in supervision the transference material is some historical relationship material of the supervisee’s being transferred onto the relationship with the supervisor. This might be a negative transference whereby the supervisee would unrealistically anticipate that the supervisor would be ‘hostile, critical, abandoning, negligent, stupid, or exploitative’ (Horowitz 1989:57–58), or it might be positive transference in which the supervisor will be expected to be ‘loving, all-providing, omnipotent, admiring, erotic’ (Horowitz 1989:58). In counselling, certainly when the counsellor has a psychodynamic orientation, such transference material is welcomed and viewed as potentially therapeutically valuable to the work with the client. In contrast, when such transference material has a significant impact upon a supervisory relationship this will, in all probability, interfere with the furtherance of the supervisory task, which is to facilitate the counselling work with the client, not to be therapeutic for the supervisee. This (as we have already identified in Table 2.1 on p. 19) is one of the areas in which counselling and supervising are fundamentally different in their respective purposes.


The supervisory task in relation to transference material is to identify and name what is taking place, to find ways to contain the effect upon the supervisory relationship and for the supervisee to take this material to their own therapeutic arena for further exploration and resolution. This is not, of course, ever a completed task and to believe it can be is in itself dangerous. The supervisory relationship, like any other, is inevitably imbued with vestiges of previous relational experiences. These past experiences will shape the process just as the process will contribute to the development of a relationship structure that will in turn influence uniquely the participants’ engagement in the process’ (Holloway 1995:41). The task is to deal with such relationship issues, conscious and unconscious, that threaten or interfere in effective engagement in the supervisory process. Counter-transference ‘Counter-transference’ was the term originally coined to describe the unconscious responses of a psychoanalyst to the client. As Jacoby (1984:37) has described, citing Fordham, there are essentially two forms of counter-transference, which have been termed ‘syntonic counter-transference’ and ‘illusory countertransference’. Syntonic counter-transference is the response of the supervisor (or counsellor) to the transference material being directed towards them by the supervisee (or client). Let us consider the example of Philip, a supervisee who perceives the supervisor as an ideal parental figure who will nurture and care for him. This then is Philip’s transference onto his supervisor. The supervisor may have two types of syntonic response to this transference material. She may feel nurturing and protective towards him: what Racker (1968) would term a concordant response. Alternatively she may feel like telling Philip that he is quite capable of standing on his own feet and does not need looking after: a complementary response (Racker 1968). Both are syntonic counter-transference in so far as they are a direct response to the transference from Philip. It is important to understand that working with this material means being aware of it, not acting it out. Thus if the supervisor in the example above were to act out her desire to look after him their relationship would move into a collusive alliance—she looking after Philip who, presumably, would gratefully accept such welcome attention. This would only be broken at the point that the

Stage 3: Space

111

collusion was recognised by one or both and the ensuing unhealthy alliance broken. ‘Illusory counter-transference’, in contrast, is the term given to the unconscious psychological material of the supervisor being directed at the supervisee. Using the example above of Philip, the supervisor might come to supervision feeling that she is doing too much giving-out to others and resenting having to give attention to this supervisee. When he moves into his transference material she is likely to have quite a strong resentful response which is born out of her own sense of neediness rather than having its inception in relation to the supervisee. This then is a reaction stemming from her own psychological material and it is imperative that the supervisor learns to contain such responses during the supervision and takes them, as necessary, to her own therapy. Parallel process Parallel phenomena are, similarly, a form of unconscious material imposing upon the basic affective relationship but, as the term suggests, in this case there is a degree of parallel between what is occurring in the supervision relationship and what is taking place in the counselling relationship. Williams (1995) suggests that parallel process is a ‘borderline’ area in supervision that needs to be approached with caution and sensitivity in order for it to be kept in perspective. He writes: Focus on it too much, and supervisors and trainees begin to see it under every bed, behind every tree; after a while they cannot discuss anything without it becoming a ‘parallel’, and supervision becomes decadent. Ignore it altogether though, and there is a real danger of missing ‘the pattern that connects’. (Williams 1995:151) Often when parallel phenomena are described, what is being referred to is the reflection in the supervisory relationship of the dynamic in the counselling relationship (Mattinson 1977). Williams (1995:147) describes parallel process as the ‘tendency within a system to take up matching forms’, and he warns that this is a form of ‘cloning’ that, if not checked, can spread through the system ‘like a hard-todetect virus’ (ibid.). An example of this would be a counsellor who, when working with a particularly passive client, starts to act in an


Figure 6.4 Parallel between counselling relationship and supervising relationship.

atypically passive manner towards his supervisor. Thus the passivity within the client-counsellor relationship is paralleled in the counsellor-supervisor relationship. This is diagrammatically represented in Figure 6.4 as a reflection in b1 of what is occurring in a1. If, in our example, the supervisor felt something of the frustration and pressure felt by the supervisee when working with this client then in our diagram b2 becomes a counter-transference reflection of a2. Most supervisors welcome such parallel phenomena as the resulting dynamics provide a more direct way of experiencing the counselling process than second-hand reporting by the counsellor. Indeed parallel phenomena are often the mechanism by which transference and counter-transference material within the counselling relationship becomes accessible to supervision. It is important to recognise that in addition to the reflection of counselling dynamics in supervision it is equally possible for supervisory dynamics to be reflected in the counselling relationship. An example of this is when the supervisor acts in a rather punitive and critical manner towards his supervisee, who in turn acts in a similar manner towards the client. In this case, material which is emerging in b2 is being paralleled in a2. This aspect of parallel process has been thoroughly studied and described by Doehrman (1976), whose work is a sobering reminder of the importance of maintaining a good quality of supervisory relationship. The clear implication of her work is that it is possible for an ineffective or contaminated supervisory relationship to have a destructive impact upon the counselling relationship. It is equally true that a healthy supervisory relationship can have a positive impact upon the counselling relationship, a fact that suggests a strong argument for some supervision time being utilised for maintenance of the relationship between supervisor and supervisee. The effect of attention being given to the development of the supervision relationship is allegorically reflected in a story attributed by Jung (1963a: 604) to Richard Wilhelm, about:

Stage 3: Space

113

a Chinese rainmaker, who at times of great drought was called to a village to make rain. For this purpose he withdrew to a lonely little hut for three days, asking only for some bread and water. On the fourth day a heavy rain fell. When they asked in astonishment how he did it, he replied: ‘I withdrew into myself and put myself in order; and when I am in order the world around me must naturally come into order too, and then the drought must be followed by rain.’ (Jacobi 1983:95) It may well be that supervisors do not wish to explore the supervisory experience using a psychodynamic perspective in the way that we have emphasised it in delineating this step of the model. However, if one is to be an effective supervisor it is, in our view, essential to at least be aware of the possibility of both transference and parallel process and to have the courage to acknowledge one’s own psychological material when it emerges. In relation specifically to parallel phenomena we are inclined to the view of Calligor (1984:3): ‘I believe that parallel processes are much more frequently operative than is recognised and that not recognising them can have unfortunate implications for the teaching-learning process called supervision.’ Without an understanding of the potential complexity of the supervisory relationship it is difficult to see how effective collaboration can take place. INVESTIGATION: STEP 3-B In considering the examples of David and Joyce, above, we described the first part of a two-step process—the first step being to move aside from the affective experience in each case into the reflective alliance. The second step is to investigate possible sources of the affective experience. In the example of David it quickly becomes apparent, through a simple process of thought association which his supervisor helped him to undertake, that there is a link between David’s feelings towards his supervisor and the childhood experience of being the first of a large number of children. He was able to take this realisation to his own therapy where he fruitfully explored the hitherto unacknowledged resentment towards his mother for the attention given to his siblings, which he felt to be at his expense. Thus what occurred


between David and his supervisor comes under the category of transference material: archaic feelings from David’s unconscious superimposed themselves upon the basic affective supervision relationship. This material was appropriately identified with the help and support of his supervisor and David was then able to take this insight away and attend to it in a therapeutic context of his own. Having identified the material David was also able to resume a sound basic affective relationship with his supervisor and thereby reinstate the supervision process. In the second example the felt experiences of supervisor and supervisee were considered ‘as if they were a reflection of what was going on between Joyce and her client. In the following supervision session Joyce reported that she had used the insight gained from supervision to initiate a discussion in which the client had acknowledged his belief that no one would understand him and so did not talk about how he was really feeling. This resulted in a deepening of the counselling work with this client. Thus the affective experience between Joyce and her supervisor was taken as a parallel phenomenon: they considered what they experienced ‘as if it was a reflection of what Joyce and her client were experiencing with each other. The insight gained by considering what occurred from this perspective informed and facilitated Joyce’s work with her client. We are deliberately tentative in the way we describe this process because, as with any interpretative approach, it is important to remain aware that the understandings being reached are at the level of hypothesis. The ‘as if technique allows the space to play with the material, to ‘hold uncertainty so that creative thinking can occur’ (Lidmila 1992:100). From this creativity hypotheses can emerge which are not merely the application of dry theory but rather a direct exploration of the work with individuals. The validity of hypotheses is then tested by the degree to which they are useful to the counselling process. If this is forgotten then there is a danger of supervisor and counsellor being seduced by the elegance of the interpretation into granting it a greater degree of validity than is merited. Our two examples yield unconscious material from two quite different sources. There is no simple formula for discerning the source of affective responses; it requires reflection and honest selfanalysis. However, these examples do provide one set of clues which can assist in this discernment process. In David’s situation the feelings towards his supervisor were pervasive, building over a

Stage 3: Space

115

number of sessions, whereas for Joyce the feelings were restricted to the point in supervision when the work with a specific client was under discussion. This type of difference can assist the supervisor in distinguishing his or her own emotional responses. Thus if a supervisor has a feeling response in supervision which lasts for some time after the session then that could be considered a clue to it being an illusory counter-transference response. This is not the only possibility: it might also be a counter-transference response to transference material directed at the supervisor by the counsellor. A feeling which is experienced when discussing the work with one client which passes quickly once the focus moves on to another client, or the supervision ceases, can be thought more likely to be of an experience of syntonic counter-transference. This is not definitive, simply a clue which needs to be placed alongside other evidence as to the most likely source. Often there will be a mixture of sources, with the supervisor (or counsellor) tuning in to a particular transference dynamic from the supervisee (or client) because of their own psychological issues. Our examples provide but two illustrations of the investigative process at work. This process is essentially one of gathering, collating and considering evidence. However, supervision is not a court of law and rigorous rules of evidence do not apply. In the supervisory investigation hunches, images, feelings, stray thoughts and passing associations are as valid as well-formulated hypotheses. The investigation may be better served by playful wonderings and meandering than by serious analysis. A question such as ‘What is the client trying to tell you at this point?’ can only elicit a fantasy or an informed guess from the supervisee but nonetheless can lead to new and more fruitful options than have hitherto been pursued. Indeed it is often helpful in the investigative phase deliberately to endeavour to come up with new, perhaps bizarre, ways of understanding what may be going on for the client. This can prove useful in encouraging the generation of a range of new possible ways of understanding what is going on within the counselling, particularly when it appears that all avenues have been tried with little success. The supervisor’s function when working with this aspect of the supervision space has been usefully described by Jacobs and colleagues (1995) in the following terms: Supervisors should try to encourage an ‘evenly hovering attention’ in the therapist, so that he is not overly engaged in


his own theories (or his supervisor’s) and remains receptive to new images and ideas from without and within. It is in this open and receptive ‘potential space’ that creative thinking can be fostered and this way of being with and turning into self and other, not only particular theories and techniques, deserves attention. (Jacobs et al. 1995:114) It may be that the investigation phase will generate hypotheses which can be applied to the counselling situation. It is also possible that it simply provides a space for creatively considering possibilities—on some occasions this might be as far as the supervision work goes at that point. For example, one of us supervises a counsellor who works in a medical general practice, seeing clients for an average often sessions. It is quite common for this supervisee to bring a client she has seen for just one or two sessions simply for the purpose of spending some time generating a range of possible ways that the counselling could develop. She finds this particularly helpful with clients who have difficulty in focusing on what they want from counselling. The counsellor can, with the supervisor, create a sketch map outlining a number of routes that are realistic to explore fruitfully in the relatively short number of counselling sessions available. She might offer these routes to the client, but more often simply uses the map herself to keep a sense of where the work is leading. If a sound collaborative relationship has been established between supervisor and counsellor, both can ‘put their cards on the table’ and candidly explore any and all possibilities presented during the kind of investigative work we describe here. Again, as so often occurs in supervision, there is valuable learning available here for the supervisee about being open with their clients. Rice (1980) has described how inexperienced counsellors can easily fall into the duplicitous habit of’smuggling’ in ‘under the guise of a “reflection” ideas or connections that one thinks the client should be aware of but isn’t’ (p. 138). We align ourselves with her on this occasion when, speaking for client-centred supervisors, she advocates: Most of us would suggest…that if…a connection is very much on the therapist’s mind, it would be better to take responsibility for it as his/her own idea and pose it to the

Stage 3: Space

117

client as a tentative hypothesis, thus maintaining the clarity and honesty of the relationship. (Rice 1980:138) We believe the same is equally true for the supervisor who has no business ‘smuggling’ suggestions or interpretations into the supervision investigation, instead of frankly owning them as their own thoughts which the supervisee can then choose to accept or discard. In order to preserve the sense of space at this phase of the supervision it is important to remember that the reflections resulting from the investigation do not, at this point, need to be directly applicable to the counselling session. As Jacobs and his colleagues (1995:113) have advised, working within the supervision space demands the ability ‘to sustain curiosity and suspend premature disclosure’. The task of application comes in the fourth stage: Bridge. The task in investigation is to generate possibilities, to re-stimulate the creative flow, which in itself can be so facilitative of the counselling process. CHALLENGE: STEP 3-C In moving into the area of challenge there is something of a shift of emphasis in that challenge is inevitably specifically directed at the supervisee. The purpose of any challenge or confrontation is to shed light in an area currently in the shadows, or as Heron (1991) puts it: ‘A confronting intervention unequivocally tells an uncomfortable truth, but does so with love, in order that the one concerned may see it and fully acknowledge it’ (p. 43). If the challenge is effective then the supervisee will learn something; they will develop as a result. It is difficult to challenge effectively: to name ‘what is’ in a way that encourages the person to hear this rather than feel attacked and become defensive. Blocher (1983:31) gives the essence of the supervisor’s dilemma here: ‘When little or no challenge exists the learner will not grow. When the mismatch is too great the learner may disengage physically or psychologically because of excessive anxiety or discouragement.’ Heron (1991) talks about finding the balance between ‘pussyfooting’ on the one hand and ‘clobbering’ on the other. This not only refers to the manner in which a particular challenge is delivered but also includes the timing of that particular challenge


and the overall level of challenge. Challenging is strong medicine and should only be administered in small doses. If the supervisee comes to supervision fearful of the level of confrontation they anticipate then the supervision is being experienced as unbalanced; there is insufficient affirmation being received by the supervisee: there may be plenty intended but it must be received to be effective. It may be that the supervisor is ‘clobbering’: confronting in a negatively critical manner. Such challenge is likely to ‘reduce recipients’ preference for handling future disagreements with the source of such feedback through conciliatory means (e.g., compromise, collaboration), and increase their preference for… less desirable tactics (e.g., avoidance and direct competition)’ (Baron 1988:206). If the supervisee is not challenged sufficiently then he or she is likely to be under-stimulated, and will feel bored or complacent at not being encouraged to view his or her practice critically and learn further about the counselling craft. In part the effectiveness of a challenge rests with the skill of the supervisor in delivering the feedback in a clear and unthreatening way (Freeman 1985). It also demands sufficient ego strength in the supervisee to receive the challenge in a way that is useful. This can be a problematic area when supervising inexperienced counsellors who are likely to present the supervisor with a range of aspects of their counselling which may require challenging but who may well not be ready to make use of such challenge, needing rather to be affirmed and encouraged. Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987) support this view when they suggest that level-one supervisees are often too anxious to make good use of confrontation. They do go on to encourage confrontation as the means of assisting the counsellor to move towards the next developmental stage: ‘Supervisors, therefore, are advised to summon the courage and integrity to begin the challenge that opens the door to level two’ (p. 69). The material that is most likely to provide fertile ground for challenging intervention can be grouped into four main areas. We will consider each of these areas in turn, offering an example of material within each group together with an appropriate form of challenging intervention. The first group consists of challenging by confirmation, where the supervisor corroborates what the supervisee already knows, or suspects. A supervisee might describe a number of alternatives they had in mind for intervening with a client and indicate a degree of dissatisfaction with the choice they made. A simple statement such as ‘I agree, you took the easy

Stage 3: Space

119

option in that situation’ then becomes the challenge. It is a challenge because it holds the supervisee to facing what they did and encourages them to consider what they could have done differently. The supervisor’s task in this situation is to offer this holding, providing the supervisee with space to challenge him or herself. The temptation can be to collude with the supervisee in rationalising why the choice they made was the best one. The next group of challenges concerns those where the supervisor endeavours to enable the counsellor to hear, see, feel or understand what the client has been attempting to communicate. For example, a counsellor was experiencing a degree of exasperation with a client who repeatedly became quite distressed when complaining how family members did not understand the depth of his depression. When describing this in supervision the counsellor was challenged with the question ‘Do you fully appreciate the depth of this client’s depression?’ This question made it possible for the counsellor to recognise how she was defending herself against empathising with this client: a daunting prospect with someone who is deeply depressed. Indeed, challenging the supervisee to be with the client is arguably one of the major tasks of supervision: It is the task of the supervisor to enable the supervisee to become more aware of what actually takes place in the session—behaviours, experiences, and transformations of himself and the patient. It has been my experience as a supervisor that many therapists drown their empathy or appreciation of the patient’s struggle by worrying that they are not doing enough for the patient, or that they are doing the wrong things. (Shainberg 1983:164) The third group of challenges are those which point out something in the behaviour of the counsellor and the likely effect of this behaviour upon the client. One of us supervised a counsellor who had a tendency to tell clients about the difficulties which she, the counsellor, used to have but had now overcome. Whilst this was apparently intended to encourage the client the evidence suggested that this was not the actual effect. After a number of gentle attempts to dissuade the counsellor from this behaviour, with little success, the supervisor, in a most patronising tone, explained how


he used to tell his own clients about his own successes until one day a client had the courage to tell him how small it made them feel and now he knew better. The counsellor was briefly angered and then amused by this demonstration of her own behaviour. This turning of the tables is one of the most powerful forms of confrontation. It should be used cautiously as it contains a persecutory element, but if done with compassion such a challenge can offer the supervisee a salutary lesson which is likely to stick. The fourth group of challenges concerns those which evaluate expectations or assumptions. Probably one of the most difficult areas for counsellors to face is the limitation on what they, or their client, can be realistically expected to achieve. An example of this struggle was seen recently in a counsellor who was troubled that his client was accepting quite a low level of affection in her marriage. The counsellor felt that the client was selling herself short in what she was prepared to accept. The counsellor was reminded that it is not their task to define the client’s goals but rather to assist the client in defining realistic and workable goals (Egan 1998) and then support the client in fulfilling those goals. When the counsellor was challenged to identify the nature of the investment they had in encouraging the client to seek more affection, it transpired to be a consequence of the disappointment the counsellor was currently experiencing in his own marriage. Thus this is an example of the illusory counter-transference of the counsellor in their work with a client. The purpose of challenging is primarily to open up new areas for investigation. Challenge may also be needed in certain instances to contain behaviour by the counsellor that is deemed to be unhelpful or, in extreme circumstances, unethical. An example of this would be where a supervisor insists that a supervisee look at the implications of maintaining a continuing social relationship with a client. CONTAINMENT: STEP 3-D In offering our services as a supervisor we are claiming some degree of knowledge and experience in the territory of counselling. At times it is important for the supervisee that we maintain a sense of our own competence in this role. If it is accepted that a degree of self-confidence and security in the supervisor can be important then the apparent paradox is

Stage 3: Space

121

revealed. For how can the supervisor feel secure in relation to something (that is, the counselling experience which is being explored in the supervision) which they cannot know directly, but only second hand? There is no way this can happen except by feeling confident in their own breadth of knowledge in the counselling field, by trusting their supervisory skills and by having a clear understanding of the supervisory process. The sense of security of the supervisor can provide a means of containment for the insecurities of the counsellor in relation to their counselling work. If the insecurities can be contained within supervision then this provides the supervisee with a safe place in which to experience and explore their doubts and anxieties and thereby, it is hoped, provide a route through and beyond those insecurities. Containment is not necessarily conscious or deliberate on the part of the supervisor; rather, supervision is, in itself, a containing mechanism provided it is experienced as a safe and welcoming environment. This function has been likened to the relationship between an infant, its mother and the father or other supportive adult (Hawkins and Shohet 2000), whereby the mother is enabled to provide for the needs of the infant by themselves feeling ‘held’ by another adult. Thus the counsellor will at times feel reassured and strengthened to perform his task simply by the knowledge that the supervisor is concerned about his needs and committed to providing him with a sense of being ‘held’. There is nothing new in this concept of containment, which is explored extensively in the psychoanalytic literature and well described by Casement (1985). Essentially the process of containment in supervision is much the same as that which takes place within the therapeutic encounter. The basic structures around the supervision process, the boundaries of time, space, contract and shared purpose, provide one level of containment. In addition to this a more deliberate containment takes place when the supervisor recognises the need to contain some aspect of the counselling, finds a means to do so, and, whenever feasible, assists the counsellor to contain the impact of counselling for themselves. The need is usually identified either through realising what the counsellor is experiencing by registering clues in the counselling material being presented in supervision, or through the supervisor noting her own internal responses: her counter-transference reaction. Containment is then achieved through acknowledgement of what is taking place and


by the supervisor articulating rather than acting out her own responses. In other words the supervisor is able to function from the reflective alliance and assist the supervisee to step back also and attain a reflective position from which investigation can take place. Let us take the example of a counsellor describing work with Edward, a client who is, at times, finding it hard to keep a firm grasp on reality as a consequence of the degree of aggression he is experiencing towards his manager at work. The supervisor finds himself increasingly fearful as the session progresses. He comments on his anxiety and this elicits an acknowledgement from the counsellor about her own anxiety in working with Edward. This anxiety can be understood in a range of ways: at a level of parallel process we can surmise that the supervision is reflecting the anxiety within the counselling relationship. The anxiety could also be considered to be syntonic counter-transference: the anxiety in the counsellor being precipitated by unconscious material being communicated by Edward, perhaps anxiety in the face of the depth of his aggressive feelings. It might also be a reflection of the counsellor’s unconscious fear of her own aggression: illusory countertransference. It can also be considered at the level of conscious content: the counsellor may be concerned that Edward is going to harm his superior. There may be some basis in reality for this fear and it may also be covering up an unconscious fear that Edward will attack her, the counsellor. The supervisor might be concerned that Edward is exhibiting signs of serious mental health problems and may be unsure of the ability of this particular counsellor to pick up the appropriate signals. There is no singular way to conclude, with any degree of certainty, the primary issue or the principal cause of the anxiety that counsellor and supervisor both feel. The first supervisory task is for both supervisor and counsellor to manage their own anxieties. Having achieved this it is to be hoped that through the process of investigation the counsellor and supervisor will reach some satisfactory hypothesis that fits the facts, feelings, intuitions and understandings they have. Such a hypothesis can only then be tested in the counselling arena and reviewed in subsequent supervision in the light of what transpires. Containment is also about the ability of the supervisor, and, by extension, the supervisee, to tolerate the uncertainty and confusion of not knowing, rather than seeking immediate clarification. A rush to tidy things away is actually counterproductive in supervision and may have the opposite effect of creating greater confusion and

Stage 3: Space

123

anxiety. Inappropriate haste to resolve dilemmas in supervision can encourage the counsellor to be intolerant of the client’s mess in therapy. Allphin (1987) describes how supervisors can sabotage this part of the supervision process by an early or over-emphasis on making sense of material, which is perplexing or obscure: The supervisor needs to be able to tolerate the confusion with the therapist, just as the therapist needs to be able to tolerate it with the patient. If I become too anxious about the confusion, I may become critical of the therapist, pushing for more details or facts about the case. At such times the therapist himself is likely to become more confused and unclear because he feels criticised by pushing for clarification when he is not in conscious control of any clarifying information. The therapist, in fact, may be communicating what it is like to be with the patient and needing help managing the confused experience he has with the patient. (Allphin 1987:239) In addition, supervision may provide a containing function by offering the counsellor a place in which to debrief. It is important to recognise that a counsellor will, in the course of their work, hear clients describe difficult and at times traumatic experiences. On occasions the counsellor will be left with quite powerful emotional responses to what they have heard. Often supervision is the only opportunity where it is professionally appropriate to disclose what clients have divulged. If space is provided for this in supervision then it will minimise the tendency the counsellor may otherwise have to ‘leak’ confidential material in inappropriate ways (Baker and Patterson 1990). In addition it enables the supervisee to release what might otherwise remain pent up within. For example a counsellor recently came for supervision having had a session with a new client who described, in a rather dismissive manner, having been recently raped. Once the counsellor started to discuss this session in supervision her anger and distress emerged. She was able to express these emotions and in subsequent counselling sessions also enabled the client to acknowledge similar feelings about this episode. It is possible that on occasions a supervisor will find themselves having to contain the shadow (Jung 1963b:8–10) side of their supervisee. The shadow is the unacknowledged side of the self, that part of ourselves which we dismiss to ‘the shadows’ or


recesses of our conscious awareness. From the perspective of analytic psychology one of the key tasks in the process of becoming whole is that of discovering and repossessing our shadow (Johnson 1991). Not surprisingly the shadow side of those of us in the helping professions often includes those parts of ourselves which are antipathetic to our chosen field (Page 1999a). Thus a counsellor may, for instance, have in their shadow desires to bully, inflict or witness pain, judge, or exert power over others. Uncovering and facing these aspects of ourselves can be quite shattering at the time; indeed, doing so inevitably breaks a psychological defence we have previously had in place. Thus enabling the supervisee to see their own shadow is a delicate process requiring sensitivity and empathy. However, when such aspects of the counsellor do emerge it is important that as supervisors we do not avoid naming what we see as, left uncontained, this same shadow material can have a highly destructive impact upon the counsellor’s clients—as when a counsellor consistently pushes a client into areas of distress and leaves them there without providing the space for resurfacing or the processing of the emotional experience. AFFIRMATION: STEP 3-E The need to affirm the supervisee is both a specific and a general task. It is specific in that there are occasions when it is important to recognise and acknowledge that the counsellors have done a particularly good piece of work or managed themselves within an unusually difficult situation. The task is general in that the counsellor needs to feel in a sustained manner that they are valued and considered worthwhile by the supervisor. This is part of what creates the sense of being held, as described under Containment. At this stage of the supervisory process we are primarily concerned with the specific affirming task, but it is important that the need for affirmation at a general level is recognised—indeed, it may well be a prerequisite for supervision to be effective. Counselling is a depleting task, the counsellors giving of themselves more than they receive. Much of what is given is difficult to quantify; it is emotional and relational. Just as if one does a hard day’s physical labour one needs food, relaxation and sleep to restore the depleted physical reserves so too a counsellor needs relaxation and nourishment to restore their depleted reserves

Stage 3: Space

125

of emotional and relational energy. Effective supervision provides some of the nourishment for this restorative process. Indeed, a survey by Davis et al. (1989) of 120 randomly selected counsellors in the United States found that those therapists who experienced dissatisfaction with their supervision more frequently experienced feelings of emotional exhaustion and burn-out than those who felt they were effectively supervised. This restorative process happens both through the general quality of the relationship and also specifically by affirming the worth and value of the work the counsellor is doing. To take an example: a counsellor arrives at supervision feeling drained and doubting the usefulness of what they are doing. This continues as he recounts the stories of two clients who both seem to be making no headway. The supervisor’s first task is to hear and accept how the counsellor is feeling. She may go on to replenish the counsellor in a number of ways. If there has already been progress with these particular clients it may be important to point this out. The counsellor may need help in recognising their competencies and strengths, perhaps being encouraged to recount past successes: ‘What has worked well in the past with clients in this sort of state?’ The affirming task is a particularly pleasant one that should be undertaken seriously and with sincerity. It has a preventive mental health function for the counsellor: if done well it goes some way towards counteracting the despondency and sense of hopelessness which can lead to burn-out (Baker 1984; Farber and Heifetz 1982; Gibson et al. 1989). However, this can only be achieved providing the counsellor is operating in a reasonably healthy environment. It is important that supervision is not seen as an antidote to intolerable working conditions. Counsellors should work a reasonable number of hours and have the resources and facilities they need to do the task. It is difficult to define what constitutes a reasonable number of client hours per working week as this varies with different counsellors, their level of experience and with different client groups. As a rough guide between twenty and twenty-five counselling hours per week seems to us a realistic maximum for an experienced practitioner. CONCLUSION This third stage, Space, is the essence of the creative and renewing function of supervision. It is important that during this stage there


is the willingness and the opportunity for the supervisor and the supervisee to be in a state of not knowing: to not have any answers. During this stage it is not necessary to know how the possibilities being generated will be applied to the counselling work with the client. This is the task of the next stage, the fourth stage of our model: Bridge. By separating these two functions— creative reflection and application—it becomes easier to let go of the anxieties the counsellor may feel about what they are going to do with a particular client, secure in the knowledge that before the supervision session ends there will be an opportunity to pick up this question and look at it in some detail.

Chapter 7

Stage 4: Bridge

This stage is entitled ‘Bridge’ as a way of indicating that it forms a return link between supervision and counselling. The ideas, musings and possibilities developed during the previous stage have now to be refined and decisions reached about how, if at all, they will be taken back into the counselling arena. This stage also comprises five elements, which we present in the order shown in Figure 7.1. The degree to which some of the elements are used will vary depending upon the ways of working of a particular supervisor and counsellor. For example, some supervisory pairings may use goal setting and action planning regularly, whereas others may not. Some supervisors may give a lot of information, using this as one of the opportunities to undertake the teaching aspect of supervision that Carroll (1996:50) describes, although he points out that while

Figure 7.1 Supervision model stage 4: Bridge.

127


few would disagree with the ‘teaching’ task of supervision,… there is wide variation in the way the teaching task is implemented by different supervisors. Some refuse to give ‘information’ to the supervisee and believe information-giving should take place on the training course. Thus in this stage of Bridge all the elements are not essential for every supervisor, but we feel it is important that all five are recognised as being available, to be used if appropriate. What we do think is necessary is some identifiable form of bridging process between supervisory exploration and the subsequent counselling sessions. The structural reasons for this were described in the previous chapter and diagrammatically represented in Figure 6.2. One of the main therapeutic reasons concerns the counsellor’s transition back from supervision to counselling. This is explored on pp. 138–139 in the section entitled ‘Client’s perspective’, but we want to emphasise it now as it is relevant to the whole process of bridging. Unless attention is given to application it is quite possible that the client will experience a discontinuity as a consequence of the supervision, with the counsellor having significantly shifted his perspective or his behaviour between sessions. We must remember that the client is not privy to what has taken place in supervision and would usually not know that supervisory discussion had occurred. Consequently if the client experiences a significant difference in the counsellor, this can be quite disturbing. Given that the reliability and predictability of the counsellor is generally very important this can be counter-therapeutic (Langs 1982). Thus in our view the bare minimum of bridging that must take place is that of reflecting upon what will be taken back into the work with clients and to ensure that this is managed in a sensitive and thoughtful way. CONSOLIDATION: STEP 4-A This is the beginning of the transition, the move towards application. It requires a change in perspective as the reflections within ‘space’ are brought to an end and attention given to the issue of application. This transition from space to bridge may be introduced by a question that invites reflection on what has happened so far in the supervision. Examples include:

Stage 4: Bridge

• • • • •

129

I wonder what you want to do with what we have been discussing? What would you like to have in mind from this discussion when you next see your client? What is most significant to you from what we have been discussing? How do you want to be different next time you see this client? Are there questions that we have to leave unanswered at this point?

Alternatively, a statement may be made that indicates to the supervisee that it is time to change from one stage into another. For example, the supervisor might suggest ‘I think it is time we started to consider how you want to apply what we have been discussing.’ When the discussion in Space has been particularly intense or emotional it is important that this transition into the next phase of supervision is undertaken deliberately. There needs to be sufficient time for the supervisee, and sometimes for the supervisor also, to make an internal shift. This may involve allowing strong feelings to dissipate and detaching somewhat from what has been under scrutiny. This can take a little while and if rushed is unlikely to lead into a particularly satisfactory discussion about application. The act of shifting attention and starting to think about the next time the counsellor expects to see the client under discussion will, in itself, help the counsellor to allow their feelings to subside. The process of consolidating, then, involves gathering up what seems useful—the insights, new understandings and hypotheses— and deciding what to do with each. The process might stop there, with the new material noted and the supervisee left with the task of deciding how to apply what they have discovered. However, it is possible, and at least with inexperienced counsellors preferable, to sift through the new material as part of the work of supervision. This sifting involves deciding what to do with each new idea, insight or hypothesis. Some may perhaps be abandoned as wild or unhelpful. Others, it may well be decided, will be held in awareness by the counsellor to be used should it seem appropriate—put on a shelf to be brought down if an opportune moment arises. For example, one of us had the experience in our counselling practice of introducing an idea which had emerged in our own supervision some months earlier. The particular insight from supervision had been that this client appeared to be very


frightened of a sense of emptiness within himself, so much so that he defended against feeling this emptiness by frantically burying himself in his busy daily life. At the time of the supervision there seemed no way to introduce this notion without simply increasing the client’s defensiveness. Three months later, however, the client was talking about how he experienced counselling and used the description of ‘a space that he found difficult to fill’. On hearing this phrase the counsellor, remembering the earlier supervision discussion, was able tentatively to suggest that this might also be a description of how he experienced himself at times. The client accepted this interpretation quite readily and was able to explore it further with good results. This is an example of how the understanding of the counsellor, and supervisor, may be ahead of the client. For some this may be a very clear cognitive process: identifying what fits with the current aims and objectives of the counselling work and the stage of the client. For others it may be much more intuitive; noticing which has a sense of Tightness about it or what thought or perspective lingers and seems to make everything fall into place. There is a place for both these approaches, and others that may lie alongside or between these two. Any new insights or possibilities that are to be applied directly need to be formulated in a way which ensures that they will be introduced with appropriate caution and sensitivity. This is the work of the goal setting and action planning phases, but before moving into these areas it is possible that new or additional information is needed. INFORMATION GIVING: STEP 4-B We have included this component in the Bridge stage because there are situations in which it is helpful for the supervisor to introduce some new information. This may be particularly relevant for the inexperienced counsellor who is likely to welcome information from their supervisor in a range of areas (Stoltenberg et al. 1998). Such information may be introduced in a number of ways. 1 Direct suggestion One way the supervisor has of introducing information is by means of direct suggestion. Take the example of a relatively

Stage 4: Bridge

131

inexperienced female counsellor working with a young adult male client who was struggling to form relationships with women. In the course of the supervision a hypothesis emerged, on the basis of the counselling material, suggesting that the client was still very attached to his mother and that there had been a considerable amount of symbolic sexual contact between the client and his mother during the client’s adolescence. The supervisor made a strong suggestion that the counsellor should disclose nothing of this hypothesis but rather that careful note should be taken of how the client was in his relationship with her. This suggestion was made in the knowledge that this counsellor had a tendency to blurt out what she was thinking to her client and the supervisor felt that the client would probably find the Oedipal hypothesis quite alarming at this stage and that a better understanding of the transference relationship was required before it could be decided how, if at all, to introduce this delicate material. 2 Self-disclosure Another type of information giving involves the supervisor sharing his own experience as a counsellor. This has a double benefit in that not only is it a means of introducing ideas to the supervisee but it can also emphasise that the supervisor is also a practising counsellor; a reminder that they share common struggles and similar processes of learning and development. An example of this would be for the supervisor to acknowledge that when she worked with a dependent client she also found it difficult to refuse the requests to tell the client how to lead his life. 3 New technique Another form of information is to introduce a new idea or technique. An example of this was when one of us described to a supervisee the use of an intervention, which could be described as deliberately ‘thinking out loud’. In suggesting this technique the supervisor was offering a new way the counsellor might use to introduce a dilemma in her work with a particular client. The client in question seemed highly compliant—that is to say, he was eager to please his counsellor. The supervisor offered an example of the way the intervention might be formulated: ‘Just at this moment I find myself wondering whether we should go further down this new


avenue or if we should return to the original problem.’ This simple device provided a means of offering the choice of direction to the client whilst giving no clues as to the counsellor’s preference. The client had then to make a choice, either explicitly by a direct response or implicitly through his next statement. 4 Role-play A fourth way of introducing new information is by means of roleplay. Typically in supervision this involves the supervisee being invited to take on the role of their client in order to explore the client’s experience of them, the counsellor. Thus, for example, when supervising a counsellor who tended to ask a lot of probing questions the supervisor suggested that the supervisee play their client. When the supervisor then started probing the supervisee quickly recognised the degree of discomfort this created. It is also possible for the supervisor to demonstrate specific techniques, although in general it is a more powerful learning device for supervisees if they have the experience first hand of doing something differently, rather than simply being shown a new way. Role-play, the theoretical underpinning of which has been examined in some detail by Yardley-Matwiejczuk (1997), offers a powerful and immediate way of exploring the counselling process, and is perhaps particularly useful for supervisees who learn best through direct experimentation. 5 Giving references We find that supervisees are often glad to be recommended an article or book that is relevant to a particular client or an aspect of counselling practice. This fifth type of informative intervention (Heron 1991) may be particularly welcomed by counsellors who are not currently in training, as it provides them with a new source of stimulation. Suggesting specific reading material can also be helpful to trainee counsellors who may be baffled by the volume of counselling literature on offer and welcome guidance as to where to look for ideas about specific issues or interests. These are five ways of introducing new information at this point, after the main exploration has taken place but prior to any decisions about how to apply the new understandings to the

Stage 4: Bridge

133

counselling. In this way the supervisee has plenty of opportunity to identify new possibilities first. If the supervisor introduces possibilities too early in the supervision process this may inhibit the creativity of the supervisee, the encouragement of which is an important supervisory task. We would also suggest that this offers an appropriate discipline for supervisors. It is all too easy to fall into the trap of shifting into teacher mode early in a supervision session and so take the attention away from the supervisee. This can be a form of collusive defence between supervisor and supervisee, both relieved to avoid difficult issues and painful feelings. If supervisors confine their didactic inputs until the Bridge phase then this danger is restricted, if not avoided entirely. GOAL SETTING: STEP 4-C At this point in supervision there are three distinct areas in which goals can be set: therapeutic goals for work with the client, learning goals for the counsellor’s development and supervisory goals for the supervision process itself. Therapeutic goals In order to explore this aspect of goal setting we will consider the case of a client, Angela, who is seeing Edward for counselling. Angela is in her twenties and has come to counselling because she is experiencing increasingly dark moods. She is happily married, with no children, and she and her husband are both in employment. As Edward and his supervisor explored the work with Angela in supervision a number of interesting pieces of information had come to light. Angela had an unwanted pregnancy in her teens and had the pregnancy terminated. She had told no one in her family about this and it had taken place at a time when her parents were splitting up. As it transpired, within a few hours of the abortion taking place her father had left the family home. Angela and her husband now want to start a family but Angela is quite frightened at this prospect. In addition Edward feels very protective towards Angela, feeling quite pained on her behalf. Edward and his supervisor have hypothesised that Angela’s dark moods are a consequence of the unresolved guilt about the abortion, which may or may not be linked to some primitive belief that in some way she contributed to her parents’ divorce. In addition it would seem


likely that Angela remains angry with her father for deserting her at this point in her life when she really needed the support of both her parents. Edward’s feelings towards Angela seem rooted in fatherly counter-transference, and exploring this in supervision leads Edward and his supervisor to the view that the frightened young girl within Angela is transferring onto Edward her desire for a protective father figure. From the exploration in supervision the following therapeutic goals are formulated: 1 To assist Angela to identify and acknowledge her sense of guilt and explore ways in which now, ten years later, she can forgive herself. 2 To explore Angela’s feelings towards her father. 3 For Edward to contain his emotional responses towards Angela and note any shifts or changes in these feelings. It would be quite appropriate to discuss the first two goals with Angela, offering some explanation of the reasoning behind them. Indeed this might be helpful for her as it will involve her in the therapeutic process and also offer an explanation of how her current moods, which she finds quite frightening, may be linked to her life history. It is noteworthy that in the case of Angela a distinction can be drawn between her life goals and her therapeutic goals (Ticho 1972). Her life goals, as far as we know them, are to be free of her moods and to have a child or children. The three therapeutic goals above are not directly related to these life goals but rather are intended to make it possible to achieve them. In this case distinguishing between the life goals and therapeutic goals is relatively straightforward. This distinction is not always so apparent; nevertheless, it is important to remind the counsellor there is a distinction between the two and their responsibility is to define and work with the therapeutic goals, leaving clients to define and work towards their life goals for themselves (Kopp 1977). Making this distinction can be a safeguard against any omnipotent desire counsellors may have to run their clients’ lives for them. The example of the work of Edward with Angela is based within a long-term therapeutic relationship in which there is no set time limit on achieving the therapeutic goals. However the last decade

Stage 4: Bridge

135

has seen a rapid rise in interest in brief forms of counselling and therapy. This is not a new field, but one which has expanded rapidly as a result of many factors, economic, pragmatic and philosophic. In this field there has been for some time ‘A changing philosophy of treatment that often accepts limited therapeutic goals as a sufficient answer to the patient’s needs and sometimes as the treatment of choice’ (Barten 1971:3). Within brief therapy there is the option of clients returning intermittently and it has been suggested (Cummings and Sayama 1995) that this is preferable, offering brief therapeutic interventions relevant to the specific life stage of the client. In short-term work there is urgency in clarifying what counsellor and client are endeavouring to achieve. As Feltham (1997:76) puts it ‘Successful time-limited work is almost always focused, even if the focus is not always on explicitly specified goals.’ Thus counsellors whose work is time-limited will often need to leave supervision with a clear focus for each client discussed. This may include strategies for defining priorities and goals with the client, or it may primarily be to assist the counsellor in identifying appropriate interventions (Budman et al. 1992; de Shazer 1985; Dryden and Feltham 1992; O’Connell 1998). Learning goals During the course of supervision it is not uncommon to identify an area in which the counsellor feels they have learning needs (Horton and Varma 1997; Wilkins 1997); indeed, if this does not happen on occasions then the supervision is failing to meet one of its primary purposes. These learning needs may relate to skills or knowledge and indicate that further training is required, or they may be more to do with the development of the practitioner’s level of selfunderstanding and the enhancement of their capacity to work at increasing psychological depth (Page 1999a; Wosket 1999). The latter may involve the counsellor taking up some form of therapy or self-development. Returning to the earlier example, Edward realised from his work with Angela that he needed to understand more about working with bereavement and loss (Kübler-Ross 1970) and he therefore sought out a training course specific to this area. In addition he felt that he wanted to focus on his experience of the transference relationship and in particular his own countertransference responses. This was an area in which he felt reasonably comfortable, but with Angela his responses were


particularly strong. He was curious to discover if this was an indicator of the depth of Angela’s transference or if it resulted from some illusory counter-transference material of his own resonating with his syntonic counter-transference (these terms are explained on p. 110) response to Angela. This second developmental goal did not require training but rather was a learning objective, which Edward could work out himself in consultation with his supervisor. A learning objective such as the second one set by Edward can have a beneficial effect on the therapeutic process, even though it would seem to distract attention from the client. Indeed we have both argued elsewhere (Page 1999b; Wosket 1999) that identifying such issues becomes increasingly important for any counsellor and is essential to the development of an effective individual counselling identity (Skovholt and Rønnestad 1992). Supervisory goals There is a third set of goals described by Borders and Leddick (1987) who, writing from a cognitive-behavioural perspective, suggest: The results of your developmental assessment then, may indicate additional, perhaps unspoken, goals, and influence how you intervene to help supervisees move towards their specified goals’ (pp. 24–25). These then are goals which the supervisor may have for her task in facilitating the development of the supervisee. Such goals may be discussed with the supervisee, but it is equally possible that the supervisor will not speak of them, simply using the goals as aids to her selection of supervisory interventions. An example of such a goal would be to encourage more reflexivity in the supervisee through open questions and greater use of silence. With another supervisee a supervisory goal may be to encourage the supervisee to do their own research in some areas by offering references rather than offering information or suggesting how to intervene. ACTION PLANNING: STEP 4-D The defined goals are the intended outcome, the desired end result. The action plan is the means of achieving the desired outcome: a sequence of steps which, successfully negotiated, will lead to the

Stage 4: Bridge

137

goal being attained. When writing about action planning as part of the counselling process Egan states: One reason people fail to achieve goals is that they do not explore the different ways in which the goal can be reached. They choose one means or strategy without a great deal of exploration or reflection, try it, and when it fails conclude that they just can’t achieve that particular goal. Coming up with as many ways of achieving a goal as possible increases the probability that one of them or a combination of several will suit the resources of a particular client. (Egan 1986:48) The same argument applies in supervision so it is important that supervisor and supervisee are prepared to spend time looking at a number of possible routes to the goal. Returning to the case of Angela we can consider possible strategies for achieving the first two goals: (1) to assist Angela to identify and acknowledge her sense of guilt and explore ways in which now, ten years later, she can forgive herself; and (2) to explore Angela’s feelings towards her father. The first line of thought which Edward and his supervisor pursued was to identify the various people involved with the teenaged Angela with whom she has unresolved issues. The list becomes quite extensive: her father, the unborn child, father of the child, her mother, and other members of her family. This points up a number of possible strategies: Angela could be invited to do this exercise for herself, perhaps on paper or simply verbally with Edward. This might provide the necessary cathartic (Heron 1991) impetus to get the emotional work under way. It could be taken further with Angela being invited to have imaginary conversations with one or more of the characters, most probably the unborn child, the child’s father, or perhaps her own father or mother. The second set of possibilities comes out of focusing specifically on the issue of guilt, with the associated issues of damaged self-esteem and the need for a means of forgiveness. One possible strategy which emerges is to have Angela identify someone in her life now who is the age she was then and to consider what resources this person has and what it is reasonable to be able to expect them to do. This would be done with the intention of helping Angela separate her adult self from her teenage


self and thereby create the possibility of forgiving the teenager rather than imposing her adult expectations upon her younger self. There is also the option of encouraging Angela to express the suppressed anger associated with her feeling of guilt. It would also be possible to discuss with Angela the process of forgiveness and the necessary conditions for forgiveness to take place. We could generate further possibilities, but perhaps what we have given here is sufficient to demonstrate the range of options available. It is important to understand that action planning is a process, not a single event which takes place in supervision and is then applied in counselling. Thus the plan needs to be reviewed and then modified and evolved in the light of what transpires. Any attempt to stick rigidly to a plan defined in supervision is doomed to strangle the creativity of the counselling process and limits counselling to being the application of techniques or theories to the client in a mechanistic manner. If the counselling relationship is to be therapeutic it must be enabled to unfold in new and unexpected directions. Only then can counselling be said to be responding to the client, enabling this unique individual to move forward in the way best suited to him or her. CLIENT’S PERSPECTIVE: STAGE 4-E It is imperative that, at some stage prior to the supervisee returning to the counselling arena, any action or intervention that is being considered is evaluated from the perspective of the client. This is, of course, not possible to do directly but nevertheless can be attempted by endeavouring to imagine the effect upon the client of the planned strategy. This is an empathic process, which has also been termed ‘trial identification’. Casement (1985:35) describes using this technique when, as a therapist, trying ‘listen (as the patient might) to what it crosses my mind to say, silently trying out a possible comment or interpretation.’ This is the application of trial identification to a single intervention prior to the intervention being made. In the context of supervision it may be applied in a similar way to a specific intervention or to a type of intervention or course of action. For example the supervisor can invite the counsellor to face an empty chair in which he imagines the client is sitting. The counsellor then runs through what he is considering saying to the client as a result of the supervision. The supervisor then has the counsellor switch chairs and imagine that he is the

Stage 4: Bridge

139

client, hearing what the counsellor has just said. The counsellor is then invited, in the role of the client, to voice what impact he feels that this has made. Strategies can be reviewed in the light of any new awareness this brings. Returning once more to the example of Angela it is possible to apply a trial identification to each of the possible action plans already proposed. When this was done in the supervision it was felt that Angela would be likely to sabotage cathartic interventions. This was felt likely because what emerged when identifying with Angela was a belief that she deserved to feel bad because she had been ‘bad’ in having the abortion. As a result of this trial identification it was decided to tackle the guilt first. It was felt that only when the guilt had been worked through would Angela be prepared to engage in the emotional work, which also needed to be done. Thus by checking what is being considered against the imagined impact upon the client it is possible to make an informed decision as to how to proceed. The choice of action is no longer determined solely by the preferences or theoretical beliefs of supervisor or counsellor but rather is born out of an honest attempt to ascertain what is in the best interests of this particular client. This must also, as we emphasised at the beginning of this chapter, take account of the likely effect upon the client of the counsellor bringing new perspectives or understandings to counselling as a result of the work done in supervision. The true test of the planned intervention or strategy will take place when the counsellor is with his client, and it is for the counsellor to remain alert to what takes place, and if necessary change plans in the light of this. CONCLUSION This fourth stage of the supervisory process concludes the clientfocused part of supervision. By now the supervisee should be ready to return to the counselling relationship, having dealt with unresolved matters from the previous session and with some sense of how he or she intends to proceed in the next encounter. There remains the task, for supervisor and supervisee, of reviewing their own performances within the supervision session.

Chapter 8

Stage 5: Review

Following the exploratory work of Stage 3 (Space) and the reconnective work of Stage 4 (Bridge), the final stage of the model concerns the process of reviewing and evaluating. This stage is built into the model to ensure that both supervisor and supervisee regularly reflect upon the quality of the supervisory relationship and the effectiveness of the work done in supervision. Figure 8.1 outlines the five steps into which we have divided the review stage of supervision. As in some previous stages, the steps frequently shade imperceptibly into one another or are used selectively at appropriate points within the supervision process. Feedback, grounding and evaluation are more likely to be pertinent to every session, recontracting may occur intermittently,

Figure 8.1 Supervision model stage 5: Review.

140

Stage 5: Review

141

or at fixed points in the ongoing process, while assessment may not be relevant at all, depending on the nature of the supervision alliance. In a recent supervision session with one of us, a supervisee who was not in the habit of systematically reviewing his progress with clients was exploring his discomfort with this aspect of the process. In response to supportive challenging from his supervisor he was enabled to see that avoidance of reviewing his work with clients was one way he habitually put himself down: ‘I might hear that I’m no good.’ When the supervisor asked him what stood in the way of inviting feedback from clients he got in touch with his own anxiety and also began to see more clearly his own blindspot. ‘I need to feel secure enough about me to run the risk of asking them. Otherwise I’m depriving them of the opportunity to recognise the progress they’re making or to tell me if it’s not helping, so that we can try to do something about it.’ The counsellor’s words here can usefully be transposed to the supervision encounter and they provide a fitting rationale for the inclusion of the review stage in the supervision model. They emphasise the collaborative nature of the enterprise and the mutuality of purpose—improving the quality and value of the work which is being undertaken as a partnership. They also point up a very basic and real fear that can too easily get in the way of the supervisor actively encouraging feedback—the risk that ‘I might hear that I’m no good.’ FEEDBACK: STEP 5-A Feedback in supervision covers both a process and the skills needed to engage in that process. By feedback we mean the giving and receiving of responses and reactions which have the purpose of improving the quality or the usefulness of the supervision. It should be a two-way process where both parties are willing to hear and to give feedback to one another. Feedback which is only given by a supervisor to a supervisee, whether it is positive or negative, is a misuse of power and a perversion of the process in that it denies the counsellor the right or the opportunity to share his or her experience in a way that impinges on the other party. Feedback which only entails the supervisee sharing reactions, for example appreciation of how the supervisor helped with a difficult issue, may leave the


counsellor wondering what the supervisor is thinking and feeling about them and their work, perhaps causing unnecessary anxiety or discomfort. Feedback can focus on a number of aspects of the supervision, including: dynamics of the relationship, specific skills and interventions (both the counsellor’s and the supervisor’s), the way the process is being managed (for example, timing or structure), styles and approaches used by both parties, and awareness of developments (for instance, in the client work or the counsellor’s competence). It can occur at any point in the supervision, but is discussed here as it has, primarily, a reviewing function. A reciprocal process of systematic and honest feedback can enormously enhance the supervision task and relationship in the following ways:

• • • • • • • •

highlighting and reinforcing strengths and good practice; indicating areas for development and weaknesses to be addressed; challenging blindspots; cementing and developing the supervision relationship; encouraging mutuality and collaboration; releasing pent-up feelings; clearing away confusions and misunderstandings; providing support and affirmation.

The ability to give and receive constructive feedback depends on a number of skills and qualities in both parties (Freeman 1985). In considering how to give feedback to supervisees it is important for the supervisor to be aware, as pointed out by Gilbert and Sills (1999:181), that ‘most people have emerged from such a shamebased educational process that any feedback which is in any way critical seems to “devastate” the person’. One danger associated with this experience is that the supervisor may hold back from giving feedback that will help the supervisee learn and grow from fear of upsetting or undermining him or her. More seriously, the withholding of constructive feedback may mean that bad habits and poor practice go unchallenged and appear to be condoned by the supervisor’s silence on the subject. Supervisors therefore have a duty to provide feedback to their supervisees in the service of enhancing therapeutic competence and safeguarding client welfare. How the feedback is given is the key to its

Stage 5: Review

143

effectiveness and paramount above all else is the supervisor’s ability to offer feedback that provides an equal balance of support and challenge. Competence in offering feedback is enhanced where the qualities of empathy, openness, honesty and consistency are present in the giver. Feedback is made more acceptable to the recipient when it is balanced (positive with negative), managed with good timing and given regularly. It requires the communication skills of assertiveness, clarity and explicitness. The factors likely to undermine good feedback include generalisation, defensiveness, vagueness, inconsistency, over-personalisation, blaming and indecisiveness. Of equal importance is the ability to receive feedback and allow it, when appropriate, to make a difference. Perhaps paramount here are the willingness to listen and the ability to consider feedback before responding. Feedback by the supervisor which is comprehensive, constructive, honest, and freely and regularly given effectively takes the sting out of any evaluation and assessment that may be required and provides a powerful spur to the counsellor’s development. As Rice (1980) has stated, ‘the optimal climate for the therapist’s growth is a great deal of moment-to-moment feedback… and minimum of evaluation as a person’ (p. 141). In the same way that personal growth and change are powerfully related to feedback from ‘significant others’ in an individual’s life, so too the development of the counsellor’s professional persona is closely influenced by the supervisor ’s selective responses. Indeed, a study by Guest and Beutler (1988) of sixteen therapists who were followed up at regular intervals post-training, found that supervisors’ approaches, interventions and feedback ‘exerted a reliable influence on trainees’ theoretical orientations 3–5 years following the conclusion of the training experience’ (p. 655). GROUNDING: STEP 5-B In some ways this step in the supervision process, whilst being tangible in the experiencing, defies neat definition. It occurs at the interface between the end of the bridging stage and the beginning of the process of evaluation (the next step in the model). It is best described as a process of disengagement from the exploratory and planning work undertaken in the previous


two stages and it involves both supervisor and supervisee winding down before they look back over the immediate experience. In this sense it provides a counter-balance to the focusing stage, in that it has a de-focusing function as attention shifts from the supervision work itself to an appraisal of it. At this point we could say that the participants shift ground and move one foot back into the ‘real world’ whilst retaining the other foothold, for a while longer, in the ‘artificial world’ of the supervision encounter. The grounding stage often comprises a quiet moment of reflection, or of simply ‘being with’ one another as both supervisor and supervisee withdraw and settle back in order to achieve the necessary level of objectivity required to evaluate the work. In our usage it is frequently marked by the supervisor saying something like ‘Have we finished that part?’ or, ‘Have we done enough?’ Often it is a place where amusement or humour enter into the discussion. For example, both might share a sense of relief in emerging from work that has been difficult, if productive, perhaps by the supervisee exclaiming, ‘Gosh, I’m glad to have got that off my chest’, or words to that effect. The grounding stage is also about supervisor and supervisee playing with ‘what’s around the edges’ of the work. Moving back from the main focus gives both the opportunity to alter or enlarge their immediate perspective, so that, for example, connections or patterns become more apparent. It might be that the supervisor here spots and highlights a habitual occurrence in the supervisee’s work: ‘It’s interesting that this is the third time running we’ve explored dependency issues for your clients. It might be worth considering if that’s significant in any way.’ Or the supervisee might spot something there for themselves: ‘I’ve just realised that we talked about dependency in my clients on the last two occasions we met as well. It might be because it’s quite an issue for me in my own therapy at the moment too.’ Alternatively, a difference, or the breaking out of a pattern might be recognised at this point, for instance where the supervisor notices ‘We managed to get both your clients in this time without it seeming rushed, as it often is’, and the counsellor responds ‘I think I was clearer about what I wanted help with this time and that stopped me from going all over the place and then running out of time.’ Having got their breath back, so to speak, the supervisor and counsellor can more easily move into some evaluation of the supervision experience.

Stage 5: Review

145

EVALUATION: STEP 5-C The step of evaluation in supervision provides the opportunity for supervisor and supervisee to determine the value of the supervision experience and consider any implications for change. The focus here is mutual evaluation of the co-operative enterprise, not assessment of the supervisee, which is dealt with in the next step of the model. It is important to include the space for some evaluation of the work just undertaken in each supervision session. It is also valuable to stand back from the session to session work, on occasion, and evaluate the ongoing process. Evaluation need not be a formal or formidable exercise, although questionnaires and checklists do exist (see, for example, Borders and Leddick 1987; Bradley 1989; Stoltenberg and Delworth 1987) for the more quantitative analysis of the process, tasks and relationship. The model offered in this book itself provides a comprehensive and adaptable framework for monitoring the work. If both participants are familiar with the different steps and stages they can go through them together as a way of checking whether sufficient attention is being given, in the best way, to each of the aspects. This might throw up, for example, considerations about whether initial expectations are being met, whether improvements could be made to achieve a better match of styles and approaches, or whether the supervisee is feeling sufficiently challenged or affirmed in the supervision. Session by session evaluation can be woven into the fabric of the discussion in a way that enhances and often throws new light on the exploratory work undertaken. We have found it of immense value in our supervision practice to give a specific amount of time, normally about ten minutes, at the end of each session to evaluating the work of that particular session. Here, such considerations as usefulness of the discussion and interventions used, whether goals were met, how the time was managed, and the quality of the relationship can be addressed. Any implications for future work can be discussed as a result of this immediate appraisal. We have found that Kagan’s model of Interpersonal Process Recall (Barker 1985; Clarke 1997; Kagan 1980, 1984; Kagan et al 1963; Elliot 1986) provides a powerful tool for the immediate processing and evaluating of the supervision experience. In this method the supervisor and counsellor record a supervision session


on video tape and then review it together, stopping the tape at intervals to describe covert processes (thoughts, feelings, bodily sensations, fantasies and aspirations) associated with particular moments in the interview. The tape acts as a stimulus and provides cues for the participants to help them retrieve memories and perceptions which would otherwise be only fleetingly experienced and quickly forgotten. Because of the rapidity with which memory atrophies, IPR is best conducted immediately following the recorded session, and certainly within forty-eight hours, in order to stand the best chance of retrieving the flavour and freshness of the original experience. As Elliot (1986) has pointed out, IPR is such a powerful and persuasive technique because it combines the advantages of two major strands of counselling process research— the phenomenological and the observational—by bringing together ‘the event-based specificity of… behavioral process rating scales with the clinical relevance and richness of client and therapist selfreport data’ (p. 505). It is important that both counsellor and supervisor are equally free to stop the tape at any point in the recording in order to comment on the process. A facilitator or ‘inquirer’ may be brought in to provide further stimulus and clarification by asking either participant, at a point where the tape has been stopped, questions such as:

• • • •

What would you have liked her to do differently here? How did you want him to see you at this point? Was there something you would have liked to say there if you could have found the right words? What prevented you saying that at the time?

What follows is an excerpt from an IPR interview conducted on a supervision session which was undertaken twenty-four hours previously by one of the authors. A facilitator is present to assist the process. The extract starts at the point where the counsellor stops the tape to comment on a part of the supervision where she has been talking about the effect upon her of a new client whose first words to the counsellor were ‘I don’t think anyone can help me.’ This part of the dialogue from the supervision session is given in italics. COUNSELLOR: Even though I felt that sense of panic about ‘How am I going to help this person?’, I stuck with it…So part of

Stage 5: Review

147

me was thinking, maybe it’s a normal feeling, when someone comes and says ‘I don’t think anyone can help me’ to have those feelings of inadequacy about, well, maybe someone else would have helped her better—those sorts of feelings that I’ve ventilated before. [Counsellor pauses tape] COUNSELLOR: I think, in terms of our relationship, I wouldn’t have been able to say that if I hadn’t felt secure in it, and that you know me well enough for me to be able to share that without you feeling any, kind of, detriment to me. That struck me—being able to be vulnerable and not feel I’m going to be put down at all. SUPERVISOR: When you said that to me there, about feeling inadequate—and you’ve said that before—what goes on in me, and I don’t say it because I don’t think it would be very helpful to give reassurance, is ‘You don’t need to.’ But maybe that’s what you pick up when you say it feels secure. COUNSELLOR: Yes, because I’m aware that I need to feel it for me. It’s not going to help me if anyone says ‘But you’ve no need to.’ But sensing that in you is part of that safe environment. FACILITATOR: [to Supervisor] Do you find yourself wanting to reassure her? SUPERVISOR: [to Counsellor] I think it’s more that sometimes I’d like you to acknowledge your strengths and abilities more. And you are doing that now more than you used to. So I don’t think it’s reassurance. It’s more a sense of being pleased that in the work we’ve done together I’ve seen you value yourself more and talk about your strengths and your abilities, because I think I’d be a bit worried if you weren’t doing that more. I’d be thinking ‘Are you never going to get to the point where you acknowledge what you can do [counsellor laughs], and if you don’t, is that something to be a bit concerned about in a counsellor—not having that ego strength, or that ability to recognise and value the work that you do?’ And I’m very glad that you do that more now. Does that make sense?


COUNSELLOR: Yes it does. And I’m aware that I do it more, and it feels comfortable, and it’s not put on. But it’s still quite difficult for me and it’s very easy to get into the game playing. I suppose I recognise that some of the not wanting to acknowledge strengths is a bit of game playing—maybe wanting to do myself down so that someone says, ‘Oh, but I know you can do that.’ I think I’ve moved out of the games now and I feel OK about being honest. SUPERVISOR: Did you want me to do that here—did you want me to come back and say ‘Oh, but you’re not inadequate’? COUNSELLOR: No. No, because it wouldn’t have made any difference. I know that I’ve got to believe that for me and you saying it wouldn’t necessarily make me feel less inadequate. This short piece of transcript gives an indication of the potential use of IPR as an evaluation tool and as a method of encouraging open and honest feedback. We have adapted the technique for use in end-of-session evaluations through the simple convention of both parties spending the last few minutes of the interview discussing their immediate responses and reactions to the work just completed. This can be done in a relaxed and spontaneous way by supervisor and supervisee taking the opportunity to share ‘what was around that wasn’t said’. Here are a supervisee’s comments on her experience of using IPR as an end-of-session reviewing technique. The processing time at the end of supervision adds another valuable dimension for me, as a supervisee, and has significantly enhanced our supervision relationship. It’s about having permission to meet each other in that time on a more human, personal level, one which allows me to appreciate and understand both my supervisor and the process we have experienced together more fully. It gives a space for me to say what was going on for me during the supervision, which would otherwise be left unsaid. I would feel cheated now without that space. The willingness to engage in this process of self-disclosure clearly depends on the strength of the relationship and the level of trust

Stage 5: Review

149

established. Evaluation and feedback can be risky and uncomfortable for both supervisor and supervisee. This is where credits built up from time spent developing and maintaining the supervisory relationship may need to be ‘cashed in’. Processes adapted from IPR, as described above, can provide powerful catalysts for the development of the relationship by encouraging mutuality and the sharing of aspects of counsellor and supervisor vulnerability and humanity. As supervisors, we might share here, for instance, occasions where we have doubted our ability to be helpful, or felt we made a mistake, or where we had wanted to make an intervention but had held back through embarrassment or concern about how the supervisee would then perceive us. Allphin (1987) has discussed the importance of supervisors being able to show themselves as fallible in this way by being open about their own doubts, confusions and mistakes. Such fallibility discourages the supervisee from idealising the supervisor and thereby setting a dangerous precedent which could be passed on as a parallel process in the counselling. If this were to occur the client may then not experience the counsellor as a complete person because the counsellor has set themselves up, like their supervisor, to appear infallible. Furthermore, this ‘mini-IPR’ process can throw important light on the supervision material itself, and often serves to highlight a parallel process which was occurring but not being acknowledged. Here are two brief examples of where such a phenomenon occurred in our own supervision work. In the reviewing space at the end of a session the supervisor shared her appreciation of how carefully her supervisee had prepared for the supervision by bringing a list of issues to discuss. However, she also stated, in the following words, that this had given her a dilemma: SUPERVISOR: Sometimes I felt I wanted to intervene and say ‘Hold on a minute, there’s more to that’ when you were clearly wanting to move on to the next issue. It was hard for me because I felt I didn’t want to take control of the session, yet there were things I wanted to say and couldn’t. It was also difficult because I wanted you to get from the supervision what you had said you wanted at the beginning—which was to get through all those issues on your list. The counsellor’s response to this was to come back with:


COUNSELLOR: That’s split my mind in two, because yes, how do we manage that? I agree, it’s OK for you to say ‘Just hold on a second’ and I’d like you to do that. But it also throws light on my client. That’s exactly my dilemma with her. She goes off on her own track and follows her own agenda even when I introduce something in response to what she’s said. I’m realising now that she’s avoiding, as well as being in control. It’s like I don’t want to lose the moment and she skates off on something else. The second example concerns a point in the supervision where the counsellor had requested some suggestions for ways to help his client increase self-confidence. Rather than giving these the supervisor had asked ‘What are some of the ways you have helped other clients to become more self-confident?’ The counsellor’s response had been to laugh and say ‘Well, it happens indirectly— through the relationship.’ During the review stage of the session the counsellor returned to this incident to give some feedback to the supervisor. COUNSELLOR: I’m glad now you didn’t start suggesting how I could use techniques to increase my client’s self-confidence, even though I thought that was what I wanted. SUPERVISOR: Yes, it didn’t seem right because I know you can do that. And if necessary you can go away and read up on assertiveness techniques, or whatever, without me needing to tell you. COUNSELLOR: And I realise now that what I did to you is what my client does to me. He asks me ‘how?’ and I feel under pressure to come up with suggestions and take responsibility for him. Such occurrences in supervision, as illustrated by these examples, serve to remind us that the supervision encounter can be a many layered process. The model of Interpersonal Process Recall, as we have adapted it here to the requirements of evaluation and review, is valuable in helping to peel away the various layers in order to understand more clearly what lies underneath in terms of the meaning and the message of the client’s experience.

Stage 5: Review

151

ASSESSMENT: STEP 5-D We have included assessment as a discrete step in the reviewing process in order to give consideration to any formal assessment function the supervisor may hold in relation to supervisees and their work. Whereas trainee supervision is the norm in the United States, and hence the supervisor usually has a clear assessing role, in Britain a large part of the supervision undertaken is practitioner supervision where formal assessment is not part of the contract. In this section we will consider formative and summative assessment as it applies to the counsellor in training. As we stated in Chapter 4 when considering accountability within the Contract, any formal assessment responsibility which the supervisor holds should be made explicit to the supervisee at the start of the supervision relationship. The trainee counsellor is in a vulnerable position in having to suffer the subjective evaluation of the supervisor, and uncertainty and anxiety are increased for both parties where the issue is dodged or glossed over. The supervisor has a responsibility to make clear to the supervisee how he or she will be assessing their work, and the explicit criteria upon which the assessment will be based (Rice 1980; Patterson, in Freeman 1992). In discussing this issue from an American perspective, where assessment is inherent in the supervision role, Bernard has pointed out how fudging the subject can undermine the supervision process and put the supervisor in real danger of shirking ethical imperatives: Evaluation is a process of judgement, as uncomfortable as that may be for the supervisor. It is my belief that we heighten the threat of the evaluation process by denying its centrality to the supervision process. (In fact, I believe that it is often the supervisor’s discomfort with evaluation that alerts students that they are in some jeopardy and encourages them to approach us with counter-manipulations)… Although I may wish to offer my supervisees the same unconditional acceptance that I strive to offer clients, I have a professional mandate to do otherwise. I do not know how to meet my obligation to my supervisee’s clients, present and future, and to the counseling profession, without judging the competence of my supervisee. (Bernard 1992:234)


Formative assessment By formative assessment we are referring to estimations of the supervisee’s work and development as he or she proceeds over the course of the supervision. Formative assessment is a process, in contrast to summative assessment which is more like an injection administered at the end of that process. Formative assessment should be provided by regular, constructive and encouraging feedback which is adjusted to match the counsellor’s level of development and expected competence at that level. Ideally, as Bernard and Goodyear (1992:105) point out, ‘formative evaluation does not feel like evaluation because it stresses process and progress, not outcome’. Ongoing feedback is an enabling process that allows trainee counsellors to know that they are moving in the right direction or gives the opportunity for corrective action if they appear to be faltering. Supervisees who receive regular feedback know where they stand and are spared a great deal of unnecessary anxiety. On the other hand, as Bernard and Goodyear (1992:105) have remarked, ‘when supervisors say nothing, trainees will either decide that their performance was exemplary or too awful to discuss’. Good formative assessment should comprise feedback on those elements of professional competence which, when assimilated by the supervisee, will enable him or her to develop their own personal criteria for self-evaluation. As Hart (1982) indicates, the quality of the relationship is a crucial determinant in the success or failure of this process of internalisation and a good working relationship can enormously facilitate that process. ‘The collaborative relationship is designed to help the supervisee develop an internal sense of evaluation to replace the external sense of evaluation previously acquired through the criteria for acceptable performance established by university or agency and transmitted by the supervisor’ (p. 133). Kagan (1983) has argued that the effectiveness of supervision should be evaluated in terms of client outcomes, and impact on the client is one of the key formative assessment criteria which a supervisor should use in evaluating interventions and approaches used by the counsellor. Keeping this clearly in view can enable the supervisor to be less subjective in evaluating the supervisee and allow him or her to give counsellors greater permission to develop their own style and approach. So the question I am asking myself,

Stage 5: Review

153

as a supervisor here, may well be: ‘Even though my supervisee chose to do it differently to the way I would have approached it— did the client benefit?’ Summative assessment In the words of Bernard and Goodyear (1992), summative assessment or evaluation means ‘the moment of truth when the supervisor steps back, takes stock, and decides how the trainee measures up’ (p. 105). If the process of formative assessment has been well managed this will effectively take the sting out of any final assessment of the supervisee. The trainee counsellor will have become aware, through supportive feedback, of areas of limitation and weakness, or even of the danger of failure so that any negative appraisal does not fall upon them like a ‘bolt out of the blue’. Counsellors should also have received due credit for areas of strength and particular expertise so that they are spared the unhelpful experience of going along thinking their work was merely adequate, only to be suddenly surprised to learn that in some respects it has been outstanding. Some agencies and training institutions require the supervisor to write a confidential statement of competence or report on the supervisee which is composed by the supervisor alone. Our view on summative assessment in supervision is that it is best accomplished through a reciprocal process that mirrors the collaborative alliance that, ideally, has underscored the previous work. To this end we favour the use of a negotiated ‘Joint Learning Statement’ which is compiled by both supervisor and supervisee and based on ongoing feedback, discussions and reflections which have taken place throughout the course of the supervision. The way that we use this method of mutual assessment is for both supervisor and supervisee to write separate sections, after verbal consultation, about what each would like to see included. Both parties then read and confirm one another’s statements or, if necessary, amend these after further discussion and negotiation. The agreed statement is then signed and dated by both the supervisor and the supervisee. Any outstanding areas of disagreement can be noted in writing by either party if resolution proves impossible. In our experience this contingency is rarely necessary if the preceding steps have been worked through with sensitivity and in a true spirit of collaboration, if regular feedback


has been integral to the forgoing work, and if the supervision relationship has been well developed and maintained. The main focus of the statement is the supervisee’s current level of development, and the content of the document is likely to cover the following aspects of counselling practice and supervision:

• • • • • • • • • • • •

range and approximate number of clients seen; variety of client issues and problems dealt with, together with an indication of any special areas of interest; main themes and issues covered in the supervision; developments made in terms of growing awareness, skills and competencies; ability of the student to translate learning into practice; ability of the student to reflect upon, monitor and evaluate own practice (use of internal supervisor); particular strengths and areas of expertise shown; limitations, weaknesses and areas for further development; nature and development of the supervisory relationship; evaluation of the supervision experience from both the supervisor’s and the supervisee’s perspectives; the counsellor’s short- and longer-term objectives for future development, consolidation of learning, and further training; a statement by the supervisor indicating their opinion of the counsellor’s fitness to practice at this stage of their training and development, outlining any reservations.

A thorny issue for the supervisor in assessing the supervisee’s fitness to practice is that of the evaluation of personal characteristics. The supervisor has a responsibility to ensure, as far as possible, that fitness to practice includes a level of personal awareness and development that, at minimum, means that clients will not be exploited because of the counsellor’s unresolved personal needs or problems. Therefore some appraisal of the personal qualities of the counsellor, as well as skills and knowledge, is unavoidable. Evaluation of individual attributes will inevitably, on occasion, lead to the counsellor feeling judged as a person. This can be minimised by linking the articulation of any reservations about personal characteristics to specific examples from the supervisee’s counselling practice. Again, this highlights the importance of specific, sensitive, balanced and regular feedback which is based on a close appraisal of the work—for

Stage 5: Review

155

instance by listening to tapes and studying transcripts, rather than relying merely on counsellor self-reports. The following example will serve to make this clearer. During the first year of supervision with a student on a two-year Diploma course, the supervisor became increasingly concerned about the counsellor’s ability and willingness to tolerate strong feelings in his clients. The supervisor asked the counsellor to provide her with tapes of counselling sessions and through listening to these she noticed that the counsellor frequently introduced material from his own agenda—questions, suggestions and opinion—whenever a client began to exhibit distress. The supervisor was able to address this issue with the counsellor in a non-punitive manner using specific examples from the taped material. In particular she asked the counsellor to consider in each instance what effect his interventions appeared to make on the client. They then discussed possible alternative interventions. Though initially resistant to considering the dysfunctional effect of this pattern of responses, the counsellor gradually began to accept that he might be deterring clients from doing work which they needed to do. He began in small ways to allow his clients to experience and express more of a range of emotions, although he continued to find this difficult. The counsellor himself had an aversion to owning and talking about feelings, a personality factor which appeared to be entrenched. In the end-of-year Joint Learning Statement the supervisor outlined her reservations, based on tangible evidence provided by the tapes, and gained the counsellor’s agreement that these should be included in the following way. The counsellor’s difficulty was mentioned as an area for further work and development. The supervisor included a written recommendation that he should undertake a period of counselling, where this issue could be explored on a personal level. In addition she stated that if he stayed at his current level of development she could not recommend that he worked with clients who needed to do cathartic work. These comments were balanced by others within the statement which mentioned his strengths, for instance his challenging skills and ability to establish clear contracts and boundaries with clients. A Joint Learning Statement, by its very nature, should encourage reciprocity and give the supervisee an opportunity to comment on the quality and usefulness of the supervision they have received. Although to do so requires courage where a vulnerable trainee


wishes to make negative comments about a powerful supervisor, as trainers we are aware that this does happen. Supervisees have, for example, commented on difficulties in making regular appointments with busy supervisors who are hard to contact or pin down. More frequently, students have at times recorded having uncertainties or anxieties about what was expected of them in the initial stages of supervision, particularly where it seemed that the supervisor was either unaware of, or took no steps to allay, their difficulties. RECONTRACTING: STEP 5-E This step, when it is necessary, follows naturally from the previous work on evaluation and assessment. It is the part of the model where the supervisor and supervisee review and renew their original contract, consider how to make changes arising from the review, or set objectives for the next session. The process of regular recontracting ensures that both parties are continually making necessary readjustments to the work in order to enhance its effectiveness and smooth running. The supervision therefore evolves as a dynamic process, rather than remaining static or set in a particular mould. Recontracting takes account of changes in the development of both the supervisor and the supervisee. It enables them, for instance, to move to the consideration of higher-order skills and competencies when the supervisee develops these over a course of training, as the following example illustrates. During the first year of a two-year Diploma course in counselling, a trainee counsellor had concentrated in her supervision on the development and appropriate use of specific micro-skills within the counselling process. She did this through presenting her supervisor with sections of audio tapes which provided the impetus for discussion and consideration of alternative strategies and interventions. In the second year of the course the counsellor recontracted with her supervisor to give more attention to exploring the dynamics of counselling relationships and to the therapeutic use of self within her counselling work, particularly through the utilisation of the advanced skill of immediacy. Though she continued, occasionally, to ask her supervisor to listen to sections of tapes, she also contracted to use verbal reporting and, on occasion, free association, as these methods of presentation proved more amenable to the exploration of relationship issues.

Stage 5: Review

157

If agreement to recontract as and when the need arises has been built into the original contracting at the start of the supervision, this gives permission for either party to suggest alternatives and improvements to the process and the relationship. It allows for the option of ‘trying things out’, rather than settling on the ‘one right way’ of doing things and then having to stick with that. Mistakes or ‘near misses’ can then be viewed as learning opportunities and necessary changes made without either party feeling they have lost credibility or failed in some way. It may be, for example, that the timing and frequency of meetings need to be rescheduled if original arrangements are not proving satisfactory for either individual. Although the supervisee may, initially, have requested a mainly supportive relationship they may later decide that greater challenging on the part of the supervisor would be welcomed. If boundaries have slipped, perhaps with the supervisor being late for meetings on several occasions, this can be brought up by the supervisee if it has been agreed beforehand that such matters are important to review from time to time. Again it is clear that here this process of mutual negotiation and review provides important modelling for supervisees in how to be with their clients. CONCLUSION The Review stage of the model helps to maintain, develop and evaluate those elements that complement and underpin the exploratory work of the supervision. This stage provides both the counterpoint to, and a way back into, the first stage of the model. Like the original Contract, the Review stage contains, supports and enhances the work undertaken in the central stage, Space. The last step in the Review stage, recontracting, takes us back to the beginning of the model where contracting is seen as the initial stage. It demonstrates both the flexibility and the circular nature of the model, which can be recycled at the service of the developing work and relationship. In the chapters that follow we will lessen the intensity of our focus on the model in order to consider some important additional aspects of supervision that are likely to determine whether any model or theory of supervision is used to good effect.

Chapter 9


So far our focus, in line with the majority of the growing literature on supervision (Holloway and Johnston 1985; Prieto 1996), has been primarily on individual supervision, where one supervisee meets with one supervisor. Yet very many counsellors are supervised within groups, and in simple numbers of counsellors participating this is probably the more common form of supervision in the field. In particular, trainee counsellors often take part in group supervision as one of the elements of their course, and this form of supervision is also prevalent in many organisations offering counselling in the voluntary sector. Proctor (2000:26) suggests that ‘it is probably true to say that for most trainees and volunteers, their first experience of supervision will be in a group’. In this chapter we shall explore what is involved in supervising counsellors in groups, using the Cyclical Model as the guiding framework. ‘Group supervision’ in general terms refers to supervision where there is more than one supervisee participating, each presenting different clients. This definition does not include co-therapist supervision, where two (possibly more, but this is rare) co-therapists attend for joint supervision because they work together with a couple, family or group. In that particular situation the ‘supervisee’ can be thought of as the relationship between the co-therapists, just as the relationship can be thought of as ‘the client’ when counselling a couple. Our focus is upon group supervision of counsellors working one-to-one with clients, as there are particular dynamic issues to be addressed when supervising counsellors working with couples or groups (Newman and Lovell 1993) which are beyond our current scope. As part of the preparatory work for this chapter Steve set up and facilitated a nine-month supervision group as a participative 158


159

research project.1 The group consisted of five counsellors, four women and one man, 2 all trained to diploma level and having practised for not less than two and not more than five years. The five supervisees and the supervisor each kept a log of their experience, from which material is quoted. In addition each supervisee was interviewed prior to the start and after the end of the group. WHY SUPERVISE IN GROUPS? A member of the research supervision group voiced one of the strongest arguments for group supervision when writing in their log, ‘I found the clients discussed all reminded me in different ways of clients I’ve seen or see and found the story of each client useful in terms of gaining another perspective on my own work.’ Another echoed this point when commenting how they experienced being ‘triggered’ to think differently about their own client work through what they heard others discuss. The value of having a variety of perspectives was a recurring theme throughout the logs of the group members, which emphasises how supervision within a group provides an opportunity for participants to learn from each other. Another member of this group talked (in the initial interview) about group supervision reducing their sense of isolation in their counselling work and so challenging their tendency to feel inadequate in the role. Others echoed this theme when talking of the sense of companionship, shared experience and the privilege of being allowed to know the work of other counsellors. Given the boundaries of confidentiality within which counsellors are required to operate, group supervision provides one of the few opportunities for counsellors regularly to discuss client work in detail with other counsellors. This can result in a sense of feeling supported, of feeling part of something larger than oneself to a degree that oneto-one supervision simply cannot. Proctor adds a more political dimension when she describes group supervision as ‘a potent force in the development of a 1

2

It is intended that the findings of this research project be published in a more complete manner at some point in the future. In this chapter material will be quoted to illustrate certain aspects of group supervision. In the quotes gender will be ascribed randomly, so as not to identify material from the single male participant.


profession which must become increasingly flexible and adaptive to client needs and variety. One of the greatest dangers to the creative development of any activity is a closed system’ (2000:20). In this she is pointing out how supervision groups provide a place in which cross-fertilisation of ideas and learning can take place and so aid the continuing evolution of counselling as a profession, as well as for the individual counsellors who participate. Perhaps the most commonly heard reason for group supervision is that it can be cheaper to supervise in groups than individually. This economic advantage of group supervision is not always clear, as application of the principle of equivalence can mean that, for example, four hours of supervision in a group of four is equivalent to one hour of one-to-one supervision for each supervisee. Nevertheless, in some circumstances it does reduce costs either for the counsellor or the organisation providing supervision. Perhaps the true ‘economy’ of group supervision lies in the ‘free’ learning opportunity of observing and participating in the supervision of other supervisees. It is probably not helpful to consider group and individual supervision in opposition to each other, but rather as different ways of developing the skills and sense of practitioner identity so important for counsellors. In initial interviews all members of the research supervision group readily described different positive attributes of both forms of supervision and a number volunteered that their ideal supervision arrangement included both. TYPES OF GROUP SUPERVISION There are many forms of group supervision, both in the structure of the group itself and in how those involved in the group set about their collective task (Inskipp and Proctor 1995). We will start by defining four different types of structures, whilst recognising that these can be blended to create a considerable range of variations. As is often the case when classifying any form of group-work, the defining characteristic we are using is the presence and approach of leadership within the group. Individual supervision in a group As the title suggests, this form of supervision is essentially one-toone supervision that happens to take place in a group. The


161

supervisor engages one participant at a time in supervision on aspects of their counselling work, whilst other participants silently observe. This is the most limited form of group supervision because of the restricted involvement, although a certain amount of learning is possible by observation. It is perhaps most suited as a starting point in assisting counsellors with little or no previous experience to move into group supervision. It also has a place in demonstrating some new approach to supervision and does get used in this way in training situations. Supervisor-led group This category incorporates those forms of group where there is a clearly defined supervisor who takes a central position both in leading the group and in the supervision process itself. Participants can involve themselves within the discussion relating to supervisee material being presented by other group members, but there remains an implicit, or explicit, hierarchy of skills, experience and responsibility, with the supervisor typically taking up, or being elevated to, the position of expert. Facilitated group In this format a supervision group is guided by an identified facilitator. This role may be held by someone acknowledged as the most experienced within the group, or it may be an arrangement amongst a group of peers. In the latter situation one person may consistently hold this role, or it may be shared out amongst group members. The task of facilitator is quite different from that of supervisor. Heron (1989) has defined six dimensions of facilitation: 1 Planning: concerned with how the group will fulfil its purpose and as such is quite task-centred. 2 Meaning: what understandings are given to what takes place within the group. 3 Confronting: that which is being overlooked, avoided or resisted. 4 Feeling: how feelings are dealt with. 5 Structuring: the life and learning of the group. 6 Valuing: ensuring that the group supports and acts in the best interests of all group members.


Aspects of these dimensions overlap with the role of supervisor, but they also incorporate the element of intentional group management. This includes setting up and managing structures and ways of functioning as a group that encourage effective group development. This is a set of skills that has to be learnt, and will not be possessed by all counsellors or supervisors. It is a mistake too often made in our view for practitioners experienced in one-toone work to be thrust into a group facilitation role without the necessary skills and experience. Peer group This is a supervision group where there is an acknowledged level of equality and the tasks of both facilitation and supervision are shared amongst the members. These roles may rotate, being allocated to particular individuals at particular times, or they may move fluidly around the group, being picked up, or not, as necessity dictates. Whilst peer group supervision is without a leader, it nevertheless still ‘involves clear recognition of certain ground rules and authority’ (Gomersall 1997:109). Thus it is not simply an unstructured discussion, but rather operates within agreed structures of time, purpose and role. When any member acts as facilitator, and other members are co-supervisors, they are invested with some degree of authority on behalf of the group. The challenge to any peer group is to find ways to use the consequent tension between equality and authority in a creative and successful manner. Advantages and disadvantages of these models In practice many supervision groups operate with a blend of different proportions of a number of these apparently distinct models.3 There is often movement from one to another and it is easy to see a natural developmental graduation from the first model towards the fourth. Each has strengths and weaknesses that make them more or less appropriate to supervisees at particular stages of

3

The remainder of this chapter is written about a supervision group with someone occupying the role of supervisor/facilitator and assuming a participative approach to the functioning of the group.


163

development. Thus, in a supervision group each supervisee has the potential to undertake three distinct roles. The first is as a supervisee, bringing material to present and receive supervision upon. The second is as a group member playing a part in the creation of a healthy group culture. The third is as a co-supervisor of the material presented by other supervisees within the group. For supervisees ready to undertake all three roles intentionally, and with some understanding, it is useful that they have the opportunity to do so. In relation to Skovholt and Rønnestad’s (1992) stages of practitioner development, those who are ready to move beyond, or have already passed, the stage of ‘imitation of experts’ can be expected to benefit from a facilitated or peer group. In contrast it is, in our view, unhelpful for counsellors at a very early stage of their professional development to be expected to operate in these groups. The complexities of the task of co-supervisor in particular, and the opportunities it provides for unwitting projection of shadow material (Page 1999a) resulting in destructive dynamics such as rivalry, envy, scapegoating and sabotage, may well get in the way of the priority task of developing as a counsellor. For this reason we are not in favour of peer supervision groups for novice counsellors as there is likely to be insufficient experience within the group members to manage such a group effectively. Where peer supervision groups are used on training courses they need to be introduced carefully, perhaps being started as a tutor-facilitated group with the facilitator stepping back to allow some peer group sessions as the group becomes established. It is important to recognise the complexity present within groups. To take a very simplistic mathematical approach to this, consider the number of relationships (both actual and fantasy) possible within a given supervisory situation. In a basic one-to-one supervision relationship matrix there are three relationships: between supervisor and supervisee, supervisee and client and (presumably at a fantasy level because they would not normally meet) between supervisor and client. In contrast, in a typical supervision group of four supervisees with a supervisor/facilitator, we calculate there to be fifty-six different possible combinations of two or more people when also including a single client in the field. Whilst many of these combinations may never arise in any substantial way, nevertheless this simple calculation reflects the exponentially growing order of dynamic complexity as more people become involved in a supervision process.


PREPARATION OF A SUPERVISION GROUP Whitaker, in writing about therapeutic groups, emphasises the importance of the person who is to be the ‘conductor’ (probably best thought of as a cross between leader and facilitator) of the group ‘being involved in the planning from the start’ (1985:5) in order to ensure that they have thought through the aims of the group and the needs of those for whom it is intended. At this early stage it is also useful to be clear as to what is predetermined and what is negotiable. To take the example of the research supervision group it was predetermined that:

• • • • • • • •

it would be a supervision group for practising counsellors; potential participants would meet certain criteria in terms of levels of training, experience and access to other supervision; there would ideally be five supervisees and one supervisor; there would be one predetermined facilitator/supervisor; it would meet for two-hour sessions; it would last no longer than one academic year; participants would take part in the research process; the basic research methodology (which had already been set out in a research proposal and approved by the relevant University Ethics Committee) would not be negotiable.

Once the predetermined elements have been established potential supervisees can then be involved in further planning. This might include any negotiable aspects of the structure or functioning of the group. For example, in the research supervision group when potential participants indicated their desire to join the group, as well as seeking to clarify that they met the criteria they were asked to state, from a range of options, when they would prefer the group to meet. At this point it was time to arrange the first meeting, since further planning and contracting would form the beginning of the life of the group itself. THE SIZE OF SUPERVISION GROUPS A group is more than two individuals, and an important decision to be made when planning a group is how large it should be. In this there is a balance to be sought. As a group grows in size, so does the variety of experience and perspectives that it contains.


165

However, so does the complexity of dynamics along with the potential for individual members to become marginalised. For the research supervision a total group size of six was chosen. Whilst recognising that this was almost certainly larger than the average supervision group, which typically has three or four supervisees and one supervisor, this larger group was chosen in order to gather a wider range and variety of research data than might otherwise have been possible. In the fifth meeting of the group two members were absent, and this became a focus in all of the journals of those who did attend. Comments included: ‘in the smaller group I felt more able to speak…it felt like a closer and more intimate session. ‘It felt safer in a smaller group although, on reflection, maybe not as challenging as the larger group’. ‘so much more intimate… safer and closer, but also very intense’. The supervisor’s log included the comment: ‘Relaxed in this smaller group, although I noticed that I got distracted at times. I realise that I like the spark of a bit of conflict, although the sense of reflection tonight was at times profound.’ Whilst these comments are open to a range of interpretations what they do indicate clearly is that all involved were very aware of the smaller numbers, and this impacted significantly on how people reported experiencing this session. When a group is first set up there is likely to be less conscious awareness of the impact of size on how the group functions and feels, except by those involved who have other experiences with which to compare. Nevertheless, size does play a significant part in the quality of a group. As a group gets larger so the option of having two facilitators becomes more realistic, but it should be recognised that this adds another factor—namely, the relationship between the facilitators, which is not directly related to the task and can distract attention from it.


Typically supervision groups of three or four supervisees and one supervisor/facilitator provide the optimal size, balancing the desire for variety of perspective with a reasonable degree of simplicity in how they function. SETTING THE ‘CONTRACT’ In a supervision group the contractual issues can be grouped into two main areas: how supervision will be undertaken and how the group will function. In his model for supervision Carroll (1996) defines an assessment stage, which he places at the beginning of the supervisory relationship, prior to his second stage of ‘contracting’. In this context ‘assessment’ is a process of mutual ‘sniffing out’ in which supervisor and supervisee decide whether they are content with the prospect of working together. This mutual assessment will be based on the skills, experience and approach that each bring and also on what each wants from the proposed working alliance. In a supervision group this ‘sniffing out’ is of each of the other members. Our preference is to view this assessment not as a separate stage but rather as a continuing process, which is an integral part of contracting and then continues through to initial review and ultimately until the point at which the supervision group is brought to an end or the individual leaves the group. However, it is very important to recognise that this process will take place, and that when the group meets for the first time there will be a considerable degree of ‘sizing each other up’ taking place. There may be prior relationships within the group, people may have heard of other participants and each individual is inevitably going to make initial judgements about each of the other people involved. It is important, as the group becomes a reality for participants, that there is an opportunity for everyone involved to make a positive decision to be part of the group. This assists in creating a sense of collective ownership and increases the sense of equality of power between those involved (Page 1999b). It can also assist in the relationship building aspect of the contracting stage of the supervision group’s life. This can be quite a difficult time and, if a supervision group is to be effective in fulfilling its purpose it is important that ‘good enough’ working relationships, based upon mutual trust and professional respect, are established from the outset.


167

The task of agreeing a clear contract is important in itself and can also provide a useful mechanism for containing early anxieties whilst group members become familiar with each other. As in any supervision contract, careful consideration needs to be given to ground rules, boundaries, accountability and expectations, as well as the working relationships. There are aspects within each of these areas that are particular to groups and worth reflecting upon briefly. Ground rules It is helpful to be clear from the start about the practicalities of how the group will operate. This may include what model of group it is to be, how sessions will start, how time will be apportioned to supervisees, how group process issues will be addressed, how people will behave towards one another, and how and when the effectiveness of the group will be reviewed. One of the areas it is particularly useful to clarify is how supervisees are to give feedback to one another during supervision time; for example, when presenting a client there are often a number of different aspects that individual members of the group pick up on. One may focus on the relationship between counsellor and client, another on some aspects of the client’s story, another on an ethical concern, and another on the therapeutic goals. Each is valid and important, but there is a limit on time and, more crucially, on the volume and variety of feedback that the presenting supervisee can usefully absorb. There is a danger that the supervisee will become lost in the clamour of group members all wishing to push forward their own perspective on the case in question. Therefore there has to be some mechanism of negotiation as to which aspects will be taken up and followed through. As a guideline this will typically be decided by the supervisee, with the understanding that, if someone else in the group has a strong sense that another aspect of the situation is being avoided, this choice can be challenged. It is generally for the facilitator to mediate such challenges to ensure that the time spent on supervision is not eroded through a disproportionate amount of debate about how to proceed. Boundaries Particular attention needs to be paid to defining the boundaries of confidentiality, and it is as well to be explicit in agreeing this in


order to reduce the likelihood of different understandings between members. It may seem clear that members may not talk about the client material, or personal issues of other participants, outside of the group. But what of group process issues or what is learnt from the discussion? Can some things be talked about between participants outside of the group but not talked about to others who are not members of the group? Is it acceptable to identify other supervisees as members of the group or is this confidential information? By discussing such matters some guidelines can be agreed, and over time these guidelines may be refined by relating them to specific instances, such as a supervisee requesting permission to share a particular insight with a colleague who is not a member of the group. It is also important to address matters of overlapping boundaries. For example, in any supervision group there is a significant likelihood that one supervisee will know one of another’s clients. It can be useful to discuss such an eventuality in principle before it arises so that a shared understanding of how this will be managed can be reached. It is also useful to reflect upon what relationships participants have with each other outside of the group. When a supervision group starts all members may be strangers to each other, but that will change over time. If two or more participants strike up friendships with one another outside of the group this will affect the dynamics within the group, setting up ‘pairing’ as described by Bion (1961). It is as well that this is understood from the outset and that all involved are encouraged to be responsible in dealing with any such relationships that do develop external to the group. It is also important to acknowledge what external relationships, if any, exist between members when a group starts and recognise that this may also have an impact. If the group starts with some stronger bonds and others feeling isolated or marginalised then efforts need to be made to counteract the potentially harmful imbalance this can create. Accountability There is a degree of mutual interdependence within any supervision group. If one supervisee acts in a manner that others consider to be unprofessional in some way then everyone in the group can feel implicated by association, particularly if the membership of the


169

group is well known within the local counselling community. Alternatively, powerful feelings of loyalty can result in a member of the group not being challenged about what they are doing when this needs to happen to safeguard themselves and others. Such matters are wrapped up in the complex area of mutual professional accountability within a supervision group. In the extreme supervisors may be required by professional codes to take ‘action if they are aware that their supervisees’ practice is not in accordance with BAC’s Codes of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors’ (BAC 1998: B.1.11). Similarly there is a requirement that ‘A counsellor who suspects misconduct by another counsellor, which cannot be resolved or remedied after discussion with the counsellor concerned, should implement the Complaints Procedure’ (BAC 1998: B.1.4.2). However, either course of action is likely to result in the break-up of a supervision group, with trust irrevocably damaged, and should not be considered as normal procedure within a group. It is not possible to define mutual accountability absolutely, but discussion can lead to some degree of shared understanding and agreements about practice. For example, it may be agreed that supervisees have a responsibility to bring to the immediate attention of the group any work they are undertaking with clients that could be contentious or involve professional risk of some form. This is not to suggest that counselling practice should aim to be risk-free as that is unlikely always to serve the best interests of clients (Wosket 1999). It is incumbent upon group supervisees to recognise that other members of the group will be affected by any professional risk they decide to take and therefore they should exercise responsibility in so doing. Expectations Again, it is useful to take the time to draw out of participants what each expects of one another, of the supervisor/facilitator and of the group itself. To explore expectations there are a number of questions that it can be useful to ask:

• • •

What do we expect of each other? What kind of group do we want this to be? Do we want it to be more supportive, or more challenging?


• • • • •

Do we want to work to an agreed formula or try a range of different approaches? Do we want to ensure fairness so that all participants get equal time, or decide how to apportion time in the light of the particular needs of individuals as they arise? What is expected of someone presenting an issue for supervision? What is expected of the facilitator/supervisor? What is expected of other supervisees when not presenting?

The answers to some or all of these questions may change over time and the questions themselves may usefully form part of the process of review. IDENTIFYING THE ‘FOCUS’ AND PRESENTING MATERIAL FOR SUPERVISION Our experience suggests that one of the advantages of routinely having an initial discussion and negotiation that covers who is bringing what issue for supervision, how much time they would like and what they are seeking from supervision, is that this seems to have the effect of encouraging participants to be very clear about their focus. In groups where there is a predetermined set time for each supervisee there may be more of a tendency for supervisees to arrive somewhat less clear about objectives, less well prepared, and therefore needing to spend more time within the group deciding what to present. One member of the research supervision group indicated that they appreciated this process when they recorded in their log: ‘I find it useful that it is discussed between members of the group whether or not they have anything that they need to bring to the session and negotiate the time accordingly before we start. The group members are very fair in their allocation of time.’ The foci that supervisees bring to group supervision are typically similar to those brought to one-to-one supervision. However, there is a marked difference in the presentation process. To get the most from receiving supervision within a group it is important to involve other members of the group in discussion as early on as is feasible.


171

This requires a certain discipline on the part of supervisees, which involves presenting in a succinct and summarised format and giving only as much background as is needed for the issue to have a meaningful context. As a guideline, it might be suggested that presentations take no more than 20 per cent of the total time available for the piece of supervision, and less if possible. Further information can be fed in during the discussion if it proves to be pertinent, but prolonged presentation will inevitably result in a significant amount of information being given which has little or no relevance to the discussion that subsequently takes place. There are some options available in how material is presented that make use of having a number of people available. One example might be a piece of client work where the counsellor is struggling with the powerful family dynamics by which their client is swept along. This might be presented, and then worked with, by asking different members of the group to take on the roles of different family members, with the counsellor perhaps taking on the role of their client. A second example being where a counsellor is baffled by how they might best respond as they are experiencing a confusing jumble of reactions to their client. In this case a number of group members could take on and speak aloud the different responses the counsellor is feeling whilst again the counsellor imagines him or herself to be the client. In each of these examples someone who is comfortable and has some familiarity with working in such psychodramatic ways needs to act as facilitator to ensure that the drama remains in the service of the supervisee’s work with their client. WORKING WITHIN THE SUPERVISION ‘SPACE’ As a supervisee starts to present a particular piece of client work, or a counselling issue, so a felt response develops within the group. This may range from intense emotional responses and heated debate through to polite, if incongruent, efforts to pay attention that belie the boredom experienced. It is possible to plough on with the task regardless of these feelings, but we would suggest that it is precisely in responses such as these that one of the most important potential benefits of supervising in a group comes to the fore. The challenge, as we see it, is to find ways to work creatively with these responses in order to inform and support the supervision process.


Identifying the source of responses As already identified in Chapter 6, the felt responses within the ‘space’ can come from a range of sources, including countertransference and parallel process. It is not always possible, or particularly fruitful, to be over-concerned to pin down the source, but it is important for the group, through the facilitator or members within it, to be aware of the unconscious processes that may be at work. Take the example of a supervisee presenting their work with a particular client where, within a few minutes, everyone in the group is struggling to pay attention, feeling tired, bored or otherwise lacking in energy and interest. There are a number of questions that may help shed some light on what is taking place.4 It is, firstly, useful to ask if this is a common feeling in this group, either in relation to this supervisee or generally within the group. In either case this needs to be addressed as it suggests that some underlying group dynamic is interfering with the group operating effectively. It is a form of illusory counter-transference (see Chapter 6), or as Kutter (1993:179) has termed it in group supervision ‘reversed mirroring’, focused either upon this specific member of the group or across the whole group. It may be a form of scapegoating, well examined by Douglas (1995), where one member of the group is targeted as the imagined reason for all that is wrong with the group. This is a powerful and destructive dynamic, which can lead to the scapegoated member feeling abused and driven out. Typically, when this occurs without the dynamic being fully recognised and the projections identified by every group member, another member of the group will promptly find themselves in the vacated position of scapegoat. One of the other possible reasons for such a mood within a group is that something has gone wrong and has not been effectively dealt with, or for some other reason a general state of depression has set in. If it is not the case that this is a common feeling in the group then the next question to address is whether this is reflecting some aspect of what is taking place between counsellor and client. For example, if the counsellor is having a similar experience when with their client then it makes sense to pursue what might be causing this, temporarily assuming that the group is reflecting back the counsellor’s experience. If this is not the case, or if such an 4

The suggested questions are adapted from The Shadow and the Counsellor (Page 1999a:65–68).


173

exploration bears little fruit, then it may be worth applying the half-life test (Page 1999a). This can be achieved by agreeing to temporarily suspend the piece of supervision and move on to another supervisee, noting how quickly the feelings dissipate. Whilst this is rather messy it is pragmatically sensible. If the feelings dissipate quickly then this points to there having been a reflection of something in the counselling being presented. If they do not dissipate quickly then it suggests that the difficulties lie within the group itself and that this is where attention needs to be directed. Monitoring patterns of energy In the previous fictional example, the energy level within the group became very low and this was identified as needing attention. When working in a group, it is important to pay close attention to this rather nebulous, but critical, notion of energy level. In a healthy functioning group the energy level is typically reasonably high, with people enjoying one another’s company and the task of supervision. As a session gets under way and a member of the group presents an issue for supervision a good quality of attention can be expected, and as participants get involved in discussion the energy level will often increase further. At this stage it is helpful for participants to offer their responses and reflections. This may be done in a thoughtful and reflective manner or, in contrast, it can have a more brisk quality, with different thoughts, feelings, images all being offered in rapid succession without being analysed. It is important that such a period of bombardment does not continue for too long as this can lead to the supervisee feeling overwhelmed. As suggested earlier, when considering ground rules, it is useful to have a mechanism in place for managing such a situation, probably through the supervisee identifying which avenues they want to explore further. It is an important part of the role of a facilitator to be aware of, and if necessary to intervene to manage, these energy levels. There is a delicate balance to be sought between encouraging and allowing as much creative input as possible whilst maintaining relevance to the supervisory task and keeping within the agreed schedule in order that all supervisees get the time they need. When it works well it can be a powerful experience, as exemplified in this description from the log of one member of the research supervision group:


‘I loved people firing ideas in a sort of brainstorm fashion. I felt open to receive all that was said,’til my insight clicked and the various suggestions built together in a clearer understanding of the problem I was presenting. Relieving: I could let thoughts work for me, rather than working hard at generating thoughts.’ CREATING THE ‘BRIDGE’ As always, it is important to ensure that time is given to thinking through how new understandings resulting from the exploration in supervision are applied to the counselling situation. Sometimes this will emerge naturally out of the discussion, but on other occasions, as the end of the time allocated to a supervisee draws to a close, there may still be much discussion about a range of issues and ideas taking place. When the energy is still high it can be useful to suggest that the group moves on to the next supervisee whilst the person who just presented ponders on what has been said. If this is done, the small amount of remaining time for that supervisee needs to be left until the end of the session. At that point they can be invited to feed back what thoughts they have about the earlier discussion and how they plan to apply what emerged in their counselling. There is an example in the log of a member of the research supervision group where the bridge had probably not been effective: ‘As a supervisee I felt supported, however although it is now only two hours since the group finished I cannot remember what was said, I think because the feedback was positive. It’s easier to remember the negative. I felt very tearful, the positive feedback reinforced my growing realisation that other people do not think I am rubbish and have nothing to contribute. I think that I will soon have to accept that all sorts of people respect my views and think I have something to offer as a counsellor…’ Whilst this had clearly been a powerful personal experience for this counsellor, the application of insights and feedback to client work seems to have been swamped in the process. This is an example where returning to the bridge later would probably have


175

been more effective as it would have allowed time between the personal emotional experience and consideration of the implications for work with the client. REVIEWING THE GROUP Review of a supervision group needs to take account of both the effectiveness with which the task is being performed and the functioning of the group itself, at the same time recognising the strong link that exists between these two components. We would recommend some time is given to reviewing at the end of every meeting, so that outstanding concerns or difficulties are picked up quickly, and also so that there is a conscious monitoring of the group’s development by all involved. Less frequently, there may also need to be a more thorough review, perhaps every six months, or at some natural points in the annual cycle of the group. Issues to be reviewed can include:

• • • • • •

practical aspects of the contract; how the group is developing; the extent to which needs and expectations are being met; the safety-risk balance in the group’s life; patterns of operating: whether innovative ways of exploring material need to be introduced; whether it is time for the group to end or membership to change.

SESSION STRUCTURE It is our view that at least in the early stages of a supervision group’s life each session needs some structure or order in which the different elements of the task take place (Wilbur et al. 1994). There is a range of possible formats and we shall consider one of these: a simple structure that draws together some of the issues already considered. At the start there needs to be some way of beginning, of people connecting with each other, of the group forming, or in subsequent sessions reforming. There are a number of ways that this can be done using one of the many exercises that have been devised for groups (Bond 1986; Brandes and Norris 1998; Burley-Allen 1982; Remocker and Sherwood 1999). The basic purpose of any such exercise is essentially the same. Partly it


is to assist everyone to bring their attention into the present, to put aside thoughts about what they have been doing prior to the group or are going on to after the group, to focus on the task in hand and the people they are with. There is also a secondary function of ‘giving everyone a voice’, ensuring that each member of the group speaks at least a few words. The work of Stockton and Moran (1982) supports the view that in the early stages of supervision groups structure is important to establish an effective pattern of interpersonal behaviour, whilst also recognising that structure can become counterproductive as the group matures. Thus some structure is very important at the start of the life of a group, and it is also important at the start of each session. It helps to counteract some of the reluctance supervisees have been shown to have (Webb 2000) to talk about some matters, particularly in a group setting. So whether it is by describing what kind of animal I feel like at this moment, telling everyone the best thing to have happened since we last met, describing something of how I am at this moment, or offloading what is distracting me from the task—the way of beginning needs to fulfil those two purposes simply and effectively. Unless the group has a predetermined way of dividing up the time there needs next to be some negotiation about how the supervision time will be allocated between supervisees. It is generally advisable to allow a proportion of slippage time, perhaps five minutes per hour, so that there is a degree of flexibility to allow for the unexpected. Then the supervision itself takes place, and this should comprise the greater part of the total time of the session. The work of application, or ‘bridge’, can either be included in each person’s time allocation or combined towards the end. As a rough guide there might usefully be about five minutes of application time within a half-hour supervisee presentation and discussion. Finally it is important to ensure that some time remains to review the session and do any recontracting or planning that needs to take place before bringing the session to a close. Typically there will be a certain amount of time pressure experienced and the person who acts as timekeeper, who is usually the facilitator, will need to be firm in keeping to the agreed schedule. At times this may feel arbitrary and inflexible, but it is important to recognise that once a group gets into poor timekeeping habits it is very hard to break this pattern and the


177

quality of time within the group will generally deteriorate as frustrations start to build. If it is consistently very hard to keep to agreed time it may be necessary to review whether the time allocation, or indeed the total session time, is sufficient for what the group has set out to achieve. GROUP DYNAMICS One of the great advantages of having a clear structure, a clear way of being and working together, is that disruption of that structure is one indicator of some underlying process taking place, or ‘chaos’ creeping in (Wosket and Page 2001). Also, in the early stages of the development of a group, the structure provides an effective container for this potential chaos. When a group gets off to a bad start in some way, perhaps as a result of a misunderstanding or an argument in the first few minutes of its life, it can be very hard to recover the necessary degree of trust for an effective working group to emerge. This suggestion of early fragility may seem strange to those not particularly familiar with working in groups. Nevertheless, we have been involved, directly or indirectly, in sufficient occasions where groups have struggled to establish a healthy culture at the outset to believe this to be so. Early difficulties in the life of a group can result from those primitive, and often unconscious, anxieties that most of us feel when entering an unknown situation with other people. We can easily feel threatened and react accordingly. These powerful dynamic processes have been recognised for a long time (Bion 1961, 1970; Cartwright and Zander 1968; Schutz 1979) and an understanding of them remains important for anyone involved in setting up and facilitating a supervision group. Having said this it is as well not to get unduly concerned that the group is going to turn into some unruly mob. The potential energy within groups can be harnessed to good effect and result in a creative, exciting and effective experience for all involved. This is not always the case (Sternberg 1994), but difficult dynamics can be identified and addressed quickly when a group is contained within a clear framework, as provided by the cyclical model. Hayes (1989:405–409) has provided a simple guide to group dynamics within a supervision group, citing such variables as cohesiveness, norms, validation and feedback, emotional immediacy, problem-solving, leadership, self-disclosure and roles.


This provides a helpful set of measures of group functioning that the facilitator can utilise. We have made implicit reference already to the developmental process through which any supervision group, like any other small group, will move. Various models have been proposed to describe the main stages of group development, for example those of Tuckman and Jensen (1977), Schutz (1979) and Yalom (1985). These can be summarised as follows:

• • • • •

Coming together—in which members seek to ‘sniff each other out’ and find a safe place for themselves within the group. Testing—during which there is a certain amount of testing boundaries, limits and authority. This can be a rather conflictridden period, although this may not be explicit. Cohesion—finding a way to be sufficiently harmonious and developing a sense of group identity. Functioning—whilst the task will have been undertaken in the early stages this becomes more effective and the group more creative, working on more intimate issues as the group reaches this level of development. Closure—as the group moves towards ending, whether ending completely or going through a transformation as members leave or join.

The behaviour of the facilitator needs to be tailored to some extent to the developmental stage of the group and this has been discussed in some detail elsewhere (Corey 1990; Hayes 1989). It is also important, given that any supervision group will go through this developmental process, that all involved recognise this and are patient. In the early meetings of a supervision group it is likely that there will be considerable caution in the material presented, and in the depth of exploration and challenge. Far from being avoidance this is quite appropriate, as group members undertake the task of supervising in a manner that provides a vehicle for group development. The Cyclical Model provides a useful framework during this period, containing anxieties as all become used to working together. As the group progresses more intimate disclosure, deeper exploration and more challenging responses can be expected in the supervisory Space. Finally we wish to underline how important it is that any supervisor leading a group for the first time must ensure that they


179

have had sufficient training and experience in group-work to do so effectively and safely. It should not be assumed that someone very competent in working one-to-one can simply modify their skills to a group setting. An additional set of skills and conceptual frameworks is required. We shall return to this in Chapter 13.

Chapter 10

Ethical and professional issues

ETHICAL PRINCIPLES It behoves the supervisor to be familiar not only with the codes of practice, by which both they and their supervisees are guided, but also with the ethical principles that underlie such codes. Without an understanding of these principles the codes become a set of rules which are adhered to simply because that is a professional requirement. The supervisor will, however, on occasions, be called upon to assist supervisees in coming to a view about ethical dilemmas which confront them. In such instances ethical principles can provide a means of reasoning the problem through to a depth of understanding beyond the scope of codes of practice. When faced with decisions, the consequences of which may be very grave, it can be important for the peace of mind of all concerned to be satisfied that the actions being taken have been thoroughly considered. The theory that underpins the establishment of ethical principles has its roots in moral philosophy. The purpose of such principles is, in general terms, to assist in determining how to act, how to decide what is good and what is bad. There are a number of schools of thought as to how to go about this complex task. There is the route of absolute duties as propounded by Kant (O’Neill 1993). He proposed a ‘categorical imperative’ to act in certain ways regardless of the consequences which may be expected to ensue from such action. His proposition includes the imperatives: one should never break a promise, and that one should never injure another person. In contrast there are the ‘consequential’ approaches (Pettit 1993), which propose that the goodness or badness of an act should be judged on the basis of consequences that may be 180


181

expected to follow from the act. Thus the morality of the act itself is considered unimportant, only its anticipated results would be judged. These rather absolute theories were being put forward in the eighteenth century and in the early part of the nineteenth. We consider that a balanced view which allows that both the morality of the act and the anticipated consequences are important in determining how to act is most appropriate. Ross (1930) provided such a viewpoint when he proposed seven categories of duties by which we are morally governed, although not absolutely bound. These were: • Fidelity—being faithful to promises made. • Reparation—making recompense for a wrongful act. • Gratitude—making payment for what has been received from others. • Justice—ensuring that benefits are distributed fairly. • Beneficence—work to the benefit of others. • Self-improvement—work to the benefit of self. • Nonmaleficence—do no harm to others. We propose to take four of these as guiding principles for counselling supervision: fidelity, justice, beneficence and nonmaleficence. We consider that the principles of reparation and gratitude do not particularly feature, as counselling and supervising both take place within an agreed and mutually beneficial contract. We shall replace the seventh, self-improvement, with that of autonomy; working towards the person being able to exercise maximum choice in their situation; as we consider this more relevant to the counselling field. We have given some thought to terminology, recognising that ‘fidelity’, ‘beneficence’ and in particular ‘nonmaleficence’ are arcane words, which some will find rather alien and unwieldy. Nevertheless, on reflection we have decided to use these terms in order to stay within a tradition in writings upon ethics and because synonyms we considered seemed to lose something of the meaning of the original. In selecting these five ethical principles we are following the lead of Thompson (1990) and, more recently, Bond (2000) who take the same five with an additional one of self-interest. We have decided not to include self-interest as it seems more a pragmatic desirability than an ethical principle. Nevertheless we recognise that it has a pervasive


influence in decision-making and agree that it needs to be openly acknowledged, for as Bond (2000:48) puts it The power of unacknowledged factors in personal decision-making is much greater when they remain unspoken and therefore have a disproportionate and indeterminate influence on the decision-making process.’ There is no fixed hierarchy of importance amongst these five ethical principles, although generally not doing harm to others, nonmaleficence, has precedence over the other four. In general, decision-making is greatly aided by identifying the perspectives each principle provides and seeking to find a path that takes account of them all. To explore the interrelationship between some of these principles let us consider an example of a counsellor who is working with a client who has an alcohol problem. The counsellor himself is known to have overcome an alcohol problem that had threatened to ruin his life some years earlier. He arrives at supervision exasperated with his client who has, for the second time, started drinking again after having agreed to abstain. The counsellor wants to discuss whether or not there is any purpose in continuing to work with this client. It becomes apparent that the counsellor feels very strongly that the only viable option for this client is simply to stop drinking. The first principle that the supervisor might apply is that of autonomy. This involves establishing to what extent the client chose the route of abstinence herself and to what extent the counsellor imposed this upon her. If it becomes clear that it was indeed imposed, then the principle of nonmaleficence comes into play. The supervisor must explore whether the counsellor is abusing his power in the counselling relationship, as would certainly be the case if he had been using the threat of ceasing to counsel as a means to coerce the client into a certain course of action. If it transpires that the counsellor is acting in an unethical way then the supervisor has to decide how to deal with that situation. It is to be hoped that counsellor and supervisor can agree upon a course of action which satisfies the supervisor that the needs of the client will be met. If this is not possible then the supervisor has to decide how to proceed. She has a number of options available: she could withdraw from supervision; seek arbitration with a mutually agreed third party; make a formal complaint to the counsellor’s professional body. In certain cases there may also be the option of complaining to the counsellor’s employer or, in the case of trainee supervision, representatives of the training course could be contacted. Bond (1990:45) suggests that generally direct contact between the supervisor


183

and the client is inadvisable: ‘It seems that, in most circumstances, direct contact by the supervisor with the client would represent such a blurring of boundaries of responsibility for the counselling that any positive intentions of the supervisor would be undermined.’ Such contact in the context of an ethical difficulty in the counsellor’s behaviour is likely to damage the counselling relationship irrevocably by impairing the client’s trust in the counsellor. Any course of action that the supervisor takes that undermines the autonomy of the supervisee can only be ethically justified if the supervisee is deemed to be harming the client and should be seen as an extreme step that should only be taken when all other avenues have been explored. In due course we will go on to examine each of the five ethical principles in turn and give examples of the consideration of each principle by the supervisor. We make no attempt to cover all possible issues or offer ready-made solutions, but rather we hope to provide sufficient examples of the application process to enable supervisors and counsellors to use these principles for themselves. In most of the issues we address supervisors’ needs to satisfy themselves that ethical principles are being upheld at two levels. They must monitor their own practice of supervision and the ethical implications of how they act in relation to supervisees. In addition they must monitor the ethical implication of how counsellors they supervise act in relation to clients. RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE WORK OF THE COUNSELLOR Bordin (1983:38) reminds us that ‘supervisors are part of a professional gatekeeping apparatus designed to protect the public and the profession’. However, the supervisor’s responsibility to monitor the work of the counsellor is rather more complex to accomplish in practice than it is to define in theory. The supervisor’s access to the counselling process is mediated by the counsellor, through the material they choose to present for supervision (Proctor 1988). This could be circumvented by direct observation of all the counsellor’s work, as sometimes takes place as part of an intensive training structure. For this to become the norm would be unnecessarily intrusive, prohibitively costly and would go against the ethos of self-responsibility so central to counselling. There is ambiguity (Wheeler and King 2000) about the degree of responsibility a supervisor has to monitor their supervisees’


practice from an ethical perspective. In our view a supervisor has a ‘duty of care’ to safeguard the interests of the clients of their supervisees when the supervisor considers those interests to be at risk in some way. For example, one of us had a supervisee, one of whose clients had committed suicide. Although she was able to attend to her responses to this experience it became apparent that she was being over-protective of other clients who she deemed to be a suicide risk. This led to the counsellor acting in a manner the supervisor considered to be inappropriate, contacting one of her clients by phone and asking another to phone her to keep her informed of his state of mind. The supervisor initiated exploration of this issue and it transpired that the suicide of the client had restimulated guilt in the counsellor about a relative who had died some time previously. The relative had not committed suicide but the counsellor had always carried a sense of responsibility for the death. Having identified this the supervisor and counsellor agreed that she had to find a way to contain her anxiety about her clients or stop working with clients who were a suicide risk until she had resolved her personal difficulties in this area. This was necessary to protect the autonomy of the current clients of this counsellor. The supervisor’s responsibility to monitor the work of the supervisee cannot be achieved by means of exhaustive scrutiny, nor indeed would such scrutiny be desirable. It can only be done through the goodwill of the supervisee, who is relied upon to bring to the supervisor’s attention issues that need to be addressed. Thus the quality of the supervisory relationship, the degree of trust and understanding between the supervisor and counsellor, determines the effectiveness of this monitoring. Alongside a trusting relationship it is advisable for supervisors to ensure that their supervisees are conversant with the kinds of issues that need to be brought to the supervisor’s attention for ethical reasons. Together with the issue of responsibility comes the question of the supervisor’s potential legal liability for the actions of their supervisees. Jenkins (1997) agreed with the view we put forward in 1994—namely, that in the United Kingdom this is, as yet, 1 an untested area, but, given the structure of British law and the emphasis on the consultative nature of the supervisory relationship, it seems improbable that a supervisor would be found legally liable

1

As far as we are aware this remains the case to date.


185

for the actions of their supervisee. In America the situation is somewhat different as the Tarasoff case (Stone 1976) established the validity of the principle of vicarious responsibility: the supervisor was deemed negligent and liable for the action, or rather inaction, of the supervisee. In this case a therapist was found liable for the actions of their client in killing a third party, given that the client had informed the therapist of their intention to do harm to this other person. On the basis of this precedent it is quite possible in the United States for a supervisor to be held professionally and legally liable for the actions of a supervisee (Bernard and Goodyear 1992). Wherever one practises, the supervisor’s best protection lies in their supervisee being prepared to use supervision honestly and to take heed of their supervisor’s recommendations. AUTONOMY The principle of autonomy, promoting the maximum degree of choice for all involved, is one which has great significance in moral philosophy (Schneewind 1993). In addition it encapsulates the raison d’être for much counselling work, for as Corey (1986:3) states: ‘Most of the contemporary models of counseling and therapy operate on the basic assumption that clients are able to accept personal responsibility and that their failure to do so has largely resulted in their present emotional and behavioural difficulties.’ Thus the promotion of autonomy in the client is an inevitable therapeutic goal stemming from this assumption. The task for the supervisor is to apply this ethical principle of autonomy to the practice of their supervision and to the counselling that is being supervised. Sometimes this will create a dilemma for the supervisor as the autonomy of the two participants, the supervisee and their client, may suggest two different courses of action. To illustrate this let us consider the example of a counsellor who holds strong views against the use of medication. This counsellor appears to their supervisor to be encouraging a client to cease taking long-term medication. If there is a significant risk that the client would become suicidal or violent, as might be the case if the medication controlled serious depressive or psychotic tendencies, then the counsellor must be required to support the client in continuing to use the drugs as the principle of nonmaleficence would prevail. Provided that the supervisor is satisfied that this is not a significant possibility then it could be


argued that in the interests of counsellor autonomy she should be given the opportunity to discover whether or not this is an appropriate course to take with this client. However, to do so may result in undermining the client’s autonomy. Given the need to balance the right to autonomy of both participants the supervisor’s most equitable course of action would be to encourage the counsellor to work through the various options with the client. The counsellor may be encouraged to state their own position, but only if it were felt that the client was sufficiently independent of the counsellor for this not to determine their choice. This brings to the fore one of the central issues in relation to the principle of autonomy: that of dependence. It is one of the tasks of the supervisor to ensure that the counsellor encourages clients to overcome entrenched dependence (periods of temporary dependence may be therapeutically desirable) by bringing to the clients’ attention the manifestations of dependence in their relationship. To do this the supervisor needs to be aware of the seductive quality for the counsellor of having a number of clients who ‘look up to him, and value him as perhaps the only human being in whom they have felt able fully to confide’ (Storr 1990:63). It can be just as gratifying for the supervisor to have a number of counsellors looking up to them, perhaps in awe of their experience and apparent greater knowledge. Just as in counselling there may be a period in the early stages of supervision when the counsellor needs to be dependent, to a certain extent, on their supervisor. This may well be the case for those just starting out as counsellors who may find themselves struggling in their new role. They may need to be able to phone the supervisor between sessions, ask for and receive advice and encouragement and, when faltering during the counselling session, ask themselves ‘what would my supervisor do in this situation?’ However, it is for the supervisor to point out that in truth it is the counsellor’s own wisdom they are calling upon at such a moment, through the guise of imagining that they are appealing to the supervisor, and thereby start the process of building the counsellor’s sense of their own autonomy. Later in the supervision process, when it has lasted a number of years and starts to become routinely comfortable and perhaps collusive, it is the principle of autonomy which demands that the supervisor should actively encourage the counsellor to move on to find new supervision. The other main consequence of the principle of autonomy is the need to ensure ‘informed consent’ (Widiger and Rorer 1984).


187

In order for this to be achieved it is essential that counsellors know what they are entering into when they agree to supervision. This, then, is one of the conditions which needs to be met by the contract: it must contain all the information the supervisee needs in order to be informed as to the nature of the task and the relationship being undertaken. In our view it is the responsibility of both practitioners, the supervisor and the counsellor, to provide this information. It is unsatisfactory to leave it to the counsellor to seek out information because if they are new to this situation they may not be in a position to determine what they need to know. For example, it is not reasonable to expect a new counsellor to know what degree of preparation they need to do for supervision or to know the exceptions to the confidentiality of supervision. We consider it important for the supervisor to provide this kind of information during the initial contracting. Equally the counsellor is beholden to proffer information about their counselling practice so that the supervisor knows what they are undertaking. In our view, what Bond (2000:88) says about informed consent in relation to counselling—namely, that it is a minimum requirement ‘more appropriate to situations where the person is having something done to them, rather than as in counselling where the client is an active participant’—is equally applicable to supervision. We would hope that contracting in supervision is an active negotiation between both parties, not simply an information-giving exercise. This clarifies the supervisor’s responsibilities, under the principle of autonomy, to negotiate a clear contract. In proceeding to look at the implications of the principle of fidelity we will consider in some detail three specific components of the contract: ground rules, boundaries and expectations. So doing will highlight further implications of the principle of informed consent. FIDELITY We have already defined fidelity as ‘being faithful to promises made’, which encompasses both implicit and explicit promises. Ground rules This is the most straightforward element of the contract, in that there should be little room for misunderstanding in agreements


about duration, time, frequency, fees and codes. One issue that should be borne in mind, from the perspective of fidelity, is what happens when the supervisor has to change these ground rules. Predictable changes, for example annual increases to fees, can be built in to the initial contract so that giving notice of these becomes part of honouring the principle of informed consent. However, there may be other changes which make it impossible for the supervisor to be faithful to the original terms of the contract. One of us had the experience of their supervisor moving away to a more distant geographic location. The new location was sufficiently far away to raise the question of whether or not the supervisee wished to continue with the supervision, given the additional travelling time this would entail. Enough notice was given of this change to allow the supervisee time to consider what they wanted to do: travel further or change supervisor. Once the supervisee had decided to terminate the supervision contract it was important to have time to deal with the resultant ending. Although it felt untimely there were no significant ill effects from this disruption to supervision. In this instance about four months’ notice proved ample; for less dramatic changes, for example an increase of fees, perhaps a month would suffice. However the ethical imperative is clear: if the ground rules are being changed the counsellor needs sufficient time to feel that they have a real choice about whether or not to accept these changes. Boundaries We will consider first the ethical issues raised by the boundary between therapy and supervision. We have already explored the nature of this boundary in some depth in Chapter 3, and it is given further consideration in Chapter 12 in relation to the supervision of experienced practitioners. Here we will confine ourselves to the ethical implications. The principle of autonomy requires that there be a reasonable degree of understanding between supervisee and supervisor as to the nature of this interface and how it is to be managed. For new supervisors who are unsure of where to set this boundary we would like to offer two simple guidelines. First there may legitimately be a short amount of time at the beginning of a session for the supervisee to say how they are, but the amount of time spent on this should be kept within sensible proportions. In addition we advocate the guideline offered by Hawkins and Shohet


189

(2000:55) who state that: ‘Personal material should only come into the [supervision] session if it is directly affecting, or being affected by, the work discussed; or if it is affecting the supervision relationship.’ This provides a clear marker, which should ameliorate the danger of supervision sliding into therapy. If, once agreed, the supervisor doesn’t respect this boundary in practice then one of two things happens. Either the counsellor is deprived of space, which it had been agreed they would have, or they are subject to unsolicited therapeutic interventions. Both can have a detrimental effect. If the counsellor feels that the time they understood would be made available to them has been taken away, this is likely to push them into whatever intra-personal material they have about deprivation. If supervisor and supervisee do not recognise that this is happening then this will adversely affect the supervision relationship, undermining trust and any sense of collaboration. It may also be passed on to the counsellor’s clients: for example, the counsellor unwittingly depriving them in some way as an unconscious act of revenge for their own experience of deprivation by the supervisor. Should the boundary be shifted in the other direction and the supervisee be subject to unsolicited ‘therapeutic’ interventions then this will probably be experienced as invasive or intrusive and again disturb the supervision process. When describing her research findings in respect of a number of supervisees who felt that this boundary had been violated, Kaberry (2000:46) states how ‘supervisees had the feeling that the supervisor was using them and their personal material to gratify themselves in some way’. This is worrying evidence of supervisors not being faithful to the contract, whether explicit or implicit, and misusing their position. The other boundary issue we wish to explore is that of confidentiality. As Bond (2000:150) has stated: ‘Confidentiality is probably the single issue that raises the greatest number of difficulties for counsellors.’ Because it can be such a perplexing and anxiety provoking issue in counselling, it is inevitably a significant concern for the supervisor. The first aspect to be clear about is what position is being taken, both by the counsellor and the supervisor, in relation to confidentiality. There is an idealised position that the therapeutic boundary should, at best, be sacrosanct and that any breach of this is a violation which will be detrimental to the therapeutic process and must be minimised: ‘The secure frame is the only means through which a healthy therapeutic


symbiosis can be effected between the patient and the therapist’ (Langs 1982:327). This can be appealing because of the apparently unequivocal nature of the position. However, in practice the fact that the counselling boundary is required to be sufficiently flexible to stretch out and include the supervisor means that it cannot be the idealised, womb-like container the stated position seems to offer. In addition, taking an idealistic approach can have serious consequences for the counsellor if carried through to its ultimate conclusion since it could conceivably result in the counsellor being subject to legal prosecution. This would be the likely consequence of refusing to give information when required to do so by a court of law. This can result in a form of reluctant pragmatism; wishing to be absolute about confidentiality but feeling bound by these legal constraints. There is an alternative position, which we both adopt, which is that counselling occurs within a context and that there may be occasions when material from counselling or supervising needs to be made available to others in that context. This should never be done lightly, or without clear understanding of the potential consequences. The principle of informed consent requires that the supervisor, or counsellor, makes explicit the exceptions to absolute confidentiality and whether or not permission would be sought before passing information on. One of us, working as a counsellor in a University Counselling Service, did this through a written contract, which included the following section: Conf identiality What you discuss in counselling and the fact that you are a client is kept confidential within the service. The only exceptions to this are: 1 All counsellors are required to receive professional supervision of their work to ensure the quality of practice. Your sessions may be discussed in supervision. This supervision is itself confidential and is undertaken with an experienced practitioner external to the University. 2 We may agree to a request by you that we break confidentiality because you consider this to be in your best interests. 3 If you give us information that leads us to believe that someone is in serious danger of harm then we may take steps to minimise


191

this danger. Any action would usually be discussed with you first. 4 Under exceptional circumstances we may be required by law to break confidence. 5 If you and your counsellor explicitly agree to different boundaries of confidentiality. If you have concerns about confidentiality feel free to discuss this with your counsellor. The supervisor needs to be equally clear as to the exceptional circumstances in which they would breach supervisory confidentiality. There are generally two sets of circumstances in which this might occur. The first of these is in the event that the counsellor is not prepared to act on information they have received about someone: themself, their client or a third party being in serious danger of harm. In such circumstances the supervisor may decide they have to act, presumably having asked the counsellor to do so in the first instance. The supervisor may also decide to break confidentiality if the supervisee is deemed to be acting in a way that is viewed as harmful to the client (or possibly a third party). These are general exceptions, which we apply to all supervisory relationships, and are a consequence of the principle of nonmaleficence. We will look at the specific situations of trainee supervision and managerial supervision later as there are particular issues of confidentiality relating to each of these circumstances. Having established in supervision the position that each participant holds, both supervisor and counsellor need to satisfy themselves that they are comfortable with any differences discovered. For example, neither of us would be prepared to supervise a counsellor who took an absolute position about confidentiality. In our experience, however, it is not uncommon for someone who initially espouses an absolute position to shift ground once faced with some of the extreme consequences that might ensue. It then behoves the supervisor to establish that the requirements of informed consent are being met, by both supervisor and supervisee, and monitor how these contractual agreements are carried out in practice. This may include the supervisor examining how well they manage their boundaries on an everyday level: ‘Recent evidence suggests that therapists sharing clients’ confidential information with family or friends is a serious ethical problem’ (Baker and Patterson 1990:295). It may also mean


assisting the counsellor in applying their theoretical boundaries to actual situations, which are so often fraught with ambiguities and uncertainties. This can result in the supervisor being faced with potentially quite dramatic situations. For example, the counsellor may bring to supervision concerns about what they should do in relation to a client who may be, or clearly is, suicidal. The supervisory task is to help the counsellor consider the details of this particular client’s situation and then decide how to proceed. It can be tempting, in the anxiety of the moment, to take up unequivocal positions such as: ‘people should be entitled to take their own lives’ or ‘we must protect people from their self-destructive tendencies’. The supervisor needs to help the counsellor step aside from any such positions and explore the issues in relation to this particular client. For example, this would involve determining whether the client is making a rational choice of suicide (Snipe 1988), perhaps in the face of a deteriorating medical condition. This is very different to the case of the person suicidal as a consequence of a short-term depressive episode. There may be legal implications to be considered (Swenson 1987), although if there is no statutory obligation to care for the client these are unlikely to be sufficiently significant to determine action. If it is decided to take some action then what will be done has still to be determined. The suicidal client is just one example where the principle of fidelity and the implications for confidentiality are balanced against actual or potential dangers to the client or a third party, to which the principle of nonmaleficence may apply. Similar dilemmas can occur with such issues as sexual abuse by the client or by a third party (Melella et al 1987), third party risk of HIV infection (Girardi et al. 1988), or a third party at risk of assault by the client (Herlihy and Sheeley 1988). Expectations The main application of the principle of fidelity to this aspect of the contract is in ensuring that the supervisee and the client are getting what they have been led to believe they can expect. For example, one of us has a supervisee who is a counsellor with many years’ experience. This counsellor has a client-centred background and when seeking supervision was explicit in wanting supervision which primarily focused on the transference and counter-transference aspects of her relationships with clients, as


193

she felt this would increase her range of options when working with a client. This was agreed and initially worked well, but as the supervision progressed the supervisor felt increasingly uneasy with the effect that exploring counter-transference issues seemed to have on her. When this was discussed it became apparent that although fascinated by what was emerging, she was finding the focus on the therapeutic dynamics to have a de-skilling effect. Far from increasing her options, she was losing confidence in her own ability to counsel, and the client-centred skills which formed the foundation of her counselling were being undermined. The focus was shifted to one which balanced a client-centred approach with a psychodynamic focus, and from that point proceeded well. In a similar way the supervisor has a responsibility to ensure that clients are getting what they are expecting. In practice expectations often change during the course of counselling and supervision, so the principle of fidelity requires that this be reviewed as necessary. JUSTICE The principle of justice is concerned to ensure that people are treated with fairness. We intend to explore the application of this principle in two specific areas, the first being the final step in the contracting stage: the supervisory relationship. Relationship In every supervisory situation there exist a minimum of three relationships: two actual relationships and one fantasy or indirect relationship (Figure 10.1). Within each relationship there are the possibilities of abuse on the one hand and collusion on the other. Justice requires that fairness be maintained within and between each pair of relationships. Applying this principle specifically to the supervisor, it requires that she endeavour to be equitable in balancing her responsibilities towards the counsellor and the client. In psychodynamic terms it might be thought of as the parent being fair in dealings with her two children. From that perspective the curiosity of this circumstance is that one child is in an actual relationship with the parental figure whilst the other relationship is only a fantasy relationship, mediated by the first. As a consequence


Figure 10.1 The supervisory relationship traingle.

the parent has to manage the principle of justice for herself—she cannot rely on being directly challenged should she favour one child unduly. The supervisor’s challenge to be just is made more complex because their responsibilities to the client and counsellor are not the same or equal; nevertheless, justice demands that they maintain the balance. To illustrate this let us consider two examples. The first is the case already described under the heading of autonomy, which was concerned with the counsellor who was pressuring the client to cease taking medication. If in that situation the supervisor had allowed the counsellor to proceed with pushing the client then this would have been unjust: the supervisor would be favouring the counsellor at the cost of the client. The second example is of a volunteer counsellor who has a client who has cancelled a number of sessions at the last moment. The supervisor focuses solely on the reasons why the client is cancelling, without offering the supervisee an opportunity to ventilate his own feelings. By acting in this way the supervisor is setting aside the counsellor’s feelings of resentment about being treated badly by the client and in so doing is being unjust, favouring the client at a cost to the counsellor. The application of the principle of justice requires that a way be found which respects the experience of the counsellor and assists the therapeutic process to move forward. Fair practice The other implication of the principle of justice for the supervisor is to do with the fundamental principle of treating all people with fairness. It is stated very clearly in the BACP Code of Ethics and Practice for the Supervision of Counsellors that:


195

Supervisors must recognise, and work in ways that respect the value and dignity of supervisees and their clients with due regard to issues such as origin, status, race, gender, age, beliefs, sexual orientation and disability. This must include raising awareness of any discriminatory practices that may exist between supervisees and their clients, or between supervisor and supervisee. (BAC 1996: B.1.9) The supervisor must be alert to their own behaviour in this regard, as they must also be aware of this principle in the work of the counsellors they supervise. This is not merely a matter of laudable intention, it may also have very significant implications in practice. At this stage it is sufficient to recognise the ethical imperative for anti-discriminatory practice. This area is explored in much more detail in Chapter 11. BENEFICENCE In general terms, if counselling work is not of benefit to clients then as a human activity it has no validity and should cease. All of us within the counselling world must, presumably, believe that it is beneficial in general terms. The task of the counsellor and supervisor is then to endeavour to ensure that counselling is beneficial for each individual client. This can create a dilemma for counsellor and supervisor alike for it is often hard to judge, from session to session, whether or not the client is benefiting from the therapeutic work. There is a growing body of evidence as to the efficacy of counselling and psychotherapy as psychological interventions (Rowland and Goss 2000), and an increasing number of ways of gathering such evidence. However, research evidence provides general indicators and it is often difficult to apply these research findings to specific cases with a satisfactory degree of confidence. Alongside this the client is not always a reliable judge of the efficacy of the counselling they are receiving. They may, for example, project their unconscious hope that the therapist will provide their means to health (Casement 1990) and so have an unrealistic perception of how they are benefiting from the counselling they are receiving. Such a client may feel that their trust in the counsellor is betrayed if the value of continuing the counselling is


questioned. Nevertheless, the counsellor has a responsibility to make an assessment at the outset as to whether or not it seems reasonably likely that this potential client will benefit from counselling (Lemma 1996; Palmer and McMahon 1997). Jacobs (1988:53) offers a helpful table of the ‘distinguishing features of the suitable client’ where he outlines criteria for the client suitable for counselling or psychotherapy. Not to make such an assessment runs the risk of setting up false hope (Page 1999a) which, long term, can do more harm than a rejection in the early stages. Once counselling has been started it remains the responsibility of the counsellor, in conjunction with the client and with support from the supervisor, to monitor evidence of the counselling being beneficial and to question its continuation if this does not seem to be the case. As a result of these responsibilities it is important that supervisors have some awareness of how their supervisees deal with the issues of assessment, review and closure. The same responsibilities rest directly with the supervisor in relation to the supervision. Thus at the outset there needs to be a clear two-way assessment (Page 1999b) to ascertain if this seems a good supervisory pairing or grouping, and there needs to be a means of reviewing the usefulness as supervision progresses. When there are signs that the relationship has lost its creativity, or become too comfortable, then the supervisor needs to encourage the supervisee to move on. The principle of beneficence requires this. NONMALEFICENCE We have already made a number of references to the application of this principle: ensuring that harm is not done to anyone. The specific issue we would like to address arising out of the principle of nonmaleficence is that of competence. For the supervisor this means that they have a responsibility to ensure that they are competent to fulfil the supervisory role they are undertaking. This requires that they have the necessary skills, knowledge and experience for the task. For example, an experienced individual supervisor with no group work experience would, on this basis, be unethical in agreeing to facilitate a supervision group without first undertaking an appropriate training course which would give them sufficient understanding of group facilitation and dynamics to be able to fulfil this new role. In addition to having the necessary


197

skills, knowledge and experience, being competent means being in a sufficiently emotionally stable state that the supervisor’s own emotional difficulties do not substantially intrude. This becomes particularly important to assess at times of emotional stress—for example, if experiencing a loss or a personal crisis. The same issues of competence apply to the work of a counsellor, who should take reasonable steps to ensure that they are maintaining and developing their own level of competence. This may involve attending training events and keeping abreast of developments and new research in the areas of the counselling field in which they practice. The supervisor can play a useful role by encouraging the counsellor to attend courses and conferences and also offering information about relevant new developments that the supervisor is aware of. So far we have been considering the supervision of all counselling practitioners and we have assumed that the supervisory contract is a consultative one. There are three main types of supervision contract that differ from this consultative model: training supervision, supervision within organisations and managerial supervision (Hawkins and Shohet 2000), which is a specific form of supervision within organisations. TRAINING SUPERVISION When a counsellor is in training then a fourth party enters the network of relationships. This is the training institute or college, which for simplicity will be referred to as ‘the course’. In Figure 10.2 we have endeavoured to indicate diagrammatically the nature of the set of relationships involved in this situation. In two of these relationships ethical difficulties can arise. The first is relatively easy to deal with: the relationship between the client and the course. This is not a direct relationship, in any but the most unusual circumstance, but is an indirect relationship which is mediated by the counsellor. It is important that the degree of confidentiality being afforded the client is explicit and agreed. This means that the client must know to what extent material from their sessions will be presented to others at the course and what measures, if any, are being taken to protect their anonymity. The second is more complex: the relationship between the course and the supervisor. In our experience there are a number of


Figure 10.2 Relationship structure in trainee supervision.

different types of contract between supervisor and course being used. At one end of the range the supervisor may be an employee of the training institute who provides supervision as one of a number of aspects of their role. The issues that this raises include those of overlapping roles; for example, the supervisor might also be a trainer, counsellor or manager within the training institute. If these roles overlap in relation to individual students then this has potentially dangerous ramifications, which are best avoided in all but the most unusual circumstances. At the other end of the spectrum the trainee counsellor may simply be told to go out and find their own supervision, and there is no direct relationship between the course and the supervisor. This is fraught with dangers: the supervision may be inappropriate, the supervisor may not be competent, there is no feedback mechanism in case of difficulty and there is no attempt to standardise the supervision experience. In our view the training institute has a responsibility to oversee the choice of supervisor, ensuring at the very least that the supervisor is competent and knows how to contact the course if they have serious concerns about the trainee counsellor’s practice. It is to be hoped that the course does more than that, creating an effective line of communication within a clearly defined contract in which all parties know what information will be passed to whom, by whom and under what circumstances. For this is the central issue—the appropriate movement of information within the network. Consider first the extreme situation in which the supervisor has substantial concern that the trainee is acting in a manner that is unethical and it has not been possible to rectify the situation through the supervisory process. We believe that the supervisor has


199

a responsibility to communicate this concern to the course in some way. Not to do so risks the person being awarded a counselling qualification, which could be tantamount to a licence to practice in an unethical manner. The supervisor has a responsibility to ensure that their concern is addressed by the trainee and the course and that the trainee only receives their qualification if they are able to deal with the problematic area of their practice. This extreme situation can be formulated in terms of the supervisor and course sharing a mutual responsibility to the potential future clients of the trainee counsellor. It is to be hoped that any training course includes a well-defined mechanism for just this extreme situation in their contract with the supervisors of their course members. Thankfully the extreme is rare; however, there remains the question of what, if any, feedback mechanism should exist between supervisor and course. The course has a task to evaluate the trainee and on the basis of that evaluation to determine whether or not they should be awarded the qualification the course carries. The supervisor receives information, through the supervisory process, about the trainee’s counselling which is potentially very valuable to this evaluation process. However, any reporting mechanism is a potential threat to the trust of the counsellor in the safety of supervision, generating what Liddle (1986:119) describes as ‘evaluation anxiety’. One way round this is to agree that the supervisor will not pass on any information to the course except in the event of serious concern about the trainee’s practice. This deals with the issue from the supervisor’s point of view but deprives the course of a valuable perspective. As a consequence the assessment of students may be distorted, for example, with greater emphasis on written work or self-presentation whilst skirting around assessing their ability to form and maintain therapeutic relationships. It would seem preferable therefore to have some reporting mechanism. The difficulty is to do this in a way which does not implicitly encourage the counsellor to censor the more problematic areas of their counselling, presenting only the more satisfactory aspects in supervision. This would undermine the ability of the supervisor to perform their function effectively. It is therefore important that any feedback mechanism assists the supervision process rather than threatens it. Provided any reporting back builds upon, or at least has no negative effect upon, the trust between supervisee and supervisor then it can work well for all concerned.


Some methods employed to this end include self-assessment by supervisees, mutual evaluation where the supervisee and supervisor both provide each other and the course with written feedback, or by the use of feedback statements agreed by both supervisor and supervisee. Whatever mechanisms are in place two requirements must be satisfied if it is to work for all concerned. The mechanisms must be clearly contracted and understood by trainee, supervisor and training institution; also, the criteria for evaluating any feedback given must be well defined and consistently applied. All this will be helped if the supervisor is able to convince the counsellor that bringing their difficulties to supervision is a mark of good practice, not of failure, and that the counsellor’s task is not to attempt to be perfect but rather to endeavour to learn. SUPERVISION WITHIN ORGANISATIONS The particular ethical issues of supervising the work of counsellors working in organisations can be summed up by the comments made by Copeland (2000:163–164): ‘the counsellor and supervisor need to work with, not against the organisation. They have to tread a fine line between serving the client and the organisation.’ In a very real sense there are two clients: the individual receiving counselling and the organisation. Unless, on balance, both get what they need from counselling sufficiently for them to be satisfied then there is a problem. A simple example of this is the counselling service provided by a university for its students. The university makes this investment for a number of reasons, which include: 1 exercising its ‘duty of care’ towards its students; 2 making the university more attractive to potential students (or more probably their carers or parents); 3 reducing the number of students who leave. There is complete harmony between the institutional objective and the counsellors’ objective in relation to ‘duty of care’. Similarly counsellors working in such a service should be committed to providing a high-quality service, and the university can boast about this in its publicity materials. Thus in general there is no conflict between the counsellor and the institution over the second reason for having the service. However, regarding the third there is clearly


201

a potential conflict. An individual student who seeks counselling may well be best served by leaving the university. In practice this is understood and the recognition of the overall impact of the service on retaining students is not clouded by individual cases. Nevertheless this is a tension, with which a counsellor working in such a service may need help to resolve for him or herself. This is just one example, but it illustrates the kinds of tensions that can exist within an organisational setting. Sometimes the influences acting upon a supervisory relationship are quite complex and it can be useful to tease them out by taking time to identify the various stakeholders whose influence may be experienced, but not always readily recognised (Page 1999b). This can be done by supervisor and supervisee together mapping out those with an interest in the outcomes of their discussions. It can be fruitful to reflect on the question as to how these interests may impact upon the work of supervisor and supervisee. It is important that anyone supervising counsellors working in such settings takes the time to gain an understanding of the context within which their supervisee is working and the various conflicts or tensions this creates. Others (Carroll 1996; Copeland 1998, 2000; Hawkins and Shohet 2000) have written quite extensively on this subject and provide good sources of information for supervisors with concern over such contextual issues. The additional difficulties that exist when the supervisor is also a part of the same organisation, with line management responsibilities for the counsellor, are explored in the next section. MANAGERIAL SUPERVISION We are using this term to describe supervision ‘where the supervisor is also the line manager of the supervisees’ (Hawkins and Shohet 2000:53). This is the traditional supervision structure in some areas where counselling may be done as part of another professional role, for example in social work settings, but it can also be found in counselling organisations, or counselling departments within organisations. The alternative model, which is certainly that favoured by the British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BAG 1996: B.3.3.7), is that the managerial functions and the supervision of casework are separated by the counsellor having a consultative supervisor who is external to the organisational structure. This model, in principle, provides more


robust safeguards for the client and, in general, is the model we would advocate. To explore this further let us take the hypothetical situation of a counsellor who works within an agency offering short-term counselling, with the clients being offered six sessions with some flexibility resting with the service manager to extend this if it is felt necessary to do so in the interests of particular clients. There are financial reasons why it is important to keep within acceptable limits the number of times counselling is extended. We will consider the supervisor’s position in dealing with the issue of a client to whom the counsellor wants to offer a further six sessions. Let us imagine that the counsellor is supervised by their line manager, who is directly accountable for keeping within the overall budget and is aware that if she grants more than ten extensions to counselling across the whole team during the next two months she will go over that budget. She is also supervising a number of other counsellors, each bringing deserving cases for extension to her notice. If this manager-supervisor is to be effective in her supervisor role she has to put to one side all the concerns she carries about maintaining the budget in order to explore the needs of this particular client with the counsellor. Whilst a highly experienced manager-supervisor with great integrity may be able to achieve this degree of separation it will undoubtedly put her under considerable pressure to do so. Many managers would not be able to contain this pressure, so that the supervisory process would become contaminated by their agenda. It is the role of the supervisor to assist the counsellor in assessing the degree of need of this particular client, within the context of the organisational constraints and, if appropriate, to look at ways to present this case for extension. It is the job of the manager to assess the representations from all the counsellors in the service and make decisions in relation to the budget. These decisions will not all be in the best interests of individual clients, but rather will need to balance these needs against the needs of future clients of the service, for whom it is important the financial viability of the service is maintained. An external, consultative, supervisor will be in a much freer position to facilitate the counsellor in assessing the needs of this particular client and considering how to present the request for additional sessions in a fair manner. This example was chosen because it highlights the potential conflict between a managerial function and a supervisory one: the


203

needs of the organisation may not be compatible with the needs of the client. When this is the case this conflict is going to have to rest somewhere in the system, possibly within the managersupervisor, or between manager-supervisor and counsellor, or between the manager and the external supervisor. In each case this conflict has a potentially destructive capacity. The external supervisor model is likely to be the least destructive provided that the manager and supervisor each understand and respect the function of the other and the supervisor is prepared to challenge any tendency in the counsellor to cast the manager as the ‘baddie’ and the supervisor as the ‘goodie’. In the event that managerial supervision is the chosen structure then there needs to be careful clarification of the relationship between the two functions and how the managerial function may impinge upon supervision. The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BAC 1996:B.3.3.7) states ‘where the counselling supervisor is also the line manager, the counsellor should have access to independent counselling supervision’, which provides the counsellor, and therefore the client, with the safeguard in a situation where supervision with the line manager seems illadvised. As in all supervision the manager-supervisor has to earn the trust of their supervisee and they will do this by acting with clarity, understanding, consistency and integrity. CONCLUSION This has, inevitably, been a relatively brief consideration of the ethical and professional issues which may confront the supervisor. In offering ethical principles we hope that, alongside the relevant codes of practice, this will provide the supervisor with the means not only to make ethical judgements but also to be able to explore the principles behind those judgements. Codes of practice are generally not sufficient in themselves to resolve ethical dilemmas (Beyerstein 1993), but do offer practical guidelines which can assist in determining action once the guiding principles have been identified. Counselling, and therefore counselling supervision, is a rapidly evolving profession and no doubt new issues will arise in the coming years as it grows into maturity. It is important that the supervisor is adequately prepared for the task which needs to be undertaken, and in the final chapter we shall consider the training and development needs implied by this requirement.

Chapter 11

Working with dif ference and diversity

It comes as quite a challenge to attempt to say something both meaningful and specific about the very broad ranging topic of difference and diversity in supervision. The topic is important because, as Rapp (2000) has observed, culturally competent supervision can be seen as a template for all good supervision. In the field of counselling and supervision we are always working with aspects of diversity. One danger that arises in broaching the subject of anti-oppressive practice in supervision within a limited space is that of lumping together a large number of issues that deserve careful and separate consideration. As Bernard and Goodyear (1992) have shown through their extensive coverage of a whole spectrum of multicultural issues in supervision, responding to diversity requires a readiness on the part of the supervisor and counsellor to acquire a broad range of culture-specific knowledge, competence and sensitivity. Despite these cautionary words, this chapter will attempt to generate some inclusive guidelines that can be useful in framing appropriate responses to different supervisee and client populations. At the same time we will point the reader to a number of publications that have done fuller justice to the needs of particular minority or disadvantaged groups than is possible for us to do here. During the discussion we will return at intervals to the framework of the cyclical model and indicate the stages in the model within which the guidelines can be incorporated. In brief, we would suggest that consideration of how to address issues of diversity in supervision may happen particularly in the contract and review stages of the model. Particular aspects of difference can then be explored more fully within the supervision space wherever they appear relevant to the supervision work. Such issues are of 204

Working with difference and diversity

205

204 relevance in the Bridge when differences between counsellor and client need to be taken into account in considering future therapeutic strategy. Supervisors who are committed to working in a superviseeresponsive manner need the willingness and competence to acknowledge and adapt to varying degrees of difference in their supervisees. This responsibility can raise some complex issues for both supervisors and supervisees. Consider the following illustrative questions:

• • • • •

To what degree can a heterosexual supervisor really get to grips with what a gay counsellor experiences in working with gay clients? How far can a white supervisor and white supervisee realistically hope to consider and understand, with any degree of accuracy, the experience of racism that a black client, living in a white-dominated society, will have had throughout life? To what extent can a self-determined female counsellor prevent herself overlaying her own values and expectations on a female client whose identity and self-concept may be firmly grounded in family roles and responsibilities? To what degree can the supervisor who works in private practice with self-referred, fee-paying clients hope to understand the context of their supervisee’s work with non-voluntary clients in a prison setting? How far can a salaried supervisor in a financially secure job really understand the dynamic that exists between her supervisee and his clients where the counsellor works for a voluntary agency with clients who are often homeless and without an income?

Questions such as these begin to hint at the complexities of supervision where it applies to different contexts and cultures. Writers on transcultural counselling and supervision vary in their definition of terms, depending on whether they take an inclusive (broad range) or exclusive (normally limited to race and ethnicity) view of multicultural issues (Stone 1997). In this chapter we wish to survey a wide spectrum of difference and will take an inclusive view of the term ‘transcultural’ in order to encompass such diverse variables as gender, race, sexual orientation, religion, age, social and economic status, physical and learning disability and mental health.


DEVELOPING A SUPERVISEE-DIRECTED APPROACH TO WORKING WITH DIFFERENCE IN SUPERVISION Some differences that emerge in supervisory practice will be more evident than others. A visible disability displayed by a supervisee who uses a wheelchair is more clearly obvious than a less visible impairment such as epilepsy, diabetes, HIV, myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) or dyslexia. Differences in gender between supervisor and supervisee are usually more immediately observable than differences in sexuality. Some aspects of difference will not be apparent unless the individual chooses to disclose these to others. However it manifests itself, an individual’s experience of difference will significantly affect their personal and professional identity. BAC’s current Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors (1996) now explicitly requires supervisors to develop anti-discriminatory practice that takes proper account of difference in the experience of their supervisees and their clients. Additionally, it is important for the supervisor to be aware that under the Disability Discrimination Act (1995) they now have certain legal responsibilities towards a supervisee with a disability. The supervisor is the provider of a service and, as such, is legally required to ensure that a supervisee with a disability is not treated less favourably because of their disability than a person with no disability (Brading and Curtis 2000; Jenkins 1997). The legislation similarly applies to the service that counsellors provide for clients, and a further responsibility of the supervisor is to ensure that their supervisees are aware of their own responsiblities in this area. It is likely that this legislation applies to persons with a ‘hidden’ disability only where the person has declared themselves to have a disability (Brading and Curtis 2000). The Disability Discrimination Act (1995) states that ‘it is irrelevant whether a service is provided on payment or without payment’ (III: 19.2). In acknowledging and working with difference the culturally sensitive supervisor will be alert to avoiding the danger of adopting either of two extreme positions. The first is that of assuming that all the difficulties and dilemmas that supervisees bring are significantly mediated by their experience of difference. In this case the experience of difference may become exaggerated out of proportion to its relevance to the supervision issue and may serve to obscure rather than illuminate that which requires attention. What is


207

prominent for one person will not be the same for another. In particular, a person’s professional identity may, at times, be more important to them than their racial or cultural identity (Rapp 2000). In contrast to the first, the second extreme position occurs where the supervisor adopts the stance of minimising difference to the extent that it is treated as invisible and largely or wholly irrelevant to the supervision or therapeutic process. In essence, the supervisor here becomes ‘culture-blind’ (Rapp 2000:96). A real danger when this position in adopted, as Banks and Ward (1996) have shown, is that a client’s (or supervisee’s) culture-specific needs and preferences may remain unheard by the counsellor or supervisor except as they are pathologised and interpreted as ‘transference’ or resistance. There may be a particular danger of the latter position being taken up where differences are less obvious and ‘in the face’ of the supervisor. This may happen, for instance, where a disability or physical impairment is non-visible. Or it may occur where there are unacknowledged differences that exist between supervisor and supervisee who, on the face of it, share the same cultural background yet who may have developed very different values and principles of helping. Perhaps the supervisor holds a traditional psychoanalytical orientation and normally works to open-ended, long-term contracts, whereas their supervisee has adopted a more integrative psychodynamic approach that has been adapted to the requirements of their work setting, where they are obliged by organisational directives to work to short-term contracts of a maximum of six sessions. Whilst similar theoretical concepts and ways of conceptualising clients may inform both ways of working, the different work contexts will significantly determine the way that these concepts are applied in practice. If these differences are not openly addressed and discussed, misunderstanding and conflict are likely to emerge within the supervisory relationship. Similarly, a counsellor and supervisor who are near equal in terms of employment status, class and education may fail to consider adequately the impact of socio-cultural factors on the problems brought by a client who is from a disadvantaged economic and educational background. Rapp has highlighted the danger of culture blindness in considering the research on race and ethnicity which suggests that ‘cultural differences between two people who speak the same language can make for greater misunderstandings than differences where the need to translate from one idiom into another is clearly marked’ (Rapp 1996:59). The supervisor and supervisee who appear to share a common cultural


heritage may need to be especially alert to tracking their differences and their assumptions of similarity. As we have already noted, there is also the danger, though it is perhaps less commonly signalled in the literature, of overemphasising difference in an unhelpful way. In discussing visible and hidden aspects of the client, Jacobs (2000b:211) has made the point that ‘although counsellors have to be open to the possible relevance of issues of difference, they may not be so for the client. To refer to the person’s age, colour or ethnicity out of the blue may be intrusive and insensitive.’ If this is so for the client in a counselling relationship, it is also likely to be true for at least some supervisees within supervision relationships. Hycner (1991:40) has observed that ‘the human condition is to be both revealed and “hidden”’ and that indirectness may therefore be a more ‘compassionate stance’ than that of direct confrontation. Again, the point being emphasised here is that individuals will have different needs and preferences about disclosing and discussing sensitive aspects of self. In writing about non-obvious difference, Collins (2000:211) has asserted that ‘clients in counselling have every right to be secretive, defensive, or protective about “hidden” aspects of their identity’ and has suggested that the counsellor’s role is not to expose these hidden aspects ‘but to support and facilitate an environment in which the client may begin to feel safe to explore these issues’. While supervision is a different activity to counselling, and it might be argued that supervisees should be discouraged from being secretive and defensive, we believe they still have a right to hold safe to themselves aspects of their identity and experience that are not the supervisor’s immediate business. This view is reinforced by the perspective of one of our supervisees when we asked if she would be prepared to give her written views on this issue as a contribution to this chapter. The supervisee describes herself as ‘an assertive amputee’ and these are her words: Were you to bring up the subject of my disability during supervision without my prompting, I would at the very least be surprised. On a deeper level I think several things would happen. Initially I would feel offended but go with you on it out of politeness, all the while turning things over in my head which had little or nothing to do with my client. I would ‘humour’ you. Afterwards, my reflections would once again


209

have little to do with my clients and during the weeks between supervision sessions I would gradually become angry and we would have to deal with this. The vital missing ingredients would be my clients. I will talk about my disability with you when it gets in the way, either on a practical level or when it is an issue within my client work. As you know, both these situations are rare. Otherwise, I simply accept that you see me as a whole person and don’t treat me any differently to any of your other supervisees. Were this not the case I would feel that my clients were being overlooked in favour of my disability, and that I was being discriminated against. Rennie’s (1994) research into the client’s experience of counselling has indicated that clients are normally compliant in following their counsellor’s direction, rather than taking the risk of expressing different views and wishes—even when these are strongly held. The views of the supervisee given here suggest that this kind of accommodation may also occur in supervision. Her words indicate that even an assertive supervisee might, initially, defer to her supervisor’s directive though she found this offensive. Her view reinforces that it is important that the supervisor does not act on assumptions based on possibly misinformed notions of what constitutes the proper procedure for ensuring anti-discriminatory practice—put simplistically, that issues of difference should always be up front and that it is the supervisor’s responsibility to raise them. Rather than ameliorating power differentials, holding a fixed stance such as this may, in some instances, constitute a misuse of power. Eleftheriadou (1997:80) has asserted that the skilled transcultural therapist ‘will aim to achieve a delicate balance; to include the cultural background of the client, but not to make it the prime issue unless the client has already indicated that it is an area of importance in the therapy’. This suggests a useful guideline that supervisors might also adopt in order to respond sensitively to the individual needs and expectations of their supervisees. Rapp (2000:99) has suggested that at the heart of good counselling and supervision lies the wisdom ‘to assume as little as possible about another individual’s very personal understandings of themselves and their world’. Gonzalez (1997) has reflected this view in writing about the various roles he adopts as a supervisor working within a multicultural framework. He suggests that the


most important role that the multicultural supervisor can take is that of ‘supervisor-as-partial-learner’ (p. 367). By this he means that the supervisor owns and appropriately uses his or her acquired clinical wisdom, whilst also retaining an attitude of openness to learning from others whose experience may be different to one’s own. In this sense, he identifies a characteristic that supervisors would do well to acquire and one that has been described by Kaberry (2000:55) as the flexibility to move between ‘didactic and dialectic modes according to the supervisee’s needs and stages of development’. Gonzalez asserts that the advantage of taking on the role of supervisor-as-partial-learner is that in so doing he can ‘genuinely learn from [his] supervisees without pretending that power differentials do not exist’ or denying his own expertise (p. 368). He further recommends that the supervisor-as-partial-learner holds ‘informed uncertainty as a frame of reference’ (p.367). In using the term ‘informed uncertainty’ Gonzalez suggests that the supervisor adopt a collaborative stance that ‘allows for a fullhearted exchange of possibilities… between mutual experts’ (p. 368), where supervisor, supervisee and client are equally valued as experts of their own experience. He gives his rationale for this approach as follows: Supervisor-as-partial-learner has the potential to create an atmosphere where all involved can participate as fully engaged partners. Nobody (a) has to be the sole expert, (b) has to masquerade as being in a one-down position, or (c) has to pretend to buy into a socially constructed clinical reality that contradicts their personally constructed clinical reality. (Gonzalez 1997:370) In advocating that supervisors adopt such a position, Gonzalez has proposed a stance towards multicultural supervision that aims to balance the acquired wisdom the supervisor is likely to bring to their role with an attitude of respectful enquiry that acknowledges that the supervisor will also be a learner in the process of acquiring transcultural competence and sensitivity. In considering the complexities of cross-cultural therapy as it applies particularly to race and ethnicity, Eleftheriadou (1997) cautions against too readily adopting the view that there are distinct ways of working with different cultural groups. Instead, she suggests that the essence of sensitive transcultural practice, whether


211

supervision or therapy, ‘is an attempt to encourage cross-cultural communication, rather than ostracize or highlight ethnic minority clients as being “different”’ (p. 68). Patterson and Watkins (1996) have similarly considered the pitfalls of overemphasis on difference and have pointed to the danger of an unproductive ‘watering down’ (p. 480) of the therapeutic process wherever the known ingredients of therapeutic effectiveness are abandoned in overzealous attempts to modify and adapt interventions to the presumed needs and desires of multicultural clients. In particular, they warn that an overemphasis on adopting different techniques for diverse client populations may compromise the provision of a consistent and effective interpersonal therapeutic relationship. This hazard also exists within supervision wherever the personhood of the client or supervisee receives insufficient attention in a discussion that focuses too narrowly on an aspect of difference. A further pitfall exists where supervisor and supervisee may become distracted from the ongoing tasks of supervision through an unwarranted emphasis on aspects of difference or diversity. The danger in this is where issues of difference are laboured to the point that other legitimate or more pressing supervision issues are missed or not given the attention they merit. In discussing how to attend to visible and hidden aspects of the client, Gabriel (2000:212) has suggested that the counsellor ‘should regard the client’s sexuality, origin or hidden disability as dimensions of their story that should be allowed to unfold over the process of the counselling work and relationship’. We think this is sound advice that translates well to the process of supervision. Eleftheriadou (1992, 1997) has argued that in therapy clients who trust their therapist will eventually provide all the cultural information that is necessary and relevant to the process. We believe that supervisors should trust that their supervisees, in a good enough relationship, will do the same. Building and maintaining an effective and dynamic supervisory relationship rests, to a large degree, on the supervisor’s ability to contract and review with their supervisee in an open, honest and non-defensive manner. CONTRACTING AND REVIEWING IN CULTURALLY COMPETENT SUPERVISION Supervisors who are able to respond sensitively to diversity in their supervisees will provide important modelling for their supervisees


about how to address issues of difference with their clients. In a chapter on supervision and racial issues, Grant (1999), argues that the hardest part of dealing with racial issues in supervision is during the contracting stage at the start of the relationship. She suggests that ‘if the matter is brought out openly and discussed honestly then it is likely that a trusting relationship will develop and supervision will be fruitful’ (p. 20). As the previous section of this chapter argued, an aspect of difference does not have to be raised in a stark or confrontative manner. Within the framework of the cyclical model, some form of the question ‘How would you like me to work with you?’ can usefully be incorporated into any initial contracting session that a supervisor undertakes. When we are working with supervisees and clients from cultures or backgrounds that are different to our own, this kind of question provides a simple and immediate way to start checking out whether what we feel inclined and able to offer actually matches the expectations, needs and preferences of those we are seeking to help. Other versions of this question might include: ‘What would you like me to know about you that may help us to work together effectively?’ and ‘What differences between us might we need to discuss as our relationship develops?’ Open questions such as these, that do not home in on an immediate and obvious difference such as skin colour or gender, allow the supervisee to introduce what they consider to be important at the outset and, importantly, give them permission to do so later, as well, as the supervision proceeds. In writing about race and culture in counselling, Dupont-Joshua (1996) suggests that therapists may respectfully draw attention to issues of difference in a way that empowers the client when they make a statement such as ‘I don’t know too much about your culture of origin: I would be interested to hear from you’ (p. 221). A statement such as this can begin to ameliorate the power differential in the relationship by letting the client know that the therapist considers them to be more knowledgeable than themselves and also by acknowledging that counsellor and client may need to look at their differences together. This reasoning can usefully be translated to the context of supervision. Daniels and colleagues (1999) have suggested that courteous enquiry of this kind by the supervisor can also help to balance power differentials in transcultural supervision. They remark that in demonstrating an interest in learning about the supervisee’s perspectives and


213

knowledge about transcultural issues ‘supervisors acknowledge their respect for cultural diversity and demonstrate their interest in learning from their supervisees about the values, traditions, and worldviews of persons from different backgrounds’ (p. 202). Like counsellors, supervisors may also need to acknowledge their lack of culture-specific knowledge and learn enough humility to enquire tentatively into their supervisee’s world-view and experience where it is different to their own. If the place to initiate discussion of difference is in the contract stage of the cyclical model, then the review stage of the model provides a place to check that differences between supervisor and supervisee are being appropriately acknowledged and taken into consideration. For example, if supervisor and supervisee have agreed to review their work together six months after starting, it may be useful within any sort of mixed pair for the supervisor, at this point, to say something like: ‘Over the few months we have been meeting I have become aware of how different your background and life experience appear to be in comparison with mine. I’m not sure if I have acknowledged this well enough and I wonder about how it affects our working relationship and whether it is an issue we need to talk more about.’ This kind of opener may lead to more detailed exploration of how the different life experiences, values and beliefs of the supervisor and supervisee influence, say, their goals for counselling and their expectations of supervision. It may only be after the supervisor and supervisee have experienced a number of sessions working together that they are able to identify and name some of the different views and perspectives on supervision and therapy that appear to exist between them. Mini-reviews at the end of separate supervision meetings can provide regular opportunities for supervisor and supervisee to listen out for echoes from the session that can be given the form of questions like the following: ‘What is still reverberating between us?’; ‘What has been amplified?’; ‘What is becoming known and hasn’t been said between us?’; ‘What needs attending to now in our relationship?’; ‘What needs naming so that we can leave it here and not carry it away?’; ‘What might need exploring further?’ Constructive questioning of this kind can provide opportunities for the different experiences and perspectives of supervisor and supervisee to be openly discussed in the service of developing and maintaining a healthy and respectful relationship.


In Chapter 8 we discussed how the technique of IPR can be adapted to facilitate reviews of supervision. IPR has also been identified as a useful tool to enhance transcultural supervision. González (1997) advocates the use of IPR in supervision as a process to encourage honest dialogue about transcultural issues as they arise in the supervisee’s practice. He has adopted the term ‘appreciative enquiry’ for the use of IPR in this context and suggests that its purpose in multicultural supervision ‘is to provide supervisees with a safe haven for their perceptions and reactions’ (p. 357). He recommends that supervisees be encouraged to bring audio or video tapes of counselling sessions with a transcultural component to supervision. In the true spirit of IPR, either supervisor or supervisee can stop the tape at any point to discuss their reactions to it. Within this process, Gonzalez advises that the supervisor’s role should be that of ‘facilitator to stimulate the awareness of the supervisee beyond the point at which it operated during the therapy session’ (ibid.). As Clarke (1997:94) has explained, the method ‘relies upon “discovery learning”, so the supervisor in inquirer role aims to keep the supervisee’s attention focused on their own inner experience of their earlier transactions with the client’ as the recording of a session is reviewed. The sensitive use of IPR, in which a good measure of control over the process is given to the supervisee, can help to lessen defensive reactions and overcome rigid stances. It can open the way to new perspectives and increase sensitivity and awareness to cultural differences and expectations— particularly those that have been missed or overlooked by the counsellor during the recorded therapy session. The ability to engage in open and constructive reviewing of this nature depends, then, to a large degree on the quality of the relationship that has developed between supervisor and supervisee. Mutuality within the relationship is crucial to the success of the supervision work as it constitutes the cornerstone upon which all else is built. Mutuality within supervision is first and foremost about how power is used or misused by the supervisor. The lack of power that supervisees (particularly where they are trainees) typically have in their relationships with their supervisors has been highlighted by McNeill and colleagues (1995). They suggest that it is incumbent on supervisors to take responsibility for creating and maintaining a supervisory relationship and environment in which the needs and issues of culturally diverse supervisees are openly dealt with. In order to achieve this quality of relationship, the supervisor may need


215

to take care not to assume that the kind of relationship they offer as a therapist to their clients will automatically translate well to supervision. This is particularly true where the supervisor, as a therapist, works primarily with transference or from a stance where self disclosure is normally withheld. Williams (1995:65) advises that supervisors should be ready and willing to give of themselves in the service of facilitating their supervisees and warns that while ‘opacity may fit psychoanalysis and “draw the transference”, it is not appropriate for supervision’. Supervisees in a position of less power than their supervisors, whether by dint of their trainee or minority status, may well interpret such a stance adopted by the supervisor as indicative of disinterest, disrespect, arrogance, lack of understanding or prejudice. A supervision relationship that is characterised by transparency and mutuality will be better able to accommodate open and non-defensive exploration of aspects of difference than one imbued with a supervisor-generated aura of mystique and expertise. The supervisor who is able with diligence and sensitivity to address issues of difference and diversity between themselves and their supervisees will find that the process of supervision is likely to proceed in a more straightforward and open manner. In terms of the cyclical model, the focus, space and bridge stages of the model will hold the task of supervision more clearly and cleanly if issues of difference are explicitly acknowledged through regular and mutual contracting and the reviewing. UNIVERSAL AND CONTEXTUAL DIFFERENCES A helpful way of looking at issues of difference in supervision that may serve to avert the twin dangers, highlighted above, of overemphasis and under-emphasis is through the notion of universal and contextual difference. For the purposes of this discussion we would define universal differences as those attributes that differentiate one group of individuals from another within a particular society and which permeate the experience of life in general for members of that group. For instance, universal differences in contemporary British society would include, amongst others, those of age, sexual orientation, race, gender and disability. Universal differences may overlap wherever individuals see themselves affiliated with more than one special population—for example, individuals who identify themselves as older, male and


bisexual. Contextual differences, on the other hand, could be defined as those that need to be taken particular account of within certain situations. For example, a counselling student undertaking a placement within a team of experienced counsellors will be very aware of their trainee status and will, hopefully, have this difference in status appropriately recognised and accommodated. The two terms are not mutually exclusive. Differences are both universal and contextual and the question we are considering here is one of application and emphasis. In particular we are looking at the notion of universal and contextual differences as they apply to counselling and supervision contexts. Differences within the context of supervision may be experienced by the individual as both universal and contextual, but the emphasis will shift depending on the focus of the supervision. For instance, trainee counsellors may more generally identify themselves with the universal group of ‘mature students’ at the same time that particular aspects of being a student will require closer attention within the context of their counselling practice and supervision. The experience of being a trainee will have certain implications for the work undertaken with clients. For example, the supervisor will want to monitor with the trainee that they are competent to work with the clients referred to them at their current stage of personal and professional development. Within the supervision relationship, the trainee is likely to experience an unequal sharing of power between themselves and their supervisor associated with assessment and performance anxiety, and the supervisor needs to be sensitive to this particular contextual difference experienced by their supervisee. To consider differences in supervision as both universal and contextual provides an alternative perspective to approaches that emphasise types of individual difference. Whilst there is certainly a danger of masking racism and injustice where over-inclusive definitions of difference are used (Stone 1997), it is also likely that too narrow a focus on specific minority groups can lead to an oversimplification of the complexities of transcultural supervision. In considering this matter, a number of writers have highlighted the complexities of within-group difference in supervision. Patterson and Watkins (1996), for instance, have pointed out that traditional categories of cross-cultural difference have limited utility in guiding theory and practice whenever the existence of wide differences within cultural groups are taken into account. Indeed,


217

their review of the literature and research in this areas has indicated that wherever ‘within-group variance’ (p. 479) is significant when compared with ‘between-group variance, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to assign individuals to groups or to differentiate between groups’ (ibid.). Brown and LandrumBrown (1995), who also take a pluralistic perspective on difference in supervision, have identified difference as potentially ranged across three broad dimensions: ‘differences from the general population; differences from one’s cultural group, and differences from either or both of the other parties in the [triadic] supervisory process’ (p. 266). They point out the need to acknowledge that psychologically meaningful differences within cultural, racial or ethnic groups occur as frequently as cross-cultural differences and that these can seriously affect the supervisory process through ‘misperceptions and wrongly applied culturally specific knowledge and experience’ (p. 269). In their extensive review of supervision research, Stoltenberg and colleagues (1994) similarly identified the need for research in multicultural supervision to take greater account of within-group differences, including those of ‘ethnic identity, acculturation level and cultural mistrust’ in supervisees (p. 421). In a slightly later article (Stoltenberg et al. 1995), the same authors outline a prototypical integrated model of supervision based on Stoltenberg and Delworth’s (1987) original developmental model that would take greater account of inter- and intra-cultural differences along such dimensions as power and social influence. They suggest that the way forward now for supervision is not to develop more models and approaches designed specifically to address the diverse needs of different supervision populations; rather, they advocate that, in line with the movement towards integration of approaches in psychotherapy, developments in supervision theory and research should concentrate on extending, developing and integrating existing models. If this is to happen, Stoltenberg and colleagues (1995) recommend that pragmatism becomes the guiding force as research turns its attention to ‘discovering what supervisory interventions work best for which level of trainees, with which characteristics when used by supervisors, with what type of experience and which characteristics at what point in time’ (p. 646). Adopting the notion of universal and contextual difference can be helpful to the supervisor in underscoring the fact that supervisees and their clients will want and need different degrees of acknowledgement,


confirmation and affirmation of their experience of difference, both in their situational and general life experience. At different times, supervisors will need to attend to both the contextual and universal experiences of difference of their supervisees and their supervisees’ clients. Whenever the supervisor has supervisees from a racial or ethnic minority background, it is likely that she will need to attend, to a greater or lesser degree, to the residual impact of the supervisees’ experience of discrimination by members of the majority culture—i.e. their experience of universal difference. McNeill and colleagues (1995) suggest that the degree of attention will be greater, and the supervisor’s role in this more substantial, where the supervisee is a trainee. Citing the work of Vasquez and McKinley (1982), they suggest that a key function of the supervisor will be to assist the supervisee in reconciling their developing sense of professional identity with their ongoing cultural identity. When successful, this developmental process will produce a ‘bicultural’ identity in the supervisee where he or she is ‘able to compartmentalize or integrate aspects of the culture of psychology, while valuing maintaining those of his or her own culture’ (pp. 249–250). McNeill and colleagues advise that proceeding along this developmental path can be arduous for the trainee, particularly at points where the culture of psychology conflicts with the trainee’s cultural background. To illustrate their discussion, they consider a study undertaken by Zuniga (1987) into the supervisory experience of Mexican-American counselling trainees (interns). This study drew the following conclusions. The processing of racism experiences in the trainees’ educational history within the supervisory relationship was viewed as a particularly critical training issue. Because of these past experiences, interns vacillated from believing in their capabilities to feeling they were incompetent. Supervision allowed the interns to examine their self-doubts, express feelings of inadequacy, and process feelings associated with past instances of racism. Supervisors also noted the strengths that interns had developed as survivors in a hostile system and emphasized feelings of empowerment rather than victimization. (McNeill et al. 1995:250) Research of this kind, which has explored the supervision needs of ethnic minority trainees, confirms our view that supervision should


219

accommodate the experiences brought to it by supervisees of both universal and contextual difference. The personal and professional selves of therapists are inseparable and effective supervisors need to develop the capacity to help supervisees integrate their life experiences into their professional identities in a constructive and healing manner (Wosket 2000b). WORKING WITH ASPECTS OF DIFFERENCE WITHIN THE SUPERVISION SPACE As a general rule, we believe supervisors should be guided by the preferences of their supervisees in how difference is acknowledged and addressed between them within the supervision space. An example where one of us worked with a mixed-race supervisee may serve to illustrate our thinking about this. During initial contracting and over a period of several months, where we regularly reviewed our work together, the supervisee did not draw attention to his origin. It first became a subject for discussion when the supervisee chose in one session to discuss his responses to a West Indian client who had talked in a counselling session of his experiences of racism and said: ‘You’re black, like me, so you’ll understand what I mean.’ The supervisee brought his feelings of surprise and discomfort to explore in supervision, where he said, ‘I don’t think of myself as black and I was surprised when my client identified so closely with me.’ To contrast with this account, we also know of the experience of a mixed-race supervisee who felt that her first supervisor exhibited racism in not drawing attention to the difference in colour between them. For her, this increased her sense of the imbalance of power between the two of them where she, as a trainee, already felt substantially less powerful than her white supervisor. These two examples illustrate that, as supervisors, it is important that we don’t assume we know the degree to which our supervisees wish their experience of difference to be discussed in supervision. This thinking has been reinforced by our experience of working with supervisees of different sexuality. When we supervise lesbian, gay and bisexual therapists it is evident that some wish their sexuality to be openly acknowledged and affirmed as part of their professional identity. Others we have supervised have seen their sexuality as a private and personal matter that rarely becomes a topic for


discussion in supervision, and only where it appears to have an immediate impact on client work. Both supervisor and supervisee share a responsibility to acknowledge and consider difference. The supervisor has the responsibility to open up the potential space for discussion where there appear to be pertinent differences between supervisor and supervisee, or between the supervisee and their client(s) where it seems there are ‘live’ issues of difference that are not being addressed. The supervisee has a responsibility to be alert to issues of difference and diversity in their counselling practice and bring these to supervision in order to work through and process them. They also have a responsibility to let their supervisor know how they wish their own experience of difference to be acknowledged and explored within the supervision space. Bernard and Goodyear (1992:222) have observed that ‘most minority issues can be diffused with time when openness is encouraged and there is good faith’, and it is the supervisor’s responsibility, as the person who has most power in the supervisory relationship, to establish the kind of atmosphere in which issues of difference can be openly and safely addressed by either party. A useful approach to developing sensitivity to aspects of difference and diversity in supervision is one that emphasises goodwill on the part of the supervisor towards supervisees as they struggle to assume cultural accountability. Rapp (2000) points out that few people working in the field of counselling and supervision want, intentionally, to maintain their prejudices. Furthermore, she asserts that ‘in supervision we invite trust, we encourage people to show their limitations, and therefore we must not shame one another for sharing our weak spots, our blinkers and our prejudices’ (p. 96). Instead, she advocates a ‘compassionate’ approach to developing culturally sensitive practice that relies on encouragement of one another ‘to let go of our insensitivities, preconceptions, prejudices and our irrational fear of difference’ (ibid.). Generating a climate of openness and good faith within culturally sensitive supervision has been advocated by a number of writers. With a particular focus on lesbian-related issues in counselling supervision, Buhrke (1989) has considered the responsibilities of both supervisor and supervisee across the possible dimensions of homophobia that may exist within the supervision matrix. She advocates an educational approach with an emphasis on conflict resolution wherever possible. A number of her


221

suggestions can usefully be applied as general guidelines for antidiscriminatory practice in supervision. For example, in considering the supervisory dyad where the supervisor is not homophobic and the supervisee is, Buhrke suggests that the supervisor can provide a good learning opportunity for the supervisee to identify, challenge and overcome their homophobic attitudes as long as the supervision relationship remains intact and conflict is dealt with in an open and constructive manner. For instance the supervisor, if she is lesbian, may choose to come out to the supervisee; she can model homophobia-free attitudes, dispel homophobic myths and assumptions and act as a source of information in a directly challenging yet supportive manner. Hitchings (1999), in writing about supervision and sexual orientation, provides a rationale for the approach that Buhrke advocates here in considering the social responsibility that supervisors hold to challenge discriminatory attitudes and behaviours: The profession of counselling is in a unique position to help end the discrimination against lesbian, gay and bisexual people. We all have the remnants of our early cultural assumptions within us and they are often institutionalised into our society. By developing honest, non-blaming, non-shaming supervisory relationships we can made a contribution to our own development, that of our supervisees and of course their clients. (Hitchings 1999:77) Perhaps a more difficult scenario to manage, as described by Buhrke, occurs where the supervisee is not homophobic and the supervisor is. Where the supervisor displays prejudice, Buhrke argues that the supervisee has a responsibility to challenge the supervisor to overcome their homophobia in the same manner as the supervisor has an obligation to challenge the supervisee in the previous example. As a last resort, where the supervisor refuses to consider the impact of his or her homophobia on the supervision and counselling work, Buhrke suggests that the supervisee may need to draw the supervisor’s homophobia to the attention of the supervisor’s supervisor. It might take a great deal of courage for any supervisee to resort to such a course of action, given their relative position of unequal power within the supervision relationship, yet this would certainly be a legitimate response in the face of intransigent discriminatory views held by a supervisor.


The possibility of a dilemma such as this, where the supervisee is aware of discriminatory attitudes or behaviour by their supervisor, raises an issue about the induction of supervisees into the roles, responsibilities and tasks of supervision (Inskipp 1999; Page 1999b). Trainers have a responsibility to tell their counselling trainees what to expect from competent, anti-oppressive, supervision practice and inform them of their right to protest if they don’t feel they are getting this. Giving trainees access to BAC’s (1996) Code of Ethics and Practice for the Supervision of Counsellors, which gives guidance on the requirements for anti-discriminatory practice in counselling and supervision, is good standard practice. Trainees should also be informed that there are a number of ways of making a protest if their supervision seems remiss in this area. Ideally, the supervisee will be encouraged to raise such issues in the first instance with their supervisor. If lack of trust or power in the relationship makes this difficult, or if the supervisor refuses to address their discriminatory behaviour, the supervisee should know that there are others to whom they can turn for support and advice—course tutors, advisers within professional associations, even, as Buhrke advocates, the person who provides supervision to their supervisor. It is to be applauded that a growing number of writers and researchers are developing models, guidelines and training programmes for anti-oppressive supervision practice (see, for instance, Bernard and Goodyear 1992; British Institute of Integrative Psychotherapy 1999; Brown and Landrum-Brown 1995; Coleman 1999; Cook 1994; Daniels et al. 1999; Grant 1999; Hitchings 1999; Lago and Thompson 1996; López et al. 1989; Nelson 1997; PopeDavis and Coleman 1997; Rapp 1998, 2000; Spy and Oyston 1999). A useful, empirically validated integrated model for developing transcultural sensitivity in trainees and supervisees has been proposed by López and colleagues (López et al. 1989). Like Buhrke, whose approach is discussed above, they advocate a facilitative stance to encourage supervisees to begin to understand and value the different cultural contexts of their clients’ lives through a balance of support and challenge. López and his colleagues adopt a developmental perspective on the acquisition of cultural competency that parallels and shares some characteristics with Stoltenberg and Delworth’s (1987) developmental model of supervision. They suggest that four key stages reflect the development of cultural sensitivity in supervisees as they gain experience. These are summarised as follows: ‘stage 1 is an unawareness of cultural issues; stage 2 is a heightened awareness of


223

culture; stage 3 is the burden of considering cultural issues; stage 4 is moving toward the integration of culture in one’s clinical work’ (p. 370). These stages are usefully elaborated in their article and each stage is illustrated by students’ written accounts of how they experienced dealing with transcultural issues throughout their training. López and colleagues advise that the interventions of the supervisor need to take account of the supervisee’s development level at each stage in calculating the right balance of support and challenge to use to facilitate the supervisee’s progress towards cultural competency. They provide some useful guidelines for the supervisor in how to manage this process. For example, they caution that supervisors should not immediately interpret a supervisee’s difficulties and impatience with transcultural issues as resistance or prejudice. Instead, supervisors need to take account of the fact that it is normal for trainees to go through a period of experiencing a preoccupation with cultural factors that feels burdensome. At this stage López and colleagues suggest that the supervisor’s role is to tolerate the supervisee’s responses and allow them to express their frustrations. This is more likely to enable the supervisee to progress to the integration stage than direct forceful challenge or confrontational interpretation of the supervisee’s behaviour as resistance. Although López and colleagues propose that their developmental model is a useful device for helping supervisors and their supervisees understand the process of acquiring cultural sensitivity, they also warn against viewing this process as a smooth progression with a finite outcome. In practice the model is mediated by the realities of clinical work where many challenges and setbacks are likely to be encountered as the counsellor attempts to respond effectively to the rich variety of world-views and frames of reference brought by their clients. López and colleagues conclude that the developmental process for less experienced counsellors, ‘may be better characterized as a fluid, discontinuous process than as a continuous stagelike process’ and, for more experienced practitioners, as ‘a continuous therapeutic challenge’ in which ‘clinicians must engage with each client throughout psychotherapy’ (p. 375). As we have seen, working sensitively with issues of difference in supervision requires the supervisor to pay close attention to the dynamics of power and involvement as they manifest themselves within the relationship and supervisory discourse. A number of researchers have addressed the dynamics through studying the


relationship between gender and power in supervision. Nelson and Hollo way (1990) conducted a substantial study of forty supervisors paired with forty supervisees who were undertaking Masters level training in counselling. The sample was divided into four gender dyad types: ten pairs of female supervisors with female supervisees; ten pairs of female supervisors with male supervisees; ten pairs of male supervisors with male supervisees, and ten pairs of male supervisors with female supervisees. Audio taped supervision sessions from the forty pairs were analysed along dimensions of power and involvement. Findings from the study suggested that ‘both male and female supervisors fail to encourage or support their female trainees’ assumption of power in the supervision session and that female trainees relinquish power in deference to a more powerful authority figure significantly more often than male trainees’ (p. 479). Further findings indicated that ‘supervisors do not reinforce the female trainee’s attempts to assume the expert role and that, even when a female trainee encounters the opportunity to assume power, she defers’ (ibid.). Conclusions from this study indicate that some disquieting realities of power inequality underpin the supervision of female therapists, perhaps particularly when they are trainees: It appears that individuals in the expert role, regardless of gender, may assume more power in interaction with their female subordinates than with their male subordinates, either by withholding support for the female subordinates’ attempts at exerting power or by simply exerting stronger influence with female subordinates. In the supervisory relationship the female trainee may respond to this stance on the part of her supervisor by declining opportunities to assert herself as expert. (Nelson and Holloway 1990:479) The findings of Nelson and Holloway are supported by a smaller study undertaken several years later by Granello and colleagues (1997). In their study, twenty supervisory dyads of various gender pairings were studied via audio taped recordings of supervision sessions over a five-month period. Results from this study showed that supervisors ‘asked for significantly more opinions and suggestions from male supervisees than from female supervisees. On average, male supervisees were asked for their opinion more than twice as often as female supervisees’ (p. 313). A further


225

analysis of the data indicated that this pattern did not significantly alter as supervisory relationships developed over time: ‘Female supervisees in longer supervisory relationships… were told what to do by their supervisors more often, and were able to generate their own responses less often than were their male supervisees (ibid.). An important question raised by this study, and highlighted by the authors, is whether developmental models of supervision can be applied equally well to male and female supervisees. While the experience of the growth of autonomy in male supervisees in the study seemed to mirror closely the developmental process advocated by the majority of developmental models, the experience of female supervisees appeared to fall less in line with this process. Granello and colleagues suggest that their findings raise a fundamental question about the validity of developmental models of supervision: Although the counselling profession adheres to developmental models of supervision, male and female supervisees may not be given the same opportunities to develop into independent practitioners. In this study, supervisors of both sexes did not enhance the developmental potential of female supervisees at the same level they did for male supervisees. (Granello et al. 1997) Both of these studies, which confirm other research undertaken on gender and power in supervision (Nelson 1997; Nelson and Holloway 1999), provide important indicators that supervisors need to attend to power differentials in supervision, particularly where they appear to be entrenched in social expectations of gender roles and cross-gender behaviours. Nelson and Holloway (1999:29) have explicitly stated that ‘supervisors need to be aware that their women supervisees need more help than the men in assuming power in the interaction’. Taylor (1994) implies that supervision has an important educative, or even re-educative, role to play in this area and argues that a key task of supervision is to help ‘supervisees bridge the gap between where their own gender socialisation has brought them and where they need to be in order to be helpful to others’ (p. 326). A recommendation commonly made by writers on the dynamics of power in supervision is that, in the interests of parity, supervisors need to make a conscious effort to refrain from advice-


giving in favour of interventions that generate more reflection and autonomous decision-making in supervisees. González (1997) suggests that the challenge supervisors must engage with in the interests of their supervisees’ growth towards autonomy is not to override supervisees’ own knowledge and thereby undermine their sense of trusting what they know and feel. In the course of helping supervisees acquire cultural competence, he advises that permission be given to supervisees to be ‘imperfect with regard to multiculturalism’ and to ‘reveal ignorance and misunderstanding’ (p. 380). In so doing, his hope is that with the help of their supervisors, ‘supervisees will not experience guilt for what they accept and believe’ but will come to ‘take personal responsibility for accepting as much as they can, and challenge themselves to examine socially constructed, oppressive attitudes and beliefs that they uncritically may have bought in to’ (ibid.). Taking up the theme of power in supervision, Rapp (2000:103) has observed that good supervision is, or should be, ‘emancipatory’. She recommends that supervision should follow a partnership model that generates autonomy through encouraging supervisees ‘to use their own meaning system, and set their own agenda by taking responsibility for contracting what work is to be done to ensure culturally competent ethical practice’. In giving consideration to the growth of autonomy in supervisees, Neufeldt (1999) has advised that the ideal outcome of supervision is the instillation of a reflective process in supervisees that continues long after the supervision session has ended, and she has developed a number of exercises designed to enhance reflective competence in supervisees. Nelson and Hollo way (1990) have linked the importance of addressing power differentials in supervision with the wider issue of facilitating the professional identity of the supervisee: The trainee not only learns from the direct instructional methods of the supervisor, but also acquires a sense of professional relatedness, or interpersonal style, which results from the dynamics of the relationship. The counselor’s understanding of her or his own interpersonal style is a critical dimension in her or his professional development. Thus the manner in which the counselor learns to engage with a powerful, significant other in the supervisory process is an important outcome of supervision. (Nelson and Holloway 1990:479)


227

The important point made here, and one which is transferable to good practice generally in supervision, is that the interpersonal dynamics of supervision relationships, whether productive or counter-productive, will find resonance in the supervisee’s counselling relationships. Supervisors therefore have a responsibility to ensure that power is shared as equally as possible between themselves and their supervisees, and must be especially vigilant and proactive in so doing wherever the supervisee is from a minority group, or one that holds less power within the dominant culture (Martinez and Holloway 1997). This is not to suggest that supervisors disown the power inherent in their role. Rather, as Nelson (1997:125) advocates, the supervisor ‘must use his or her expert power to assist the trainee in assuming power’ in order to enable the supervisee ‘to professionally emerge with his or her own sense of power’. In relation to the cyclical model of supervision, the focus and bridge stages are particular areas where the supervisor should be careful to ensure that the supervisee has ownership of the process. At the focusing stage, it is important that needs and objectives are explicitly stated and agreed so that supervisor and supervisee are not working at cross-purposes. During the bridging stage, particularly around goal setting and action planning, the supervisor should take care to ensure that decisions about what is carried forward are explicitly handed over to the supervisee. This discussion of how supervisors may help their supervisees acquire cultural competence and sensitivity indicates that a supportive and respectful stance is required (Rawson et al. 1999). A simplistic attitude towards issues of difference in supervision might assume that discriminatory attitudes can be rooted out by a vigilant supervisor requiring their supervisees to make the necessary politically correct shifts in thinking and behaviour. Yet the true essence of cultural competence in supervision and counselling lies more in an ongoing commitment to remain open to challenge from others whose experience of the world may not sit comfortably with one’s own, than in holding a fixed political stance. Responding sensitively and flexibly to the complexities and intricacies of anti-oppressive supervision practice represents, as González (1997) has asserted, more of a dance than a stance. Cultural accountability in supervisors does require active monitoring of contextual (political, social and institutional) oppression but also requires, to use Rapp’s (2000) phrase, close


attention to ‘the subtle ways in which we constantly misuse one another’ (p. 104). As Bernard (1994) has pointed out, supervision of supervision plays a vital role in this observationary process: ‘It is unreasonable to expect that supervisors can monitor their own multicultural development because that would be tantamount to asking supervisors to monitor their own blindspots’ (p. 170). Loganbill et al. (1982) have proposed that cultural accountability for therapists and supervisors requires an essentially proactive stance and ‘consists of a deep and basic respect for the essential core of the other person’ which ‘may require a directed and dedicated effort to understand another person’s perspectives, rather than simple passive acceptance’ (p. 23). This is a view that we wholeheartedly endorse.

Chapter 12

Super vising experienced practitioners

Chapter 11 dealt with issues of difference and diversity in supervision. In that chapter we argued strongly for the need for supervisors to develop an ability to be supervisee-directed in response to transcultural issues in supervision. This chapter explores a further aspect of supervisee-responsiveness in considering the supervision needs of a particular group of counsellors and therapists—those who are experienced practitioners. We have included this chapter because, as we see it, the majority of the supervision literature currently available applies mainly to the supervision of trainees and newly qualified therapists. We think that the supervision needs of experienced practitioners are, at times, sufficiently different to those of novice counsellors to merit separate attention. In our view the difference mainly comes down to supervisor and supervisee needing to work more closely at the interface between supervision and therapy in the service of enhancing the personal and professional development of the therapist. We would suggest that, to a large degree, the supervision issues of mature, experienced practitioners are also their life issues. SUPERVISION AND ONGOING PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT The personal and professional selves of many therapists become increasingly inseparable as they gain experience. To the extent that experienced therapists draw on aspects of themselves in their therapeutic work, they need to bring to supervision those parts of the self that are touched and affected by their clients (Wosket 2000b). Aponte (1982) has written about how the personal issues 229


that are aroused for therapists in their relationships with clients can impact on the therapy in productive ways when therapists find ‘creative ways of handling these difficulties’ (p. 46). In essence this involves the therapist learning to utilise an expanded awareness of their own personal reactions to clients as a way of interacting more congruently with clients. Close supervision is a prerequisite to the ethical use of self in this respect as it provides a forum in which the raw material of the therapist’s personal responses can be processed and shaped into clinical strategies that may then become available as potent therapeutic interventions (Wosket 1999). Within the supervision literature there is a notable lack of attention paid to the supervision needs of experienced practitioners (Lawton 2000). Most existing models and approaches to supervision, especially those developed in America, are designed to meet the requirements of trainee and novice practitioners. As Feltham (2000) has noted, few researchers have shown interest in identifying what the supervision needs of more experienced counsellors might be and how these can best be met. One of the few studies to have thrown light on this topic is that carried out by Winter and Holloway (1991) who looked at the relationship that existed between a counsellor’s experience and the types of audiotaped sections of counselling sessions they selected to take to supervision. The fifty-six counsellors who took part in their study were in advanced training, with thirty enrolled on Master-level courses and the remaining twenty-six on doctoral level programmes. The sample evidenced a range of counselling experience from novice to well experienced. Findings from the study indicated that the less experienced supervisees preferred to focus on their clients in supervision, while the more experienced counsellors preferred the focus of supervision to be on themselves, in particular ‘on their own concerns related to personal growth issues, such as countertransference, self-efficacy, and selfawareness’ (Winter and Holloway 1991:98). Findings such as this support the view that more of an emphasis on the self of the counsellor is required in the supervision of experienced practitioners. This is not to suggest that supervision for experienced therapists should constitute self-indulgent introspection. Focus on the self in supervision is warranted in the service of developing the therapeutic use of self by the practitioner (Wosket 1999). One of us asked an experienced supervisee—a

Supervising experienced practitioners

231

seasoned therapist whom we had supervised for six years—to describe how her use of supervison had changed during that time. She summarised the change as follows: ‘in the beginning it was more about case-work, description, seeking strategies, techniques. Now I take my counselling relationships, transference and countertransference issues, my own responses to my clients and my inner feelings.’ It could be argued that supervisors have a key role to play in assisting the ongoing personal and professional development of experienced therapists. Research and received wisdom (Fear and Woolfe 2000; Horton 2000; Skovholt and Rønnestad 1992; Williams 1995; Wosket 1999) indicate that the majority of therapists do not rest within the confines of their early training approach beyond a year or two post-qualification. As they gain experience counsellors will endeavour to develop their own personally integrated approach to therapy. A personally integrated style of therapy will have many components. Key elements are likely to be:

• • • • • • • • • • •

my image and concept of the person (person view); my image and concept of the world and its phenomena (worldview); my personal values, beliefs and biases; my own personal and cultural history—together with an appreciation of how it may differ from that of others; my understanding of what constitutes psychological disturbance and health; my understanding of the origin and perpetuation of psychological distress; my understanding of the principles of therapeutic change; my understanding of the goals of counselling or therapy; my repertoire of counselling strategies and interventions—and ability to adjust these to take account of different client populations and counselling contexts; my experience and understanding of my own upbringing and developmental process; my awareness and understanding of my own dysfunctional attributes and how they impact on my practice of counselling.

Supervision can usefully provide a place for any and all of these components to be explored in relation to client work. Williams


(1995:265) suggests that supervision has a vital part to play in the counsellor ’s process of developing a personally authentic therapeutic orientation in providing a ‘wisdom culture’. Within such a culture the developing therapist is encouraged to acquire clinical wisdom through a process of exploration, reflection and discovery in which the basic tenets of their initial training are questioned and tested against the realities of clinical practice. The supervisor’s role here, as expressed by Williams, is to help supervisees ‘pick their way deliberately among the therapeutic models in which they have been trained and assist them in resolving the contradictory ideas of the therapeutic world, as well as the paradoxes that they and their clients face’ (p. 266). This is difficult work for any counsellor to attempt on their own, where it may easily lead to confusion, despondency, or impasse. When such issues are ‘chewed over’ with an interested, supportive and affirming supervisor a way forward may be found to take the counsellor further along the path to becoming an authentic and personally determined practitioner. We believe that there is still a clear educative component to the supervision of experienced practitioners. For instance, part of the task of supervision is to help the mature therapist translate theory into practice as they continue to assimilate knowledge from research, reading, workshops and conferences. Importantly, supervision may also enable the supervisee to reclaim some of what their early training may have dispossessed them of. The components of therapeutic effectiveness are many and varied and counselling training educates the trainee in a number of these, most notably, helping them acquire a range of effective counselling interventions and an ability to manage the counselling process. Yet in the course of training many of the therapeutic attributes that a novice counsellor naturally possesses may become lost or sidelined because they have been undervalued, or disregarded as not fitting with the philosophy and methodology of the training model. A number of writers (Feltham 1995; Keith 1987; Kottler 1992; Lazarus 1990; Mair 1992; Shohet 1992) have observed that the natural ability and spontaneity of the therapist may atrophy rather than augment during training. Keith (1987) suggests that orthodox approaches to training with their emphasis on models may obstruct and discourage creative and spontaneous behaviour by novice counsellors through the implication that deviation from the model may damage clients or lead to unsafe practice. He has observed


233

that orthodox training may sap the counsellor’s original vitality since many therapists enter the profession in order to enhance and ‘deepen their connection with the Self’ yet ‘too often professional training patterns take over and the Self is obscured or put to sleep’ (p. 61). Skovholt and Rønnstad (1992), in their respected five-year research study of counsellor development, claim to have uncovered an ‘unlearning’ process of ‘professional individuation’ that occurs for therapists post-training. This process, which they suggest can take anything up to thirty years, essentially consists of a challenge for therapists to ‘individually decide which elements of the professionally imposed rigidity to shed and which elements of the internal self to express’ (p. 103). The process needs to be successfully negotiated before the true self of the therapist, paradoxically, returns to something approaching its pre-training authenticity in which ‘the professional and personal selves are in close proximity’ (p. 104). Learning to use the self therapeutically demands the kind of individual attention and ongoing focused reflection that supervision provides. Potentially at least, supervision has the capacity to address deficits in formal training through providing a forum where, metaphorically speaking, the supervisor can help bring the blood back to parts of the supervisee’s persona that have become numb through lack of use. Good supervision can help to give life back to aspects of the self that the training experience may have extinguished—for example, attributes like the courage to do things differently, or the ability to trust one’s own sense of how to hold and preserve boundaries. Thus supervision may have a key role to play in the reconstruction of the authentic professional self. The role played by supervision in helping to develop the therapeutic use of self is dealt with more fully in another publication (Wosket 1999). A further, unavoidable, limitation of training is that no matter how comprehensive it has been, no training experience can prepare therapists in advance to deal with all the exigencies of daily clinical practice. Supervision is a place where the many challenges and uncertainties of day-to-day encounters with clients can be thought about and processed. Skovholt and Rønnstad (1992) have identified one of the primary purposes of supervision for experienced practitioners as providing ongoing opportunities for the therapist to take a ‘reflective stance’ in order to process ‘impactful experiences’ (p. 107). Such experiences, they suggest,


can then ‘serve as small transformations in the way the individual perceives, conceptualizes and acts’ (p. 105) as they move towards developing their own personally authentic style. What to do when faced with issues their training didn’t prepare them for is a dilemma frequently brought to supervision by experienced practitioners. The following examples illustrate a few of the needs and dilemmas thrown up by the realities of clinical work that established practitioners may bring to supervision. In the first week back at work following a summer break, one of us had three individual supervision sessions with three different counsellors. This is how each of these supervisees started their session: The first person sat down and said: ‘I’ve had a dream that really troubled me and has left me feeling shaken. Can I tell you about it?’ The second person said: ‘I’ve been running through in my mind all the things I wanted to talk to you about since I last saw you, but I keep coming back to one word and I’ve written it in the middle of this piece of paper. It just says “Me!”’ The third person started with: ‘I felt really stirred up after our last session. I went away and started beating myself up and the feeling stayed with me for about a week until I managed to put it away.’ These may sound more like the opening remarks that clients might bring to their counsellors. Yet these were supervisees and all very experienced practitioners to boot. One was the manager of a large counselling service; another a senior clinical psychologist, and the third the principal counsellor and supervisor in a large voluntary organisation. There follows a summary of what then unfolded in the supervision of each of these therapists. The supervisee who came with a dream had dreamt about a former colleague who had been dismissed from their work setting several years previously for unethical practice. The supervisee had experienced some personal fallout from this and had been left feeling used, exploited and betrayed. In the dream the former colleague had merged into another person—the supervisee’s client. The client was proving very difficult to work with at the time and frequently intruded into the supervisee’s thoughts outside of counselling sessions, causing him a lot of anxiety. From the dream he realised that the client reminded him strongly of his former colleague and that he was fearful of being manipulated by the client in a similar way. One of the outcomes of the supervision was that he was offered an additional supervision session for debriefing the original episode at work, as it became clear that no one had offered support or debriefing to him at the time.


235

The second supervisee who wrote ‘Me!’ in the centre of her notebook also needed to debrief something—in this case an increasingly stressful work situation. An outcome of the supervision was that she planned a strategy for saying ‘no more’ to a line manager who relentlessly piled additional work and pressure onto her. In the course of the session she made some important links between herself and her client work, one of which was that her sense of being dumped on at work affected her confidence and self-esteem as a counsellor. In particular, she now doubted her ability to help one current client express bottled up anger. In the supervision session the supervisee became more aware of her own suppressed anger. Out of this exploration came some energy, both for confronting her line manager about her insupportable work load, and for responding more creatively to her client’s repressed anger. The third supervisee had disclosed that she had gone away from the previous session ‘beating herself up’. In the previous supervision session she had realised how adrift she had become from basic empathy towards a particular client. The client confirmed this when she next saw him and when she used immediacy to discuss the issue with him. The client was able to tell her that her attempt to get him to see his strengths and resources hadn’t been what he needed. Rather, he had wanted her to hear how desperate and ashamed he felt about himself. After this encounter with the client the supervisee had experienced a crisis of confidence in relation to her professional identity. She brought this to her supervision session where time was then spent looking at some big questions triggered by this experience—such as: ‘What kind of counsellor am I?’ and ‘Is the way I’m trying to work compatible with who I am as a person?’ In these three vignettes the focus of supervision was on the self of the supervisee more than it was on specific counselling interactions. Yet the examples indicate that time and attention given to the person of the therapist can have a productively knock-on effect for clients by helping supervisees explore and work through that which is blocking or disturbing them in their client work. Skovholt and Rønnstad’s (1992) research into the evolving professional self of the therapist (as outlined above) has shown that ‘personal life is a central component of professional functioning’ for many counsellors as they gain experience (p. 117). They suggest that the most effective therapists, through a process of continual professional reflection, come ‘to integrate themes of… personal life into


professional practice in a way that is most beneficial to clients and authentic to the individual’. Their research uncovered that these themes ‘often relate to pain involving family of origin, definition of self, and other fundamental issues’ (ibid.). The willingness of the supervisor to encourage supervisees’ exploration of relevant aspects of both the professional and the personal self within supervision can make a significant difference to whether stagnation or fruitful development takes place for the therapist as they search for a personally authentic and integrated counselling style. The following account by one of our supervisees illustrates how this tension of working at the interface between supervision and therapy may be managed in practice: I had begun to realise over a short period of time that I was feeling quite vulnerable and, at times, pretty emotional. Somehow these feelings seemed to be getting triggered by the work I was doing with several particularly vulnerable clients. As I headed for my supervision session I knew I was feeling emotional and I also knew I had some client work I needed to address. I began by telling my supervisor how vulnerable I was feeling but quickly became emotional. My supervisor was very supportive and ‘gave me permission’ to cry if I needed to and to say a bit about what was going on for me. What emerged and became clearer to me was that some of the client work I was doing was touching some personal issues of my own around feelings of loss and not being accepted or understood as a child. My supervisor recognised that we were verging on moving into counselling, instead of supervision, and as we talked about this, we both agreed that it would be a good idea for me to arrange some personal counselling. My supervisor gave me some space to ‘step back’ from what was going on for me personally and, after a while, we continued with my supervision. It felt very important to me that I had been given that space to address what was going on for me, to have felt held and supported, whilst the boundaries between supervision and counselling had been maintained. This enabled me to address my client work and go back to my clients confident that I was OK to continue with them and that I was seeking help for myself. As they begin to bring the more vulnerable parts of themselves to supervision, counsellors may experience feelings of disquiet,


237

embarrassment or even shame. They may feel that despite their best efforts to remain composed and self-possessed with clients, their professional persona has slipped or received a painful jolt. This may leave them feeling insecure, bruised and shaky. If the supervisee takes these feelings to supervision and receives a response from their supervisor that is neither shaming nor critical, they may then choose for themselves to undertake further selfscrutiny of their less acceptable and more fallible attributes. The process of deliberately seeking out aspects of the self that seem, at first sight, most antipathetic to the task of counselling requires the supervisee to act with considerable courage and integrity. To find one’s own capacity to be vicious, cruel, exploitative, abusive, devious, or to recognise one’s ability to take pleasure in the suffering of others is unsavoury in itself. For a counsellor to face such elements of who they are and accept the potential impact of this upon their relationships with clients, will inevitably be deeply alarming for any counsellor who is truly committed to what they are doing. To find a way to allow such aspects of themselves to inform their work with clients requires a very detailed scrutiny of their internal responses to those clients. This journey from recognising any aspect of personal shadow to learning how to use this discovery to inform and improve therapeutic interactions 1 is one in which the counsellor needs to have, and experience, the support and assistance of their supervisor. The supervisor will need to communicate their acceptance of those potentially shameful aspects of the counsellor that are being brought out into the open. They also need to be alongside the counsellor in ensuring that clients are not being harmed. Often the counsellor will be over-cautious or have unnecessarily rigid boundaries in place and will need to be encouraged to loosen the hold they have on themselves sufficiently to allow internal dialogue between parts of the self to take place. Take the simple example of a counsellor who has a strong puritanical streak that he has habitually masked, to himself as well as those around him, with an overlay of liberal acceptance. His resultant counsellor persona will be much appreciated by clients, but as a consequence he is likely to shy away from any 1

This is a summary of the process of shadow incorporation described in Page (1999a).


confrontation that contains the slightest hint of moral judgement. The challenge to this counsellor is to learn how to listen to what the puritanical critic within him might like to say to his clients. His supervisor will need to encourage him to do this in the relative safety of the supervisory session. Then the supervisor can help him tease out how some of these responses to clients might be transformed into useful questions or challenges. In this way the counsellor will become more rounded in his range of interventions, and also more congruent in the way that he relates to clients. In speaking about supervision and spirituality Carroll (1998) has described supervision as a ‘form of retreat’. He suggests that in supervision ‘we retreat in order to return differently and of course when we are different so are others’. The idea of supervision as a retreat brings in the notion of supervision as a forum for therapist reflexivity. Reflexivity is an important concept in supervision. It is a particular form of intentional reflection that has been defined by Rennie as a ‘turning back on the self (Rennie 1992:225). Reflexivity is a concept that incorporates notions both of self-awareness (reflection on self) and agency (an active self). In supervision, the supervisee’s reflexivity is facilitated by the supervisor in a similar way to that in which the therapist promotes reflexivity in the client. Rennie’s (1992) research into client reflexivity has shown that for a client the ‘reflexive moment is a “safety zone”: It is there that a course of action can be contemplated’ (p. 227). This notion of reflexivity as providing a safe space in which awareness can grow into intention is a good one to apply to supervision. If reflexivity is a turning back on self, then supervision can create an environment in which the therapist actively turns their attention inward and, with the supervisor’s help, searches out for that which was missed, overlooked, or known but not made conscious in the therapeutic work. SUPERVISING COUNSELLORS WHO WORK WITH EXTREMES OF CLIENT EXPERIENCE An aspect of the supervision of experienced practitioners that has received scarcely any attention in the literature is that of the supervision needs of counsellors who find themselves working with extremes of client experience. We should say here that in using the


239

term ‘extremes of client experience’ we are referring to the client who has encountered that which lies beyond the normal range of human experience.2 We have placed a discussion of this topic here to emphasise that therapists who take on work such as this should normally be experienced practitioners and not trainees. This is a point worth emphasising, not least because it is an aspect of supervision that relates to the monitoring of client welfare. In reality, it sometimes happens that supervisors find themselves supporting inexperienced therapists who, for whatever reason, find themselves out of their depth with issues brought by their clients. It may be, for instance, that intake and assessment procedures to filter appropriate clients through to trainees are inadequate within the counselling organisation where the trainee has found a placement. Or it may be that a trainee’s desperation to accumulate the required number of counselling practice hours for their course has temporarily overridden their ability to assess realistically what they are competent and capable of taking on. Supervisors of trainee and inexperienced therapists need to be vigorously alert to catching such occurrences in the early stages and supporting their supervisees in handing back, or referring on, those clients whose difficulties are beyond their current capacity to manage. We would like to emphasise that here we are entering a discussion about the supervision of experienced counsellors who are competent to work with extremes of client experience. Counsellors whose work brings them into contact with extremes of client experience will undoubtedly be extremely shaken by what they hear and witness as this may be harrowing in the extreme. Supervision plays a key role here in providing a safe, secure and contained place in which counsellors can debrief and even heal from this experience. In writing about the importance of supportive

2

Although supervision will at times need to accommodate talking about the explicit details of extreme client experience, we have decided not to do so in this chapter. Respecting the confidentiality of our own clients and of our supervisees and their clients has guided us here. We do, however, wish to authenticate our discussion in this section by saying that the views expressed here derive from our experience as supervisors and therapists who have worked with clients who have endured such things as severe self-mutilation, physical, sexual and psychological torture, and forced participation in acts of extreme sexual degradation, including bestiality, necrophilia and cannibalism.


supervision for his work with a client who had been ritually abused, Svensson (Sinanson and Svensson 1994) highlighted the key elements provided by his supervision as security and the need not to feel defensive. He gives this image to describe his experience of supervision: It was like being a deep-sea diver but feeling secure that the person on the surface boat [his supervisor] would stay there supporting me with oxygen. I also knew that the woman in the boat would study with interest anything I brought up from such depths as well as be concerned for my physical and mental well-being. (Sinanson and Svensson 1994:20) This image gives a picture of what supervision should ideally provide for counsellors involved in such work. Unfortunately, the reality is sometimes very different as there are a number of pitfalls which supervisor and supervisee may encounter. One particular danger that arises where supervisors work with counsellors who deal with extremes of client experience is that of avoidance. It is, of course, hard for both supervisor and supervisee to contemplate that which is beyond the normal range of the experience of a human being—even when contemplation is once (the counsellor) or twice (the supervisor) removed and the experience itself belongs to the client. Add to this the fact that the more extreme the experience, the more likely it is that the client may need to relive, rather than merely report, what has happened to them in order to work through and clear the experience. No wonder then that supervisor and supervisee may wish to protect themselves and each other from the raw pain of such experience and its reliving, even whilst they are also intent on helping the client. Attempts at self and other protection, particularly when not fully in awareness, may translate into counsellor and supervisor getting hung up on questions such as: ‘Is the client telling the truth or not?’, or ‘What do we do about all of this?’ Questions such as these access a thinking rather than a feeling mode. As such, they can take therapist and supervisor away from the acute pain or terror of the original experience and provide some refuge in intellectual discussion. In writing about the supportive supervision of workers who are involved with clients who have suffered ritual abuse, Youngson (1994) emphasises that the supervisor who is too intent in finding solutions to help the worker ‘feel better’ will not


241

provide the quality of listening needed by the worker in order for them to feel heard and helped: My own experience of both receiving and giving support is that the simple but by no means easy task of the supporter is to listen; to encourage the worker to talk more; to share more of his/her feelings; to empathically enter the world of the worker, as the worker has empathically entered the world of the client. This ‘mirroring’ is profoundly supportive, and the end result is a worker who has gained an integrated sense of self, and has been freed to see again, with clarity, the professional and personal tasks… (Youngson 1994:300) Therapists and their supervisors are particularly prone to listen poorly and to disbelieve, or question, the truth of disclosures that they find unpalatable where what is disclosed proves uncomfortably dissonant with their own personal world-view or theoretical constructs (Orr 1999). This often happens in relation to the extreme abuse of children. There have been times when, as therapists and supervisors, we haven’t wanted to believe what we are hearing from clients and have found ourselves thinking ‘I don’t want this to be true, it is too horrific’, but this is very different from not believing. Perhaps those who have difficulty accepting that abominations happen to children degrade this natural reflex action of not wanting to know to one of not knowing—and hence not believing. Casement (1994:25) makes the telling observation that ‘colleagues are more likely to criticise the therapist than be willing to believe what they themselves have not yet encountered, or dare to consider with an equally open mind’. Where disbelief runs rife in such circumstances it can have unsettling consequences for the supervisee, as one of us experienced on the following occasion: I was once in the extremely uncomfortable position of unreservedly believing a client’s disclosures of extreme childhood abuse while my supervisor, her supervisor, the consultant psychiatrist and the community psychiatric nurse (i.e. all the significant professional others involved in the case) were expressing disbelief in the client’s story. At the time I felt deeply distressed, not only by my sense that the client had in


effect been ‘abandoned by disbelief at the point where he had finally summoned the courage to tell his story, but also by what I myself experienced as abandonment by my professional colleagues as I continued to fight for the client from what felt like a very frightening and isolated position. I do not think it is without relevance that one of these professionals said to me: ‘This is the worst case of abuse I have ever heard of, shortly before questioning the client’s veracity, and that another, with growing awareness of her need to shield herself, eventually conceded that perhaps she had been protecting herself in not believing the client because, as a mother herself, she did not want to know that such things could be done to a child. In discussing how therapists may respond to disclosures of extreme child abuse, Casement (1994:23–24) has observed that the courage to believe ‘means facing such degrees of deception and corruption of young children that one would no longer know what to believe. It is much less disorienting to think that these accounts could not be true.’ In a situation like this, not only does the counsellor need the courage to believe if he or she is to hope ever to release the client from the isolation and torment that such extreme abuse can create, but so too does the supervisor. The counsellor needs to be held securely in the knowledge that their supervisor can tolerate the horror of the client’s story with them without deflecting it through doubt, disbelief or rationalisation. When we take such material to supervision we have sometimes found ourselves wanting to apologise for bringing it, or even checking out whether our supervisor can bear to hear it. We have learned to try to resist these impulses to spare the supervisor, as we know that in so doing we are also sparing ourselves. There is a version of the old adage at work here: ‘If I don’t let myself think or talk about it, it might go away.’ This may be precisely the modus operandi by which the client has been living up to the time they entered therapy—and of course the experience hasn’t gone away for them. We have a duty to the client and a duty to care for ourselves in bringing such material to supervision. It is precisely because we have had to feel with our clients in order to relieve them of some of the impact of their primary trauma that we need to take our secondary trauma to supervision, where we then need our supervisor to feel the impact that the client’s story has had on us. Supervision here will sometimes serve the purpose of providing a


243

sanctuary for the counsellor and, by extension, for the client too. It can even be useful for the client who is fearful of overloading or contaminating their counsellor with their disclosures to know that the counsellor has a supervisor to whom they can go, in confidence, to offload their feelings. How does the supervisor deal with their supervisee’s secondary trauma and what, in effect, may then become their own tertiary trauma? It can be very difficult for the supervisor to stay in touch with the client when they are brought up in such an immediate way with how affected the supervisee is. The supervisor’s attention and concern will naturally switch to the distress they are witnessing in their supervisee in the here and now of the supervision session. A key, and demanding, task for both at this juncture is to help the counsellor manage what Youngson (1994:299) has termed ‘the continual tension and balance between professional response and emotional reaction’. It is essential that this balance is managed well so that the supervisee is helped, as Youngson states, ‘to separate personal reaction from the requirements of objective, professional evaluation and action’ (p. 300). The cyclical model can be useful here as an orienting device that enables the supervisor to think about task and process as well as alleviation of the counsellor’s discomfort. In supporting counsellors who work with extremes of client experience the function of the supervisor is ‘frequently concerned with enabling the counsellor to remain buoyant and clear thinking in the midst of much turbulence’ (Wosket 1999:215). The model, and more particularly the space stage, can become a container for the chaos and distress of the client’s story. An important quality of containment provided by the supervisor is described by Hughes and Pengelly (1997:178) as ‘the capacity to apply understanding to anxiety-laden experiences, in order to give them shape and meaning’. This understanding can help to put words to a situation, dilemma or dynamic and help ‘prevent the build up of “nameless dread”’ which could either paralyse the supervisee or ‘catapult him into action as a means of avoidance’ (ibid.). The ability of the supervisor to tolerate uncertainty, chaos and confusion while striving for understanding is of paramount importance in helping the supervisee: To take responsibility for seeking meaning may challenge the supervisee to face the anxiety of not knowing. It is often difficult for a supervisor to believe that the supervisee may be


contained just by their capacity to name the problem and struggle alongside him to find meaning while acknowledging that she does not yet know. (Hughes and Pengelly 1997:178) Perhaps the key to effective supervision in such circumstances lies in the ability of both supervisor and supervisee to bear the weight of the emotional impact of the client’s experience together. On occasion this will mean that both supervisor and supervisee will be distressed and may even cry together. This is not necessarily the same thing as a lack of containment. In this instance the supervisor’s vulnerability in also being moved by the client’s story will provide affirmation for the supervisee (Wosket and Page 2001). Containment, debriefing and affirmation, as discussed in Chapter 6, are key aspects of working within the supervision space. Holding on to the sense of space is always helpful when dealing with extremes of client experience. As we have argued, the concept of exploratory space is useful in enabling supervisor and supervisee not to get too hung up on the necessity to determine the truth or otherwise of the client’s story, or to look immediately for solutions. The space stage of the model is there to provide containment for creative uncertainty, not necessarily to deliver clarity, direction or resolution, although these will sometimes emerge. In the supervision space we can take an ‘as if perspective which releases us from the need to know. Instead of asking ‘Do you believe the client?’, the supervisor who takes an ‘as if perspective is more likely to make interventions such as: ‘What is it like for you to hear the client’s story?’, or ‘If we consider that your client may be telling you what really happened, what does he or she need from you right now?’, or even, ‘How can I help you to bear the weight of knowing that this may have happened to your client?’ Because interventions such as these derive from the supervisor’s intention to help the counsellor work more effectively with the client, they are enabling, supportive and facilitating. While questions such as: ‘Do you think your client is telling you the truth?’ may occasionally need to be asked if there are compelling reasons to doubt the client’s veracity, they do not provide a way of loosening or exploring the experience in supervision. Even when the question begs to be asked, it is incumbent on the supervisor to consider a way of


245

asking that does not undermine the supervisee or the work they are doing. It is more respectful and enabling for the supervisor to pose the question as an idea that may have occurred to the counsellor: for instance: Tm wondering if you have ever doubted the client’s story’. An intervention phrased in this way is more likely to promote reflection and consideration of alternative perspectives than a closed question that may merely stimulate the supervisee to respond from a defensive place of self- or client protection. In providing what the supervisee needs from them in order to have both the capacity and the courage to work with clients in extreme need, the supervisor may have to contain a number of their own responses. As we have already discussed, one of these may be a tendency not to want to believe the unbelievable. Another may well be the supervisor’s anxiety about witnessing great distress (both the client’s and the counsellor’s) and not knowing where the process of counselling will lead. The supervisor may need to resist impulses to take over and become excessively directive with the supervisee as a result of this anxiety. A better way of being is for the supervisor to demonstrate confidence and belief in their supervisee. The supervisor will need to balance their concern for the client’s welfare with enough trust in the counsellor to allow that they are likely to know best how to work with the client. The therapist will then be able to draw strength and energy from a supportive and resilient supervisor with which to top up their own. This, in turn, will enable the counsellor to extend their capacity to help the client in ways that they might not be able to manage on their own, for instance by extending their own courage, compassion and commitment beyond normal limits. A further important container for therapists who work with extremes of client experience is supervision for the supervisor. The importance of supervision for supervision is paramount whenever supervisor and counsellor are encountering this kind of work. The shock waves of extreme trauma may need to reverberate through a number of holding structures that each partially diminishes the impact of the after shocks as they settle and die away. If each container is sufficiently strong and resilient it will absorb a good percentage of the shock so that less will need to be passed to the next person in the chain. The supervisor’s supervisor is one such important bracing device. At the risk of mixing metaphors, we might say that the supervisor’s


supervisor needs to be in place to act as a buffer for the impact that the client’s material will have made on counsellor and supervisor. If the shock is not absorbed and contained, it will reverberate back along the chain to the client with the subsequent danger that the client is further traumatised—for instance by the supervisor’s and the counsellor’s disbelief. More about the supervision of supervision is said in Chapter 13.

Chapter 13

Training and development of the super visor

In her book Training the Counsellor, Connor (1994) has stated that ‘ongoing professional development is a source of continuing enrichment as well as a safeguard… offering possibilities for affirmation and support as well as perspectives against which we can constantly monitor our performance’ (p. 213). Continuing professional development for supervisors is important for the same reasons. Carifio and Hess have presented a portrait representing the features of the fully developed supervisor. Having reviewed existing theory and research relating to the behaviours and characteristics of the ‘ideal’ supervisor, they arrived at the following description, drawn from an extensive survey of the literature. The ideal supervisor possesses appropriate levels of empathy, respect, genuineness, concreteness, and self-disclosure. He or she is knowledgeable and experienced in both therapy and its supervision. He or she sets clear and explicit goals and uses these goals to guide him or her in using various teaching techniques and modes of data collection. The informed supervisor avoids combining supervision with psychotherapy. The ideal supervisor is generally supportive and non critical. He or she uses a variety of social influence processes, including direct and systematic feedback. The supervisor is not overly direct, yet not particularly passive, either. (1987:248) In this chapter we shall try to delineate some of the aspects of training and development for the supervisor which may lead to the attainment of some, if not all, of these ‘ideal’ attributes. 247


Becoming a supervisor is rather like learning to swim. In supervision, as in swimming, various degrees of exertion and training may be necessary to ensure that skills are learned and proficiency developed. One individual may be a ‘natural’ who appears to take to supervision like a duck to water and then simply needs to refine what appears, from the start, to be an inbuilt aptitude. Others may need to undergo methodic training to acquire the necessary proficiency and co-ordination to propel themselves through the water without sinking. Yet these individuals, too, may turn out to be equally accomplished swimmers in the long term. Developing our analogy further, here are some of the ways that supervisors we have known have learned to ‘swim’. Flung in at the deep end Here the supervisor-to-be takes on the role because it needs to be done or the situation demands it and they appear to be the best person, at the time, for the job. A colleague describes this experience thus: It all seemed to happen at once, about fifteen years after I had become a counsellor. Three things coincided: a trainee from a diploma course asked if I would become her supervisor for the duration of the course; at the same time I had just set up a diploma course in my own institution and I was responsible for providing group supervision to students on that course; and finally, I was also invited at that time to facilitate a peer supervision group for counsellors working in a voluntary agency. Suddenly, from doing no supervision at all, I had acquired one individual supervisee and about twenty others in various group combinations. At the time there was no qualification for supervisors and I felt very inadequate. As soon as the opportunity arose, albeit several years later, I did a Certificate in Counsellor Supervision and it was really valuable, particularly as it was psychodynamic in orientation. Although I have always used psychodynamic perspectives in my work I had never felt that I understood them as fully as I would have wished. It didn’t matter that the course was not from my own orientation—in fact it was a bonus for me that it was not. My own supervisor works

Training and development of the supervisor

249

psychodynamically and I was able to benefit much more from my own supervision with him once I had gained a clearer idea, through the course, of where he was coming from. Dipping a toe in at the shallow end In this case would-be supervisors often finds that the role has crept up on them as they slip gradually into the water, finding their footing and learning the necessary strokes to keep afloat as they go along: I began my career in a therapeutic community, which was one of a number run by a voluntary organisation. The particular community I worked for had little in the way of structure or support, either for residents or staff. We were a new staff team and quickly realised that we were not happy with the laissezfaire lifestyle of the community, with just a weekly community meeting and a couple of hours of organised activity each day. The first new structure we implemented was a system of individual counselling support for each resident. We then found we needed a parallel supervision structure for the staff. Initially we supervised each other by the seat of our pants, but within the first eighteen months two of the staff did a threemonth placement at the organisation’s training house. Supervision was one of the principal components of this placement: being supervised, supervising, and being given feedback on the supervision given, as well as taking part in seminars and discussion within a team of experienced supervisors.

Learning alongside an experienced ‘swimmer’ This approach is taken where the novice supervisor is guided and supported by a mentor whom he or she learns to emulate: A couple of years after completing my counselling training I got a job in an educational institution which employed a number of counsellors on a part-time basis and also ran training courses in counselling. By coincidence, my head of department had been my supervisor during a period of my


early training and he now encouraged me to begin to take on some supervision of students and one of the part-time counsellors. I remember being both excited and terrified at the prospect and initially I relied very much on my own experience of being supervised by him. I admired and respected him, and thought I wouldn’t go far wrong if I tried to do it the same way. From time to time I reported back to him on how I thought the supervision work was going and he appeared to approve. It was only as I gained confidence, and began to negotiate more with my supervisees about what they wanted from supervision, that I stopped being a carbon copy of my previous supervisor and realised that I could do it my own way. Taking lessons With the growth in the number of workshops and training courses now offered in supervision, the would-be supervisor has the option of learning something of the task before they start, or as they begin: My previous counselling course tutor contacted me to ask whether I would be interested in taking on a student for supervision. Although I was flattered to be asked and had a keen interest in supervision, I doubted whether I had the necessary experience and specific skills to do the role justice. My experience hitherto had been as a supervisee in individual supervision and as a peer supervisor within a group. As I had been given a couple of months’ notice, I had time to attend a one-day conference on supervision, which I found very useful and gave me the confidence to start. A month after I started supervising I applied to do a year’s Certificate in Supervision course. Having been accepted for the course I then took on another couple of supervisees just as the course started as I knew that it would offer me supervision on my supervision work and the opportunity to receive ongoing training and feedback. At the risk of overdoing our metaphor, we might say that most experienced and competent counsellors could probably manage to ‘doggy paddle’ along at supervision. They would probably be able


251

to keep afloat and even make some progress, though the strokes might look ungainly and the progress be slow. Training has the potential of turning the ‘doggy paddler’ into an accomplished ‘free styler’. TRAINING It hardly remains a matter of doubt that supervisors require a certain amount of training in order to fulfil their role with competence, confidence and credibility. Serious commentators and researchers now appear unanimous in this respect (Allen et al. 1986; Borders 1992; Borders and Leddick 1987; Bradley 1989; Carroll 1996, 1997; Hart 1982; Hawkins and Shohet 1989, 2000; Holloway and Carroll 1999; Holloway and Hosford 1983; Kurpuis et al 1991; Loganbill et al 1982; Russell and Petrie 1994; Stoltenberg et al 1998; Worthington 1987). Blocher (1983) has suggested that from the supervisee’s standpoint ‘the supervisor is clearly either an expert or a fraud’ (p. 30), and, these days, supervisors without training are undoubtedly in danger of being construed as the latter. Carroll (1996) considers that training for supervisors is now an imperative, rather than an option, and as such constitutes ‘an ethical requirement for the job’ (p. 32). Worthington (1987) surveyed a number of studies that have considered the development of the supervisor and concluded that, ‘Unwilling as we might be to accept it, most supervisors simply might not improve with experience. One reason for this might be that supervisors have little training in how to supervise effectively and thus may perpetuate the mistakes of their own supervisors’ (p. 206). Whiston and Emerson (1989) have suggested that the reason some supervisors engage in therapy with their supervisees is that, having no formal training in supervision, they do not know what else to do when their supervisees raise personal issues. If supervisor training were to accomplish nothing beyond eradicating previous bad habits, it would serve a useful purpose. But what, in addition to remedial experiences, might training offer the counselling supervisor? The amount and kind of training preferred or required by those practising or intending to practise as supervisors will differ depending on variables such as counselling training and experience, prior knowledge and experience of supervision, and the


developmental levels and orientations of the counsellors who will be supervised. Experienced supervisors who have been practising for a number of years and feel relatively comfortable with their own approach and style will still gain much from occasional workshops or training days designed to sharpen up and provide feedback on skills, and keep them abreast of new developments. As Worthington (1987:206) remarks, in recommending ongoing training for supervisors, ‘mere experience might be insufficient to enable one to view one’s work objectively or to take different perspectives on one’s work’. Counsellors new to the role will benefit from extended initial training designed to provide a firm foundation of skills and theory and instil good habits before bad ones become entrenched, which may then be difficult to eradicate. From this it is clear that there exist (at least) two contrasting routes by which an inexperienced counsellor can attain the training needed for this new role. The first of these is to attend a comprehensive training course that is designed to meet all these requirements in one package. The Certificate in Counsellor Supervision (now a Diploma) that we designed and ran at York is an example of such a comprehensive training course. We will draw on this course as we look at the training process in more detail. Attending this type of course has the advantage of offering inclusive coverage. It provides for comprehensive training needs in a defined length of time where participants are working in a consistent group and are therefore able to offer each other feedback in depth. Trainees are given the valuable opportunity to practise supervision skills and interventions between course meetings and bring issues from this back to the course for supervision and discussion. There are also some components of a single, extended, course that are difficult to emulate in other ways. In Britain BACP offers a scheme for supervisor accreditation. The criteria for successful accreditation within this scheme then provide some guidelines for designing an extended supervision training course. Such a course thus offers participants the opportunity to prepare themselves for seeking accreditation under this scheme, should they so wish. The main disadvantage of attending such a course is that it is quite intense, and therefore makes demands in terms of time, money and commitment. Also, the participants are primarily exposed to supervision as it is understood and practised by the course tutors so will be strongly influenced by a small number of


253

trainers, although this can be offset through bringing in outside speakers to increase the breadth of tutoring being offered. The second route of supervisor education involves putting together a personalised portfolio of learning experiences that may, for example, comprise a range of workshops, short courses or conferences and perhaps a peer support or seminar group, alongside receiving supervision of supervision work. Hellman (1999:216) has described a portfolio as a ‘purposeful collection of a learner’s work that tells the story of their efforts, progress and achievements’. Hellman has outlined what she considers to be the five major components of a supervision portfolio as: ‘selfreflection, self-evaluation, learning progression, individual active learning, and peer collaboration’ (ibid.). Drawing on Hellman’s work we have summarised these as follows: 1 Self-reflection: Observation and analysis of one’s actions and responses in order to integrate new learning into existing knowledge and expertise. 2 Self-evaluation: Realistic self-appraisal based on feedback from peers, supervisees, supervisors, clients, trainers, etc. 3 Learning progression: A formative record of the development of skills and competencies over time. It involves monitoring progress through an evaluation of levels of skills, awareness and experience as they develop and as learning goals are set and achieved. 4 Active learning: The ability to present evidence-based competence to others, through the compilation of a portfolio that demonstrates a broad range of knowledge and expertise in supervision. (This may, for example, include exemplary audio-or video-taped material of supervision practice.) 5 Peer collaboration: A portfolio that includes peer feedback and evaluation will demonstrate a collaborative and dynamic relationship with fellow practitioners similarly engaged in professional development. The advantages provided by the portfolio route include that it is tailor-made for the individual, and knowledge and experience can be accrued over a long period of time and in manageable amounts. A greater breadth of approaches and styles may be available through exposure to a variety of supervision perspectives provided by a range of practitioners and trainers. A portfolio may be


submitted as a less formal route to professional accreditation for supervisors with a non-traditional counselling/supervision background (as under the ‘grandparenting’ scheme operated by BACP (BAG 2000a) at the time the current edition of this book goes to press). Disadvantages of training in this more ad hoc way are that it is an easy matter for the would-be supervisor to be seduced into concentrating their energy and attention on those aspects of supervision that they find most attractive. This could lead to serious gaps in their knowledge or awareness which may not be identified—for example, the more sober elements of ethics and accountability may be ignored in favour of the more tantalising aspects of dynamics and parallel process. There is a third training route, which can supplement the previous two and is relevant in learning how to act as supervisor/ facilitator of group supervision. We are referring to the apprenticeship model, learning ‘on the job’ by working alongside an experienced group supervisor. Provided the arrangements are made carefully, and the role of the inexperienced group supervisor made explicit in the contracting stage, this can be a totally legitimate and potentially invaluable training experience. It is appropriate both for someone inexperienced in supervising, or for an experienced one-to-one supervisor looking to supervise in groups. This is quite a different experience to that of acting as a group supervisor on a training programme, where the other course members act as supervisees. Both are legitimate, and probably at least one is essential, for, as Proctor (2000:197) puts it, ‘One thing is certain, a group is the only forum which can offer the opportunity for trying out the group supervisor role’. In Chapter 1 we made the distinction between approach-oriented supervisors, who work exclusively within a specific counselling orientation, and integrative or eclectic supervisors, who are able to supervise the counselling work of practitioners from a range of counselling approaches. In considering training we will focus on the training requirement for an eclectic supervisor, which the reader can adapt if interested in a more approach-specific perspective. Given this, we suggest that whichever route is taken the training process for a counselling supervisor should fulfil five aims. We will look at these in turn and consider how each may be satisfied.


255

To gain an understanding of the various theories, models and approaches relating to counsellor supervision in order to develop a knowledge base for supervisory practice This requires the trainee supervisor to study those approaches to supervision with which they are not already familiar. On a comprehensive training course it might be reasonably expected that students will be introduced to the main extant models and theories of counsellor supervision, such as psychodynamic, behavioural, client-centred, developmental, the process model of Hawkins and Shohet (2000), the systems approach (Holloway 1995), and Kagan’s Interpersonal Process Recall. In addition they need, as we emphasised in Chapter 2, a conceptual understanding or framework for supervision. The model we have presented in this volume has been designed for such a purpose: providing supervisors with an integrating framework within which to review and practise these approaches. There needs to be an opportunity to consider in some detail significant concepts derived from individual approaches or theories. Most central here are the concepts of the internal supervisor (Casement 1985) and the phenomenon of the parallel process, without the consideration of which supervision students would be sadly deprived. It is quite possible to gather a range of theoretical inputs and opportunities to consider specific issues on supervision workshops or at conferences, augmented by personal study. We would suggest that the opportunity to reflect and consider these approaches in relation to one’s own practice is also necessary for a thorough understanding to be achieved. For those using the portfolio route this can perhaps be best provided by a mixture of a seminar group or peer learning group, perhaps of supervisors at a similar stage of development, alongside being supervised on one’s own supervision work. It seems particularly important that this supervision is undertaken with an experienced supervisor who will be able to make the necessary connections between theory and practice. Those who intend to supervise in groups need to ensure that their training provides them with a good working model of groups and how they function. This is not a luxury but an essential. As (Lammers 1999:106) puts it, ‘For effective work in this area [supervising teams and groups] supervisors need specific


competence in the complex processes which are part of groups and organisations.’ As a minimum this requires the ability to contain and manage group processes such that they do not interfere with supervision. To develop and practise a range of intervention and feedback skills relevant to the function of supervision In our view it is vital that a training process provides an opportunity to try out different skills and strategies within the relative safety of a peer group. This provides an opportunity to experiment, where there is explicit permission to make mistakes, with others who also want to learn in this way. One of us had the experience of meeting regularly with a group of peers to try out the techniques and methods of a new approach which was, at that time, unfamiliar to us all. The group provided a powerful learning experience as a consequence of the depth of feedback offered alongside the direct experience of being on both the ‘giving’ and ‘receiving’ ends of the supervision practice. This creates a sense of common purpose and at best minimises any sense of competition or need to ‘get it right’. On our own courses and workshops the training group is a place where students can practise and receive peer and tutor feedback on their developing supervision intervention skills. In a group of four, students are able to alternate between the roles of supervisor, supervisee, observer and technician (wherever possible with the use of video recording and playback facilities). Students are required to use real supervision issues arising from their counselling work with clients, rather than role play, when acting as the supervisee. This gives the trainee supervisor an opportunity to take some risks and try new ideas and ways of working on supervisees who are also supervisors in training and robust enough to take some experimentation. Here is one student’s account of her experience of a training group on a supervision course: I suppose the training group for me was a place to do these things: to test out my style as a becoming supervisor; to provide an opportunity to translate the ongoing theoretical input into practice; and to take risks and experiment in my way


257

of being as a supervisor. The group had to feel safe enough for me to do this—and was. I don’t know whether this was something only our group achieved, but certainly it happened, largely due to our being very open at our first meeting about where we were coming from and our valuing of each other’s experiences, both personally and professionally. I remember very hesitatingly sharing a pressing need to know how I was perceived there as a supervisor, having recently had some sense that all was not well in my relating to some clients, which I found undermining and upsetting. This group had become the one place where I felt I could share that kind of thing. By that stage I could trust the other members to be honest and supportive, which they were. In these ways this group, like one’s own first family, modelled for me what life (in this sense as a supervisor) is supposed to be about. Group supervision training can similarly make use of the peer training group structure, offering different members the opportunity to try out the role of supervisor/facilitator and receive feedback from other members. By working in a group that maintains its membership over a number of weeks or months the opportunity arises to experience and reflect upon the development of the group and the implications of this for the role and interventions of the supervisor. To increase awareness of personal and professional strengths and areas for development It can be expected that awareness of these will come out of the skills practice already considered but we would like to mention two other training devices that can be used in order to meet this aim. The first is that of supervision of the supervision work of the trainee supervisor. This can be in an individual or group setting, and, as we have already indicated, we recommend that this supervision should be provided by an experienced supervisor: peer supervision is insufficient at this stage of the development of the supervisor. The following vignette chronicles an occasion within a supervision-of-supervision group where the interaction of the group members played out, in a remarkable way, the dynamics of a


supervision issue, and also provided the answers to the supervision dilemma brought by the presenter: The (male) supervisor presented a session with a supervisee in which the (female) supervisee had recounted a difficult first session with a male client. The client was a drug user with a history of psychiatric treatment and a tendency to violent behaviour. The counsellor had felt intimidated and frightened by the client, who had, during the course of the session, recounted to her several sexual fantasies which involved violence towards women. The counsellor felt she didn’t want to work further with the client and had brought this feeling to supervision. The supervisor’s issue was to ask the group for help with how he could enable the counsellor to get over her feelings of reluctance in working with the client. There were various responses to this presentation. One male group member said, thoughtfully, that maybe the issue was more about how to help the counsellor stop labelling the client as ‘difficult to work with’ because of his psychiatric history. A female participant thought that the important issue of whether the counsellor had been abused by the client, in being forced to listen to the violent fantasies, had been glossed over. This comment was not taken up by the rest of the group and the discussion proceeded to consider if the counsellor might do better to refer the client to a specialist drug counselling agency. The female group member became increasingly agitated during this discussion and finally broke in, saying, ‘I think this is important. If the counsellor was being abused by the client, that needs addressing first.’ She was supported by another, male, participant who revealed that he was also feeling the same way—that surely the supervisor’s main concern should be to safeguard his supervisee from the risk of abuse. He also shared his surprise that the supervisor was talking about what seemed to be a disturbing issue in a very calm and unemotional manner. The female member then suggested that perhaps they could use the dynamics within the group to throw light on the issue. She turned to the presenting supervisor and said, ‘I’m feeling really frightened and uncomfortable now and if I was your supervisee I’d be wanting you to say to me [raising her voice]: “No! You don’t have to work with this person. He has been abusing you


259

and you don’t have to take that. It is OK for you not to finish a session if a client is doing that to you and you feel abused. You can terminate the interview and refuse to see him again”.’ The male participant who had supported her came in with: ‘Yes, and I would want you to say that with some passion. I would want to know that you felt the feelings of outrage first—so that I knew you were on my side before we talked about the possibility of a referral to another agency.’ The presenting supervisor then began to realise that this kind of response might have been what his supervisee needed, rather than the very calm and considered interventions which he had made at the time. Although his characteristic composure and restraint with supervisees was normally appropriate, in this case it had been incongruent. He now revealed to the group that during the supervision he had felt at times both agitated and sexually aroused and that embarrassment had prevented him from using his awareness of these reactions to throw light on the issue. Instead he had thought that appearing calm and unruffled would be most helpful for his supervisee. It is fascinating to note that the sequence of responses of the three group members mentioned—pensive, agitated, and passionate— were parallels of the reactions experienced, but not all owned, by the presenting supervisor. The feelings in the group, when aired and explored as if they might have some bearing on the issue under discussion, had, in themselves, told the story of what had been missed and what the supervisee needed. Even the first male participant, who had overlooked the sexual element in favour of a more cerebral consideration of issues (as the supervisor had done with his supervisee), had played an important role, as his lack of affective response had fuelled the agitation experienced by the other group members at not being heard. This had allowed the dynamics to develop and play out the story more forcefully. A training course where supervision-of-supervision groups are established and meet frequently provides excellent opportunities for supervisors to learn to recognise and work with parallel processes such as these. The second training structure is that of keeping a learning journal (Progoff 1975). This is often required on training courses, but it is equally possible for an individual to choose to do this for themselves. The main purpose of keeping a journal is that doing so


promotes the discipline of regular reflection and the setting of learning objectives. Additionally such a log, compiled over time, creates a record that illustrates the learning which has been accomplished. To enable supervisors to develop their own informed style and approach to supervision, integrating both theory and practice Developing one’s own style is a process that, it is hoped, will continue throughout the supervisor ’s career (Skovholt and Rønnestad 1992). However, it is particularly important that the supervisor who is intending to operate with a degree of eclecticism creates coherence within their practice. We would anticipate this process happening naturally as part of the training process. It does seem important, however, that the supervisor is able to begin to articulate their own approach to supervision at an early stage. On our own course we encouraged this by requiring participants to present an essay which defines their own supervision approach, the theoretical elements which inform it, and to link this to their practice. This has the effect of encouraging trainees to think through how they would address all aspects of the supervision process as well as providing a marker by which the individual can assess the distance they have travelled during the time of the course. To develop awareness of ethical and professional issues in order to enhance the professional identity of the supervisor and instil good standards of practice This awareness comes from a number of the structures already described. It is helpful to study the ethical principles involved in the practice of supervision, as outlined in Chapter 9. This can be done by personal study and reflection, or by attending presentations and discussions on a course, or at conferences. In addition it is important to be familiar with current thinking within the profession, which is again best achieved via conference participation and through reading professional journals. The understanding of ethical and professional issues and their application in practice will come through the experience of being


261

supervised on one’s supervision work. This is one area in which being part of a supervision group, as opposed to receiving individual supervision, is clearly advantageous as the supervisor is exposed to a greater range of issues and dilemmas through the presentations of other group members. This section will conclude with two reports of supervisors’ experiences of supervision training that draw out, from the trainee’s perspective, some of the reasons for doing, and the benefits gained from, a course such as the one considered here. Although a small number of studies have been carried out of supervisors as they gain experience (Worthington 1987), little research exists on the outcomes of supervisor training. Accounts such as the two which follow can begin to make a contribution to a pool of material that may stimulate future studies in this important area. The first is written by a trainee supervisor approaching the end of a one-year training course: Having experienced the richness that formal counselling training had offered me, and knowing that a similar diversity of supervision styles and techniques was there to be discovered, tried, experienced and learned, I was drawn to find a suitable training course for supervisors. Being on such a course has proved stimulating, challenging and exciting. Sharing the learnings, the training groups, and the feedback with resident and visiting tutors and with fellow trainees from a variety of backgrounds has proved not only enlightening, but also enriching. Practising different supervision styles in a safe, confidential and supportive setting has given me welcome freedom to experiment, discover my strengths and weaknesses in the supervisory role, find my own style, learn from the practice and expertise of others, and receive helpful critical comments on my own counselling work in ‘live’ sessions with fellow students. I have had the opportunity to evaluate my preconceptions about supervision, to hear the opinions and share the feelings of other group members and our tutors, and receive honest (sometimes very honest!) feedback on my own sessions. All this has happened in an atmosphere of safety and confidentiality, where the mistakes that I make can be looked at, discussed, and alternative ways of working considered without serious detriment to any supervisees.


Setting time aside in which to learn more about this crucial element of good counselling practice puts supervision in its true perspective for me. It is not an exact science and I believe that the best way of gaining increased supervisory insights, theory, skills and practical experience is by sharing the training with other counsellors on a course specifically designed for that purpose and led by skilled, well researched and open minded practitioners able to meet our needs and enhance our development. It is also true for me that additional advantages of participating in such a course are undoubtedly that further opportunities are present for continuing personal development. In addition this kind of training gives greater awareness of diverse issues—brought to the group from members working in a wide variety of settings and the meeting of new difficulties, problems and issues in an environment in which they can be explored and resolved. There is no way in which I could have provided for myself by personal reading and study the totality of the experience I have been privileged to share on the training course. The second report is a retrospective one by a supervisor reflecting, one year after completion, on the supervision training he received and the effect it has had on his subsequent practice: I suppose the two main things on my mind when starting the course were: ‘Am I good enough to be a supervisor?’ and ‘What is the significance of the third dimension when the counselling dyad becomes the supervision triad of counsellor, client and supervisor?’ The course itself exposed me to different models of supervision, gave me the opportunity to receive feedback on my supervision and to take some risks in a safe environment, and challenged me to ask the question ‘How much of myself do I reveal as a supervisor?’ The result was that I ‘passed the course’ which means, I hope, that I have reached a certain standard and I certainly have more confidence in my supervision. I have referred back to the course many times and have thought of the people that I worked with and wondered what they might say of me if they were observing this piece of supervision. What might they have done that was different? This obviously diminishes as time goes by but I have often


263

wished to return to the training groups where we shared our supervision practice to re-experience some of that valuable feedback. The nature of the course was also important to me in that everyone was as much themselves as possible in the training situation. I have tried to continue this in my work with supervisees and when I meet with my own supervisor. I think this has made my supervision relationships closer and more creative but not, I hope, in a sloppy or unprofessional way. I have also noticed that supervisees challenge me more these days! On a more personal note, in an age where machines seem to dictate how we live our lives, I have tried to hold on to the humanity of counselling and counselling supervision. In order for this to be reinforced it is necessary, at least for me, to experience from time to time the humanity of a safe, friendly and challenging training situation. Without such training I think it might be possible for the supervisor to be the supervisoradviser. These two accounts beg the question of what impact the training of supervisors has on their supervisees and, ultimately, the supervisees’ clients. Such questions remain to be addressed by researchers but clearly have the potential for opening up an exciting and important new channel in the developing field of counselling and psychotherapy research. SUPERVISOR DEVELOPMENT As Worthington (1987) discovered, ‘few theorists have addressed how supervisors change as they gain experience’ (p. 191). From the available ‘helter-skelter’ research which he gathered together and reviewed Worthington drew the following conclusions: If gaining experience at counseling and supervision is like the aging of wines, then this review discovered two types of wines: counselors and supervisors. One type of wine, the counselor, changes and improves with age. Counselor trainers and supervisors pay attention to the counselor’s aging and aid his or her development. The other type of wine, the supervisor, does not clearly improve with age. Supervisors appear to be


neglected or given minimal attention by most professional environments, yet are expected to change with age and to age with quality. They are like a fine wine, bottled wholly in sterile glass without a cork that allows the wine to develop robustness. More attention is needed within the profession to the maturing of this wine into fullness. (Worthington 1987:206) Worthington postulates that ‘perhaps a supervisor of one’s supervision would promote improvement’ of the vintage (p. 206) and today, in Britain, supervision of supervision is now seen by many as a necessary requirement for supervisor development, rather than an option or a luxury (Wheeler and King 2000). BACP states in its Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors that ‘Supervisors are responsible for making arrangements for their own supervision in order to support their counselling supervision work and to help them to evaluate their competence’ (BAG 1996 B.2.3). Supervision of the supervisor can take place within a group, or one-to-one. Both have their advantages and disadvantages when considered in relation to one another. Individual supervision, unlike group supervision, does not afford the range of different perspectives or provide the mixture of fertile soil from which the kind of parallel processing phenomena, as described above, can spring and flourish. Yet a group may be more at the mercy of the vicissitudes of wayward dynamics. Competitiveness or rivalry may creep in, or a powerful or needy member may claim more of a share of time and attention than an equally deserving, but less assertive member. The fear of exposure or ridicule may prevent participants openly airing doubts and difficulties which go to the heart of their supervision work or professional identity. It may be easier to share the real ‘horrors’ with a supportive individual supervisor or consultant than within a group where it is easy for the supervisor to fantasise that people will secretly snigger and gloat at one’s inadequacies, even when they present a veneer of support and understanding. In Chapter 3 we postulated that a counsellor can experience supervision as more exposing than being a client in their own therapy. Dearnley (1985) has considered the notion that (group) supervision for the supervisor can provoke even greater anxiety:


265

I have come to learn that looking in detail at supervisory practice is widely experienced as a very exposing affair, much more so than discussing one’s own difficult cases. It is as if the public confirmation that one is sufficiently experienced to supervise leads to persecutory personal expectations that supervisors should say or do no wrong. (Dearnley 1985:54) Dearnley discusses this notion in relation to the fable of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’. She believes that supervisors frequently live in fear of being exposed as shams in the same way that the emperor in the fairy tale was publicly disgraced and humiliated when his true nakedness was revealed to all his subjects. Supervisors thus often experience ‘the all or nothing conflict…between being expected (and expecting themselves) to wear the habit of knowledge and experience when ‘on parade’ in supervisory sessions, and fearing they will have little to offer and will, one day, be found out’ (p. 53). In order to free themselves from the thrall of the ‘Emperor’s New Clothes’ syndrome supervisors need to relocate expertise and knowledge within their supervisees by creating a climate in which not knowing can be acknowledged and even welcomed as a necessary prerequisite to learning (Lidmila 1992). In Dearnley’s words, ‘supervisors need the courage of their ignorance and stupidity if they and their charges are to learn’ (p. 54). On the plus side, the experience of being in a supervision-ofsupervision group can prove of great help to the supervisor in enabling him or her to develop an awareness of the helping potential of ignorance, confusion and uncertainty, and in encouraging tolerance of such feelings. Where a sufficient level of trust and courage exists, group members can allow bafflement, bewilderment, frustration or unease to pervade the atmosphere in the faith that clarity and understanding will eventually emerge from the murkiness or chaos. The following is a description of such a process operating in a supervision-ofsupervision group: The supervisor presented the following dilemma. Her supervisee was counselling a client who had been physically and emotionally abused. The supervisee, in turn, felt that he was in danger of being abused by the client who constantly


tried to overstep time boundaries and ‘deluged’ him with an avalanche of material which he found difficult to contain within the therapy hour. The supervisee’s response was to feel overwhelmed, deskilled and ‘like giving up’. The supervisor shared with the supervision group that she, too, felt drowned by the number of issues which the supervisee brought to supervision. She found it impossible to get her supervisee to stay with a focus and had difficulty with separating his client issues from organisational issues which were also contributing to his difficulties. She started to outline the number of issues brought by the counsellor to supervision and the group responded by asking questions in an attempt to obtain clarity. Suddenly one group member broke in, saying in an exasperated tone, ‘Hang on, I’m getting lost and I feel that I can’t take in any more of this.’ Other members of the group ventured that they too were feeling swamped by the detail and amount of information the supervisor was giving out. One participant then said to the supervisor, ‘What would help me to get a handle on all this is to be clear about your focus—what is it you want from the group?’ Another member then commented, ‘That makes me want to ask you “What is it your supervisee wants from you?”’ The supervisor thought about this for a moment and then said, ‘I think he wants me to give him some space. If I can create a space for him, perhaps he can feel less harassed. If that happens he might be able to offer his client some space instead of trying to deal with everything at once. Because I think that’s what the client really needs— some space where it’s safe to be herself, because that’s what she’s not had—not someone to try to solve all of her problems. Experiences such as this, where internal feelings and reactions are used to throw light on the supervision material, can help supervisors to develop their own internal supervisor. This raises the question of how, if at all, the internal supervisor of the supervisor is different from the internal supervisor of the counsellor. It is, perhaps, in this area of dealing with covert processes, thoughts and emotions that the main difference is apparent. The internal supervisor of the wise counsellor may recommend caution within a counselling session: ‘Don’t burden your client too readily with your stuckness’ or ‘Hold on to that feeling—keep it in awareness


267

and see what happens to it.’ The internal supervisor of the supervisor is more likely to urge in-session divulgence of fantasies, feelings and hunches: ‘Go ahead, risk it—this supervision session is a one-off.’ It is normally advantageous for the supervisor to make their internal struggles and sensations explicit and to ask for the supervisee’s help in understanding the relevance of these. One of us has described the reasoning behind this as follows. I have learned that my internal responses when with a supervisee usually provide the best clue to what is going on for the counsellor, the client, or both. It is as if I am in some way ‘standing in for the client’ and listening out for what the counsellor might have missed, or what the client is trying to get the counsellor to hear, but is unable to say directly. (Wosket 1999:222) So, for instance, a supervisor who suddenly feels frightened when the supervisee talks about wanting to encourage their client to move to a deeper level of disclosure is wise to share this feeling with the counsellor. They can then, together, consider whether it provides a clue to the issue. Perhaps further disclosure would be frightening for the client, or uncomfortable for the counsellor, or the supervisor’s reaction may signal that the client is not yet ready to engage in deeper exploration. In a counselling session, on the other hand, it would be judicious for the counsellor who suddenly feels afraid, and is not sure why, to hold the feeling in awareness for a while rather than blurt it out. To do so might alarm or startle the client or give out a message to the client that the counsellor cannot tolerate strong or disturbing feelings. Should the feeling persist the counsellor may well choose to share something of their internal process, but will by then have taken the time to consider for themselves how to disclose this and what it may be about, for example by saying, ‘I felt apprehensive for a minute there when you mentioned about having had a difficult time last year. I wonder if it would be quite hard for you to talk about that here?’ Consideration of the internal processes of the supervisor leads us to raise the issue of counselling for the supervisor. The supervisor needs to have dealt with their own personal issues, and to keep dealing with them as they arise in order to maintain a reasonable level of internal equilibrium and objectivity. If this isn’t


happening the supervisor may well misread, ignore or suppress covert reactions to the supervisee’s material. If lack of client experience means that the supervisor is apprehensive about their own self-disclosure they are likely, in the example above, either to suppress awareness of their frightened feelings or attribute them to their own ‘stuff getting in the way. We take a strong stance on this issue and feel that it is imperative for the supervisor to have had experience of being a client, and to continue to have access to counselling as they develop as a supervisor. As we explained in stage 4 (Bridge) of the model, it is important for both supervisor and counsellor to consider the client’s perspective on any change or difference that might be instigated in the counselling work following the supervision session. The supervisor, standing one back from the therapeutic encounter, may be in a position to see this more clearly than the counsellor, but only if they have sufficient understanding of what it is like to be a client. If the supervisor has had her own experience of hiding things from her therapist, hoping he will guess what she has only the courage to hint at; if she has felt disappointment at the apparent lack of progress of her counselling; if she has felt needy and dependent or distrusted her therapist: or if she has felt furious, despairing or sexual with him, she is far more likely to pick up on what her supervisee’s client may be feeling in various situations. Where the supervisor chooses, instead of going for the group option, to have their own individual supervisor for their supervision, the person taking this role can, perhaps, be likened to a grandparent. If the counselling supervisor can be said to act as a ‘parent’ or guardian to the counsellor, helping him or her to contain and manage the counselling work, the supervisor of the supervisor, like a grandparent, provides the next generation of holding. The supervisor of the supervisor is akin to the grandparent who would normally display a basic trust in the parenting abilities of their offspring and would not usually take over that task or feel responsible for the grandchild (the counsellor) except in an emergency. Supervisors of supervisors are around in the background as a reassuring presence and can be turned to and relied upon to lend a hand in times of particular need or stress. One of us was once, suddenly and unexpectedly, called away from our supervision practice for family reasons and recalls how the supervisor of her supervision, as surrogate ‘guardian’, stepped in to help:


269

While the needs of my counselling clients were covered through various ‘holding’ arrangements during my absence, I was not so clear about how, or if, I needed to provide for my supervisees while I was away. I took this dilemma to the supervisor of my supervision and she suggested that I could give my supervisees her telephone number and if there was an emergency they could phone her for a brief consultation. Even though none of my supervisees needed to resort to this contingency during my absence, both I and they felt looked after and reassured by this provision having been made for them. The metaphor of the grandparent is also useful in considering where the continuous and unbroken line of supervision ends. Why not have a supervisor for the supervisor of the supervisor, and so on, ad infinitum? Eventually grandparents die and are not replaced, except as the next generation moves up to take on the title and role. Individuals do not need their own grandparents when they have reached the age and status of grandparents themselves. They do, however, need to resort occasionally to the help and support of other adults when in particular need. In the same way, the supervisor of the supervisor is unlikely to need the constant help and attention of another generation of supervisor. If the supervisor of supervision has achieved their status and role by ‘growing up’ through their own developmental stages of counsellor and supervisor, with some client experience along the way, they should be capable to a large degree of functioning autonomously in their role as the supervisor of other supervisors. However we also believe, like Connor (1994), that the continued monitoring and evaluation of quality and competence is an ethical imperative for all counselling professionals. We therefore advocate that supervisors of supervisors also have recourse to consultative support when the need arises to examine their own practice with an independent colleague, although the frequency of this may well be less than in the case of ongoing supervision for their counselling and supervision practice. In summary, training for the supervisor is seen as a continuous requirement which needs to be complemented by additional developmental strategies. These most clearly comprise supervision or consultation and personal therapy. Exposure to a range of theories, models and styles of supervision on a training course will


enable the supervisor to make an informed and integrated choice in order to create a tailor-made approach to suit his or her own requirements. The acquisition and practice of supervision skills will equip the supervisor with the necessary tools for implementing his or her chosen approach. Personal therapy, when necessary, will keep the supervisor grounded and in touch with his or her own vulnerability. Supervision, whether group or individual, will ensure that the supervision work is carried out safely and with insight and wisdom. Where the supervisor moves one further step along the scale and becomes a supervisor of supervisors he or she needs to arrange access to consultative support as and when this is required to ensure that competence is monitored and standards maintained. Effective supervisors manifestly do not rest on their laurels.

Bibliography

Allen, G.J., Szollos, S.J. and Williams, B.E. (1986) ‘Doctoral students’ comparative evaluations of best and worst psychotherapy supervision’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 17, 91–99. Allphin, C. (1987) ‘Perplexing or distressing episodes in supervision: how they can help in the teaching and learning of psychotherapy’, Clinical Social Work Journal 15, 3: 236–245. Amundson, N.W. (1988) ‘The use of metaphor and drawings in case conceptualisation’, Journal of Counseling and Development 66, 391–393. Aponte, H.J. (1982) ‘The person of the therapist: the cornerstone of therapy’, Family Therapy Networker 6, 2: 19–21, 46. Aveline, M. (1997) ‘The use of audiotapes in supervision of psychotherapy’, in G.Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a Place to Think, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Bahrick, A.S., Russell, R.K. and Salmi, S.W. (1991) ‘The effects of role induction on trainees’ perceptions of supervision’, Journal of Counseling and Development 69, 434–438. Baker, L.C. and Patterson, J.E. (1990) ‘The first to know: a systematic analysis of confidentiality and the therapist’s family’, The American Journal of Family Therapy 18, 3: 295–300. Baker, R. (1984) People Who Care—Understanding and Dealing with their Stresses, (1983 National Children’s Home Convocation Lecture), London: National Children’s Home. Banks, N.J. and Ward, P.A. (1996) ‘Black male client, white female counsellor: making positive use of transference phenomena’ , British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 24, 3: 413–422. Barker, C. (1985) ‘Interpersonal Process Recall in clinical training and research’, in F. Watts (ed.) New Developments in Clinical Psychology, Leicester: British Psychological Society. Baron, R.A. (1988) ‘Negative effects of destructive criticism: impact on conflict, self-efficacy, and task performance’, Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 2: 199–207.

271

272 Bibliography Barten, H.H. (ed.) (1971) Brief Therapies, New York: Behavioral Publications Inc. Bartlett, W.E. (1983) ‘A multidimensional framework for the analysis of supervision of counseling’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 9–17. Beitman, B.D., Goldfried, M.R. and Norcross, J.C. (1989) ‘The movement toward integrating the psycho therapies: an overview’, American Journal of Psychiatry 146, 2: 138–145. Bernard, J.M. (1992) ‘The challenge of psychotherapy-based supervision: making the pieces fit’, Counselor Education and Supervision 31, 4: 232–237. ——(1994) ‘Multicultural supervision: a reaction to Leong and Wagner, Cook, Priest and Fukuyama’ , Counselor Education and Supervision 34, 2: 159–171. Bernard, J.M. and Goodyear, R.K. (1992) Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision, Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Berne, E. (1964) Games People Play, London: Penguin. Beyerstein, D. (1993) ‘The functions and limitations of professional codes of ethics’, in E.R. Winkler and J.R. Coombs (eds) Applied Ethics: A Reader, Oxford: Blackwell. Bion, W.R. (1961) Experiences in Group, London: Tavistock. ——(1970) Attention and Interpretation, London: Tavistock. Blocher, D. (1983) ‘Towards a cognitive developmental approach to counseling supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 27–34. Blount, C.M. (1982) ‘A developmental model of supervision: implications for practice and research’, Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC. Blumenfield, M. (ed.) (1982) Applied Psychotherapy Supervision, New York: Grune & Stratton. Bond, T. (1986) Games for Social and Life Skills, London: Hutchinson. ——(1990) ‘Counselling supervision—ethical issues’, Counselling 1, 2: 43–46. ——(1992) ‘Confidentiality: counselling, ethics and the law’, Employee Counselling Today 4, 4: 4–9. ——(2000) Standards and Ethics for Counselling in Action, London: Sage. Borders, L.D. (1989) ‘A pragmatic agenda for developmental supervision research’, Counselor Education and Supervision 29, 1: 16–24. ——(1991) ‘Supervisor’s in-session behaviors and cognitions’, Counselor Education and Supervision 31, 1: 32–48. ——(1992) ‘Learning to think like a supervisor’, The Clinical Supervisor 10, 2: 135–148. Borders, L.D. and Leddick, G. (1987) Handbook of Counselling Supervision, Alexandria, Va: American Association for Counseling and Development. Bordin, E.S. (1983) ‘A working alliance based model of supervision’, The Counselling Psychologist 11, 1: 35–42.

Bibliography

273

Boyd, J. (1978) Counselor Supervision: Approaches, Preparation, Practices, Muncie, Ind.: Accelerated Development. Brading, J. and Curtis, J. (2000) Disability Discrimination: A Practical Guide to the New Law (2nd edn), London: Kogan Page. Bradley, L.J. (1989) Counselor Supervision: Principles, Process and Practice (2nd edn), Muncie, Ind.: Accelerated Development Inc. Brandes, D. and Norris, J. (1998) The Gamesters’ Handbook 3, Cheltenham: Stanley Thornes. Brightman, B. (1984) ‘Narcissistic issues in the training experience of the psychotherapist’, International Journal of Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy 10, 293–317. British Association for Counselling (BAC) (1990) The Recognition of Counsellor Training Courses (2nd edn), Rugby: British Association for Counselling. ——(1996) Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors, Rugby: British Association for Counselling. ——(1998) Code of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors, Rugby: British Association for Counselling. ——(2000a) ‘Accreditation News’, Counselling 11, 1: 30–31. ——(2000b) ‘How much supervision should you have?’ (BAC Information Sheet 3), Counselling 11, 4: 229–231. British Institute of Integrative Psychotherapy (1999) Guidelines for Assessing CORE Competencies for Culturally Competent Supervision, London: BIIP. Brown, M.T. and Landrum-Brown, J. (1995) ‘Counselor supervision: cross-cultural perspectives’, in J.G. Ponterotto, J.M. Casas, L.A. Suzuki and C.M. Alexander (eds) Handbook of Multicultural Counselling, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Buckley, P., Conte, H.R., Plutchik, R., Karasu, T.B. and Wild, K.V. (1982) ‘Learning dynamic psychotherapy: a longitudinal study’, American Journal of Psychiatry 139, 12: 1607–1610. Budman, S.H., Hoyt, M.F. and Friedman, S. (1992) The First Session in Brief Therapy, London: Guilford Press. Buhrke, R.A. (1989) ‘Lesbian-related issues in counseling supervision’, Women and Therapy 8: 195–206. Burley-Allen, M. (1982) Listening: The Forgotten Skill, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Calligor, L. (1984) ‘Parallel and reciprocal processes in psychoanalytic supervision’, in L.Calligor et al., Clinical Perspectives in the Supervision of Psychoanalysis, New York: Plenum Press. Carifio, M.S. and Hess, A.K. (1987) ‘Who is the ideal supervisor?’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 18, 3: 244–250. Carroll, M. (1988) ‘Counselling supervision: the British context’, Counselling Psychology Quarterly 1, 4: 387–396. ——(1996) Counselling Supervision: Theory, Skills and Practice, London: Cassell.

274 Bibliography ——(1997) ‘Clinical supervision: luxury or necessity?’, in I. Horton and V. Varma (eds) The Needs of Counsellors and Psychotherapists, London: Sage. ——(1998) ‘Spirituality, values and supervision’, Keynote Address, British Association for Supervision Practice and Research, Third International Conference on Supervision, 25 July, St Mary’s College, Strawberry Hill. ——(1999) ‘Supervision in workplace settings’, in M.Carroll and E. Holloway (eds) Counselling Supervision in Context, London: Sage. Cartwright, D. and Zander, A. (eds) (1968) Group Dynamics: Research and Theory (3rd edn), London: Tavistock. Casement, P. (1985) On Learning from the Patient, London: Routledge.— —(1990) Further Learning from the Patient: The Analytic Space and Process, London: Routledge. ——(1994) ‘The wish not to know’, in V.Sinanson (ed.) Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, London: Routledge. Clarke, P. (1997) ‘Interpersonal process recall in supervision’, in G. Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a Place to Think, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Coleman, H.L.K. (1999) ‘Training for multi-cultural supervision’, in E. Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Collins (1986) Collins Dictionary of the English Language, London: Collins. Collins, D. (2000) Commentary in C. Jones (ed.) ‘Visible, or hidden, aspects of the client’, Counselling 11, 4: 210–212. Connor, M.P. (1994) Training the Counsellor, London: Routledge. Cook, D.A. (1994) ‘Racial identity in supervision’, Counselor Education and Supervision 34, 2: 132–141. Copeland, S. (1998) ‘Counselling supervision in organisational contexts: new challenges and perspectives’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 26, 3: 377–386. ——(2000) ‘New challenges for supervising in organisational contexts’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Corey, G. (1986) Theory and Practice of Counseling and Psychotherapy (3rd edn), Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. ——(1990) Theory and Practice of Group Counseling (3rd edn), Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. Cummings, N.A. and Sayama, M. (1995) Focused Psychotherapy: A Casebook of Brief, Intermittent Psychotherapy Throughout the Life Cycle, New York: Brunner/Mazel. d’Ardenne, P. and Mahtani, A. (1989) Transcultural Counselling in Action, London: Sage. Daniels, J. (2000) ‘Whispers in the corridors and kangaroo courts: the

Bibliography

275

supervisory role in mistakes and complaints’, in B.Lawton and C. Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Daniels, J., D’Andrea, M. and Soo Kyung Kirn, B. (1999) ‘Assessing the barriers and changes of cross-cultural supervision: a case study’, Counselor Education and Supervision 38, 3: 191–204. Davidson, L. (1987) ‘Integration and learning in the supervision process’, The American Journal of Psychoanalysis 47, 4: 331–341. Davis, A.H., Savicki, V., Cooley, E.J. and Firth, J.L. (1989) ‘Burnout and counselor practitioner expectations of supervision’, Counselor Education and Supervision 28, 3: 234–241. Dearnley, B. (1985) ‘A plain man’s guide to supervision—or new clothes for the emperor?’, Journal of Social Work Practice, November, 52–65. De Shazer, S. (1985) Keys to Solution in Brief Therapy, New York: Norton. Doehrman, M.G. (1976) ‘Parallel processes in supervision and psychotherapy’, Bulletin of the Menninger Clinic 40, 1: 9–104. Douglas, T. (1995) Scapegoats: Transferring Blame, London: Routledge. Dryden, W. and Feltham, C. (1992) Brief Counselling: A Practical Guide for Beginning Practitioners, Buckingham: Open University Press. Dupont-Joshua, A. (1996) ‘Race, culture and the therapeutic relationship: working with difference creatively’, Counselling 7, 3: 220–223. Eckler-Hart, A. (1987) ‘True self and false self in the development of the psychotherapist’, Psychotherapy 24, 4: 683–692. Edwards, D. (1997) ‘Supervision today: the psychoanalytic legacy’, in G. Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a Place to Think, Buckingham: Open University Press. Efstation, J.F., Patton, M.J. and Kardash, C.M. (1990) ‘Measuring the working alliance in counselor supervision’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 37: 322–329. Egan, G. (1986) The Skilled Helper: A Systematic Approach to Effective Helping (3rd edn), Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. ——(1998) The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management Approach to Helping (6th edn), Pacific Grove, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. Ekstein, R. and Wallerstein, R. (1972) The Teaching and Learning of Psychotherapy (2nd edn), Madison, Conn.: International Universities Press. Eleftheriadou, Z. (1992) ‘Multi-cultural counselling and psychotherapy: a philosophical framework’, International Review of Psychology 3: 21–29. ——(1997) ‘Cultural differences in the therapeutic process’, in I. Horton and V.Varma (eds) The Needs of Counsellors and Psychotherapists, London: Sage. Elliot, R. (1986) ‘Interpersonal Process Recall (IPR) as a psychotherapy process research method’, in L.Greenberg and W.Pinsof (eds) The

276 Bibliography Psychotherapeutic Process: A Research Handbook , New York: Guildford Press. Ellis, M.V. (1991) ‘Research in clinical supervision: revitalising a scientific agenda’, Counselor Education and Supervision 30, 3: 238–251. Ellis, M.V. and Dell, D.M. (1986) ‘Dimensionality of supervisor roles: supervisors’ perceptions of supervision’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 33, 3: 282–291. Farber, B.A. and Heifetz, L.J. (1982) ‘The process and dimensions of burnout in psychotherapists’, Professional Psychology 13, 2: 293–301. Fear, R. and Woolfe, R. (2000) ‘The personal, the professional and the basis of integrative practice’, in S.Palmer and R.Woolfe (eds) Integrative and Eclectic Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Feltham, C. (1995) What is Counselling?, London: Sage. ——(1997) Time Limited Counselling, London: Sage. ——(2000) ‘Baselines, problems and possibilities’, in B.Lawton and C. Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Feltham, C. and Dry den, W. (1994) Developing Counsellor Supervision, London: Sage. Fine, M. and Fennell, D. (1985) ‘Supervising the supervisor-ofsupervision: a supervision-of-supervision technique or an hierarchical blurring?’, Journal of Strategic and Systematic Therapies 4, 3: 55–59. Fleming, J. and Benedek, T.F. ([1966] 1983) Psychoanalytic Supervision: A Method of Clinical Teaching, New York: International Universities Press. Frankland, A. (1993) ‘A person centred model of supervision’, Unpublished paper. Freeman, E. (1985) ‘The importance of feedback in clinical supervision: implications for direct practice’, The Clinical Supervisor 3, 1: 5–26. Freeman, S.C. (1992) ‘C. H.Patterson on client-centred supervision: an interview’, Counselor Education and Supervision 31, 4: 219–226. Freud, S. ([1895] 1980) ‘The psychotherapy of hysteria’, in S.Freud and J. Breuer, Studies on Hysteria, Harmondsworth: Penguin. ——([1914] 1986) ‘On the history of the psychoanalytic movement’, in Historical and Expository Works on Psychoanalysis, Harmondsworth: Penguin. Friedlander, M.L., Siegal, S.M. and Brenock, K. (1989) ‘Parallel processes in counseling and supervision: a case study’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 36, 2: 149–157. Friedlander, S.R., Dye, N.W., Costello, R.M. and Kobos, J.C. (1984) ‘A developmental model for teaching and learning in psychotherapy supervision’, Psychotherapy 21, 189–196.

Bibliography

277

Gabriel, L. (2000) Commentary in C. Jones (ed.) ‘Visible, or hidden, aspects of the client’, Counselling 11, 4:210–212. Garrett, T. (1994) ‘Sexual contact between psychotherapists and their patients’, in P.Clarkson and M.Pokorny (eds) The Handbook of Psychotherapy, London: Routledge. Gibson, F., McGrath, A. and Reid, N. (1989) ‘Occupational stress in social work’, British Journal of Social Work 19: 1–16. Gilbert, M. and Sills, C. (1999) Training for supervision evaluation’, in E. Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Girardi, J.A., Keese R.M., Traver, L.B. and Cooksey, D.R. (1988) ‘Psychotherapist responsibility in notifying individuals at risk from exposure to HIV, The Journal of Sex Research 25, 1: 1–27. Goldberg, D. (1985) ‘Process notes, audio, and video tape: modes of presentation in psychotherapy training’, The Clinical Supervisor 3, 3: 3–13. Gomersall, J. (1997) ‘Peer group supervision’, in G.Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a Place to Think, Buckingham: Open University Press. Gonzalez, R.C. (1997) ‘Postmodern supervision: a multicultural perspective’, in D.Pope-Davis and H.Coleman (eds) Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Assessment, Education and Training, and Supervision, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Goodyear, R.K. and Bradley, F.O. (1983) ‘Theories of counselor supervision: points of convergence and divergence’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 59–67. Goodyear, R.K., Bradley, F.O. and Bartlett, W.E. (1983) ‘An introduction to theories of counselor supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 19–20. Granello, D.H., Beamish, P.M. and Da vis, T.E. (1997) ‘Supervisee empowerment: does gender make a difference?’, Counselor Education and Supervision 36, 4: 305–317. Grant, P. (1999) ‘Supervision and racial issues’, in M.Carroll and E. Holloway (eds) Counselling Supervision in Context, London: Sage. Grater, H.A. (1985) ‘Stages in psychotherapy supervision: from therapy skills to skilled therapist’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 16, 605–610. Greenson, R.R. (1967) The Technique and Practice of PsychoAnalyisis, Vol. 1, London: The Hogarth Press and Institute of Psycho-Analysis. Guest, P.D. and Beutler, L.E. (1988) ‘Impact of psychotherapy supervision on therapist orientation and values’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology 56, 5: 653–658. Hardy, S. and Park, A. (1997) ‘Supervision and professional practice’, in B.Thomas, S.Hardy and P.Cutting (eds) Stuart and Sundeeris Mental Health Nursing: Principles and Practice, London: Mosby.

278 Bibliography Hart, G.M. (1982) The Process of Clinical Supervision, Baltimore, Md.: University Park Press. Hawkins, P. and Shohet, R. (1989) Supervision in the Helping Professions, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. ——(2000) Supervision in the Helping Professions, Buckingham: Open University Press. Hawthorne, L. (1975) ‘Games supervisors play’, Social Work (London) 20 May: 179–183. Hayes, R.L. (1989) ‘Group supervision’, in L.J.Bradley, Counselor Supervision: Principles, Process and Practice (2nd edn), Muncie, Ind.: Accelerated Development Inc. Hellman, S. (1999) ‘The portfolio: a method of reflective development, in E.Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Heppner, P.P. and Roehlke, H.J. (1984) ‘Differences among supervisees at different levels of training: implications for a developmental model of supervision’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 31, 1: 76–90. Herlihy, B. and Corey, G. (1992) Dual Relationships in Counseling, Alexandria, Va.: American Counseling Association. Herlihy, B. and Sheeley, V.L. (1988) ‘Counselor liability and duty to warn: selected cases, statutory trends, and implications for practice’, Counselor Education and Supervision 28, 3:203–215. Heron, J. (1989) The Facilitators’ Handbook, London: Kogan Page. ——(1991) Helping the Client: A Creative Practical Guide, London: Sage. Hess, A.K. (1986) ‘Growth in supervision: stages of supervisee and supervisor development’, The Clinical Supervisor 4: 51–67. ——(1987) ‘Psychotherapy supervision: stages. Buber, and a theory of relationship’, Professional Psychology 18: 251–259. (ed.) (1980) Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Hewson, J. (1999) ‘Training supervisors to contract in supervision’, in E.L.Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Hill, C.E. (1989) Therapist Techniques and Client Outcomes, Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. Hitchings, P. (1999) ‘Supervision and sexual orientation’, in M.Carroll and E.L.Holloway (eds) Counselling Supervision in Context, London: Sage. Hogan, R.A. (1964) ‘Issues and approaches in supervision’, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 1: 139–141. Holloway, E.L. (1987) ‘Developmental models of supervision: is it developmental?’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 18, 3: 209–216. ——(1995) Clinical Supervision: A Systems Approach, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

Bibliography

279

Holloway, E.L. and Johnston, R. (1985) ‘Group supervision: widely practiced but poorly understood’, Counselor Education and Supervision, 24, 4: 332–340. Holloway, E.L. and Carroll. M. (eds) (1999) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Holloway, E.L. and Hosford, R.E. (1983) ‘Towards developing a prescriptive technology of counselor supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1:73–77. Horowitz, M.J. (1989) Introduction to Psychodynamics: A New Synthesis, London: Routledge. Horton, I. (1993) ‘Supervision’, in R.Boyne and P.Nicholson (eds) Counselling and Psychotherapy for Health Professionals, London: Chapman & Hall. ——(2000) ‘Principles and practice of a personal integration’, in S.Palmer and R. Woolfe (eds) Integrative and Eclectic Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Horton, I. and Varma, V. (eds) (1997) The Needs of Counsellors and Psychotherapists, London: Sage. Hosford, R.E. and Barmann, B. (1983) ‘A social learning approach to counselor supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 51–58. Houston, G. (1990) Supervision and Counselling, London: The Rochester Foundation. Hughes, L. and Pengelly, P. (1997) Staff Supervision in a Turbulent Environment, London: Jessica Kingsley. Hume, G.B. (1977) Searching For God, London: Hodder & Stoughton, Hutt, C.H., Scott, J. and King, M. (1983) ‘A phenomenological study of supervisees’ positive and negative experiences in supervision’, Psychotherapy: Theory, Research and Practice 20: 118–123. Hycner, R.H. (1991) Between Person and Person: Towards a Dialogical Psychotherapy, Highland, N.Y.: The Gestalt Journal. Inskipp, F. (1999) ‘Training supervisees to use supervision’, in E.L. Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Inskipp, F. and Proctor, P. (1994) Making the Most of Supervision, Twickenham: Cascade. ——(1995) Becoming a Counsellor Supervisor, Twickenham: Cascade. Ishiyama, F.I. (1988) ‘A model of visual case processing using metaphors and drawings’, Counselor Education and Supervision 28, 2: 153–161. Ivey, A.E. (1971) Microcounseling: Innovations in Interview Training, Springfield, Ill.: Charles C.Thomas. Jacobi, J. (1983) The Way of Individuation, New York: Meridian. Jacobs, D., David, P. and Meyer, J.M. (1995) The Supervisory Encounter, New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press. Jacobs, M. (1986) The Presenting Past, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. ——(1988) Psychodynamic Counselling in Action, London: Sage.

280 Bibliography ——(2000a) ‘Supervision of supervision’ (Taking supervision forward: a roundtable of views), in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. ——(2000b) Commentary in C. Jones (ed.) ‘Visible, or hidden, aspects of the client’, Counselling 11, 4: 210–212. Jacoby, M. (1984) The Analytic Encounter: Transference and Human Relationship, Toronto: Inner City Books. Jenkins, P. (1997) Counselling, Psychotherapy and the Law, London: Sage. Johnson, R.A. (1991) Owning Your Own Shadow, San Francisco: Harper. Jung, C.W. (1963a) Mysterium Coniunctionis, The Collected Works: Vol. 14, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. ——(1963b) Aion, The Collected Works: Vol. 9, Part II, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Kaberry, S. (2000) ‘Abuse in supervision’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Kadushin, A. (1985) Supervision in Social Work (2nd edn), New York: Columbia University Press. Kagan, N. (1980) ‘Influencing human interaction—eighteen years with IPR’, in A.K.Hess (ed.) Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons. ——(1983) ‘Classroom to client: issues in supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 69–72. (1984) ‘Interpersonal process recall: basic methods and recent research’, in D. Larsen (ed.) Teaching Psychological Skills, Monterey, Calif.: Brooks/Cole. Kagan, N., Krathwohl, D. and Miller, R. (1963) ‘Stimulated recall in therapy using videotape—a case study’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 10: 237–243. Kagan, N.I. and Kagan, H. (1990) ‘IPR—a validated model for the 1990s and beyond’, The Counseling Psychologist 18, 3: 436–440. Kahn, M. (1997) Between Therapist and Client: The New Relationship (revised edn), New York: Freeman. Kauderer, S. and Herron, W.G. (1990) ‘The supervisory relationship in psychotherapy over time’, Psychological Reports 67: 471–480. Keith, D.V. (1987) ‘The self in family therapy: a field guide’, in M. Baldwin and V.Satir (eds) The Use of Self in Therapy, Binghamton, N.Y.: Haworth Press. King, D. and Wheeler, S. (1999) ‘The responsibilities of counsellor supervisors: a qualitative study’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 27, 2: 215–229. Kitchener, K.S. (1984) ‘Intuition, critical evaluation and ethical principles: the foundation for ethical decisions in counseling psychology’, Counseling Psychologist 12, 3: 43–55.

Bibliography

281

Kopp, S. (1977) Back to One: A Practical Guide for Psychotherapists, Palo Alto, Calif.: Science and Behaviour Books, Inc. Kottler, J.A. (1992) Compassionate Therapy: Working with Difficult Clients, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Krause, A.A. and Allen, G.J. (1988) ‘Perceptions of counselor supervision: an examination of Stoltenberg’s model from the perspectives of supervisor and supervisee’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 35, 1: 77–80. Kiibler-Ross, E. (1970) On Death and Dying, London: Tavistock Publications. Kurpuis, D., Gibson, G., Lewis, J. and Corbet, M. (1991) ‘Ethical issues in supervising counseling practitioners’ , Counselor Education and Supervision 31, 1: 48–57. Kutter, P. (1993) ‘Direct and indirect (“reversed”) mirror phenomena in group supervision’, Group Analysis 26, 2: 177–181. Ladany, N. and Lehrman-Waterman, D.E. (1999) ‘The content and frequency of supervisor self-disclosures and their relationship to supervisor style and supervisory working alliance’, Counselor Education and Supervision 38, 3: 143–160. Lago, C.O., in collaboration with Thompson, J. (1996) Race, Culture and Counselling, Buckingham: Open University Press. Lammers, W. (1999) ‘Training in group and team supervision’, in E.L. Hollo way and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London: Sage. Langs, R. (1982) Psychotherapy: A Basic Text, New York: Jason Aronson. Lawton, B. (2000) ‘A very exposing affair’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Lazarus, A.A. (1990) ‘Can psychotherapists transcend the shackles of their training and superstitions?’, Journal of Clinical Psychology 46: 351–358. Leach, M.M., Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeill, B.W. and Eichenfield, G.A. (1997) ‘Self-efficacy and counselor development: testing the Integrated Developmental Model’, Counselor Education and Supervision 37, 2: 115–124. Leddick, G.R. and Bernard, J.M. (1980) ‘The history of supervision: a critical review’, Counselor Education and Supervision 19: 186–196. Leddick, G.R. and Dye, H.A. (1987) ‘Effective supervision as portrayed by trainee expectations and preferences’, Counselor Education and Supervision 27, 2: 139–153. Lemma, A. (1996) Introduction to Psychopathology, London: Sage. Liddle, B.J. (1986) ‘Resistance in supervision: a response to perceived threat’, Counselor Education and Supervision 26, 2: 117–127. Lidmila, A. (1992) ‘The way of supervision’, Counselling 3, 2: 97–100. ——(1997) ‘Shame, knowledge and modes of enquiry in

282 Bibliography supervision’, in G.Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a P l a c e t o T h i n k , B u c k i n g h a m : O p e n University Press. Loganbill, C, Hardy, E. and Delworth, U. (1982) ‘Supervision: a conceptual model’, The Counseling Psychologist 10, 1: 3–42. López, S.R., Grover, K.P., Holland, D., Johnson, M.J., Kain, C.D., Kanel, K., Mellins, C.A. and Rhyne, M.C. (1989) ‘Development of culturally sensitive psychotherapists’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 20, 6: 369–376. McLeod, J. (1993) An Introduction to Counselling, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. McNamara, J. (2000) ‘Trends and developments in supervision in Europe’ (Taking supervision forward: a roundtable of views), in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. McNeill, B.W., Horn, K.L., and Perez, J.A. (1995) ‘The training and supervisory needs of racial and ethnic minority students’, Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development 23: 246–258. Magnuson, S., Wilcoxon, S.A. and Norem, K. (2000) ‘A profile of lousy supervision: experienced counselors’ perspectives’, Counselor Education and Supervision 39, 3: 189–202. Mahrer, A.R. (1996) The Complete Guide to Experiential Psychotherapy, New York: John Wiley. —(1997) ‘Experiential supervision’, in C.E.Watkins (ed.) Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision, New York: John Wiley. Mair, K. (1992) ‘The myth of therapist expertise’, in W.Dryden and C. Feltham (eds) Psychotherapy and its Discontents, Buckingham: Open University Press. Martinez, R.P. and Holloway, E.L. (1997) ‘The supervision relationship in multicultural training’, in D.Pope-Davis, and H.Coleman (eds) Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Assessment, Education and Training, and Supervision, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Masson, J. (1990) Against Therapy, London: Fontana. Mattinson, J. (1977) The Reflection Process in Casework Supervision, London: Institute of Marital Studies, Tavistock Institute of Human Relations. Mearns, D. and Thorne, B. (1988) Person-Centred Counselling in Action, London: Sage. Melella, J.T., Travin, S. and Cullen, K. (1987) ‘The psychotherapist’s third-party liability for sexual assaults committed by his patient’, Journal of Psychiatry & Law 15, 1: 83–116. Miars, R.D., Tracey, T.J., Ray, P.B., Cornfeld, J.L., O’Farrell, M. and Gelso, C.J. (1983) ‘Variations in supervision process across trainee experience levels’, Journal of Counselling Psychology 30, 3: 403–412. Miller, A. (1987) The Drama of Being a Child, London: Virago.

Bibliography

283

Minnes, P.M. (1987) ‘Ethical issues in supervision’, Canadian Psychology 28, 3: 285–289. Nelson, G.L. (1978) ‘Psychotherapy supervision from the trainee’s point of view: a survey of preferences’, Professional Psychology 9: 539–550. Nelson, M.L. (1997) ‘An interactional model for empowering women in supervision’, Counselor Education and Supervision 37, 2: 125–139. Nelson, M.L. and Holloway, E.L. (1990) ‘Relation of gender to power and involvement in supervision’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 37, 4: 473–481. Nelson, M.L. and Holloway, E.L. (1999) ‘Supervision and gender issues’, in M.Carroll and E.L.Holloway (eds) Counselling Supervision in Context, London: Sage. Neufeldt, S.A. (1999) ‘Training in reflective processes in supervision’, in E.L.Holloway and M.Carroll (eds) Training Counselling Supervisors, London Sage. Newman J.A. and Lovell, H. (1993) ‘A description of a supervisory group for counselors’, Counselor Education and Supervision 33, 1: 22–31. Norcross, J.C. and Grencavage, L.M. (1989) ‘Eclecticism and integration in counselling and psychotherapy: major themes and obstacles’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 17, 3: 227–247. O’Connell, B. (1998) Solution-Focused Therapy, London: Sage. O’Neill, O. (1993) ‘Kantian ethics’, in P.Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell. Orr, M. (1999) ‘Believing patients’, in C.Feltham (ed.) Controversies in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Palmer, S. and McMahon, G. (1997) Client Assessment, London: Sage. Page, S. (1999a) The Shadow and the Counsellor, London: Routledge. ——(1999b) ‘Make use of supervision’, in I.Macwhinnie and S.Rigby, NVQ/SVQ Level 3 Counselling, London: Hodder & Stoughton, in conjunction with the British Association for Counselling. Patterson, C.H. (1983) ‘A client-centred approach to supervision’, The Counseling Psychologist 11, 1: 21–25. Patterson, C.H. and Hidore, S.C. (1997) Successful Psychotherapy: A Caring, Loving Relationship, Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson. Patterson, C.H. and Watkins, C.E. (1996) Theories of Psychotherapy (5th edn), New York: HarperCollins. Pettit, P. (1993) ‘Consequentialism’, in P.Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics, Oxford: Blackwell. Pickvance, D. (1997) ‘Becoming a supervisor ’, in G.Shipton (ed.) Supervision of Psychotherapy and Counselling: Making a Place to Think, Buckingham: Open University Press. Pope-Davis, D.B., and Coleman, H.L. (eds) (1997) Multicultural Counseling Competencies: Assessment, Education and Training, and Supervision, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage.

284 Bibliography Prieto, L.R. (1996) ‘Group supervision: still widely practiced but poorly understood’, Counselor Education and Supervision 35, 4: 295–307. Proctor, B. (1988) ‘Supervision: a co-operative exercise in accountability’, in M.Marken and M.Payne (eds) Enabling and Ensuring, Leicester: National Youth Bureau and Council for Education and Training in Youth and Community Work. ——(2000) Group Super vision: A Guide to Creative Practice, London: Sage. Proctor, B. and Ditton, A. (1989) ‘How counselling can add value to organisations’, Employee Counselling Today 1, 2: 3–6. Progoff, I. (1975) At a Journal Workshop, New York: Dialogue House Library. Rabinowitz, F.E., Heppner, P.P. and Roehlke, H.J. (1986) ‘Descriptive study of process and outcome variables of supervision over time’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 33, 3: 292–300. Racker, H. (1968) Transference and Counter transference, London: Hogarth Press. Rapp, H. (1996) Integrative Supervision: Inter subjective Assessment in a Reflective Learning Space, London (private publication). ——(1998) ‘Aims, means and outcomes of integrative evidence based psychotherapeutic practice in a multi-cultural society’, in H.Rapp (ed.) Healthy Alliances to Promote Mental Health and Social Inclusion, a BIIP discussion paper, London: British Initiative for Integrative Psychotherapeutic Practice. ——(2000) ‘Working with difference: culturally competent supervision’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Rawson, D., Whitehead, G. and Luthra, M. (1999) ‘The challenges of counselling in a multicultural society’, in S.Palmer and P.Laungani (eds) Counselling in a Multicultural Society, London: Sage. Reising, G.N. and Daniels, M.H. (1983) ‘A study of Hogan’s model of counselor development and supervision’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 30, 2: 235–244. Remocker, A.J. and Sherwood, E.T. (1999) Actions Speak Louder: A Handbook of Structured Group Techniques (6th edn), Toronto: Churchill Livings tone. Rennie, D.L. (1992) ‘Qualitative analysis of the client’s experience of psychotherapy’, in S.G.Toukmanian and D.L.Rennie (eds) Psychotherapy Process Research: Paradigmatic and Narrative Approaches, Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage. ——(1994) ‘Clients’ accounts of resistance in counselling: a qualitative analysis’, Canadian Journal of Counselling 28, 1: 43–57. Rice, L.N. (1980) ‘A client-centred approach to the supervision of psychotherapy’, in A.K.Hess (ed.) Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research and Practice, New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Bibliography

285

Ricketts, T. and Donohoe, G. (2000) ‘Clinical supervision in cognitive behavioural psychotherapy’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Robiner, W.N. (1982) ‘Role diffusion in the supervisory relationship’, Professional Psychology 13, 2:258–267. Rogers, C.R. (1951) Client Centred Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implications and Theory, London: Constable. ——(1961) On Becoming a Person: A Therapist’s View of Psychotherapy, London: Constable. ——(1978) On Personal Power, London: Constable. Rosenblatt, A. and Mayer, J.E. (1975) ‘Objectionable supervisory styles: students’ views’, Social Work, May: 184–189. Ross, W.D. (1930) The Right and The Good, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rowan, J. (1989) The Reality Game: A Guide to Humanistic Counselling and Therapy, London: Routledge. Rowan, J. and Dryden, W. (eds) (1988) Innovative Therapy in Britain, Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Rowland, N. and Goss, S. (2000) Evidence-Based Counselling and Psychological Therapies, London: Routledge. Russell, J. (1993) Out of Bounds: Sexual Exploitation in Counselling and Therapy, London: Sage. ——(1996) ‘Sexual exploitation in counselling’, in R.Bayne, I.Horton and J.Bimrose (eds) New Directions in Counselling, London: Routledge. Russell, R.K. and Petrie, T. (1994) ‘Issues in training effective supervisors’, Applied and Preventive Psychology 3: 27–42. Rutter, P. (1989) Sex in the Forbidden Zone, London: Mandala. Sansbury, D.L. (1982) ‘Developmental supervision from a skills perspective’, The Counselling Psychologist 10, 1: 53–57. Schneewind, J.B. (1993) ‘Modern moral philosophy’, in P.Singer (ed.) A Companion to Ethics , Oxford: Blackwell. Schutz, W. (1979) Profound Simplicity, London: Turnstone Books. Searles, H.F. (1955) ‘The informational value of the supervisor’s emotional experience’, Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and Related Subjects, London: Hogarth Press. ——(1962) ‘Problems of psychoanalytic supervision’, Science and Psychoanalysis 5: 197–215. Shainberg, D. (1983) ‘Teaching therapists how to be with their clients’, in J.Welwood (ed.) Awakening the Heart, Boulder, Colo.: New Science Library. Sharratt Wise, P., Lowery, S. and Silverglade, L. (1989) ‘Personal counseling for counselors in training: guidelines for supervisors’, Counselor Education and Supervision 28, 4: 326–337. Shipton, G. (2000) ‘In supervision with…’ (Taking supervision forward: a roundtable of views), in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking

286 Bibliography Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Shohet, R. (1992) Chapter 9 in W.Dryden (ed.) Hard Earned Lessons from Counselling in Action, London: Sage. Sinanson, V. and Svensson, A. (1994) ‘Going through the fifth window: “other cases rest on Sundays. This one didn’t’”, in V.Sinanson (ed.) Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, London: Routledge. Skovholt, T.M. and Rønnestad, M.H. (1992) The Evolving Professional Self: Stages and Themes in Therapist and Counselor Development, Chichester: Wiley. Snipe, R.M. (1988) ‘Ethical issues in the assessment and treatment of a rational suicidal client’, The Counseling Psychologist 16, 1: 128–138. Spy, T. and Oyston, C. (1999) ‘Supervision and working with disability’, in M.Carroll and E.L.Holloway (eds) Counselling Supervision in Context, London: Sage. Stationery Office (1995) Disability Discrimination Act 1995, Norwich: The Stationery Office. Sterba, R. (1934) ‘The fate of the ego in analytic therapy’, International Journal of Psychoanalysis 15: 117–126. Sternberg, T. (1994) ‘Love and hate in supervision groups’, Group Analysis 27: 149–157. Stockton, R. and Morran, D.K. (1982) ‘Review and perspective of critical dimensions in therapeutic small group research’, in G.M.Gazda (ed.) Basic Approaches to Group Psychotherapy and Group Counselling (3rd edn), Springfield, Ill.: Thomas. Stoltenberg, C. (1981) ‘Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: the counselor complexity model’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 28, 1: 59–65. Stoltenberg, C. and Delworth, U. (1987) Supervising Counsellors and Therapists: A Developmental Approach, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeill, B.W. and Crethar, H.C. (1994) ‘Changes in supervision as counselors and therapists gain experience: a review’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 25, 4: 416–449. ——(1995) ‘Persuasion and development in counselor supervision’, Counseling Psychologist 23, 4: 633–648. Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeill, B.W. and Delworth, U. (1998) IDM Supervision: An Integrated Developmental Model for Supervising Counselors and Therapists, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Stone, A.A. (1976) ‘The Tarasoff decisions: suing psychotherapists to safeguard society’, Harvard Law Review 90: 358–378. Stone, G.L. (1997) ‘Multiculturalism as a context for supervision: perspectives, limitations and implications’, in D.Pope-Davis and H. Coleman (eds) M u l t i c u l t u r a l C o u n s e l i n g C o m p e t e n c i e s :

Bibliography

287

Assessment, Education and Training, and Supervision, Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Storr, A. (1990) The Art of Psychotherapy (2nd edn), Oxford: Butterworth Heinemann. Strong, S.R. (1987) ‘Interpersonal influence theory as a common language for psychotherapy’, Journal of Integrative and Eclectic Psychotherapy 6: 173–184. Swenson E.V. (1987) ‘Legal liability for a patient’s suicide’, The Journal of Psychiatry & Law 14, 3: 409–434. Szymanska, K. and Palmer, S. (1997) ‘Counsellor-client exploitation’, in S.Palmer and G.McMahon (eds) Handbook of Counselling (2nd edn), London: Routledge. Taylor, M. (1994) ‘Gender and power in counselling and supervision’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 22, 3: 319–326. Thompson, A. (1990) Guide to Ethical Practice in Psychotherapy, New York: John Wiley & Sons. Ticho, E.A. (1972) ‘Termination of psychoanalysis: treatment goals, life goals’, Psychoanalytic Quarterly 44: 315–333. Tracey, T.J., Ellickson, J.L. and Sherry, P. (1989) ‘Reactance in relation to different supervisory environments and counselor development’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 36, 3: 336–344. Tuckman, B. and Jensen, M. (1977) ‘Stages of small group development revisited’, Group and Organisational Studies 2: 419–427. Vasquez, M.J. and McKinley, D. (1982) ‘Supervision: a conceptual model—reactions and extension’, The Counseling Psychologist 10, 1: 59–63. Villas-Boas Bowen, M. (1986) ‘Personality difference and person-centred supervision’, Person Centred Review, 1, 3: 291–309. Webb, A. (2000) ‘What makes it difficult for the supervisee to speak?’, in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy , London: Sage. Webb, A. and Wheeler, S. (1998) ‘How honest do counsellors dare to be in the supervisory relationship?: an exploratory study’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 26, 4: 509–524. Webb, N.B. (1983) ‘Developing competent clinical practitioners: a model with guidelines for supervisors’, The Clinical Supervisor 1, 4: 41–55. Wheeler, S. and King, E. (2000) ‘Do counselling supervisors want or need to have their supervision supervised?: an exploratory study’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 28, 2: 279–290. Whiston, S.C. and Emerson, S. (1989) ‘Ethical implications for supervisors in counseling of trainees’, Counselor Education and Supervision 28: 318–325. Whitaker, D.S. (1985) Using Groups to Help People, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Widiger, T.A. and Rorer, L.G. (1984) ‘The responsible psychotherapist’, American Psychologist 39, 5:503–515.

288 Bibliography Wilbur, M.P., Roberts-Wilbur, J., Hart, G.M., Morris, J.R. and Betz, R.L. (1994) ‘Structured Group Supervision (SGS): a pilot study’, Counselor Education and Supervision 33, 4: 262–279. Wiley, M.O. and Ray, P.B. (1986) ‘Counseling supervision by developmental level’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 33, 4: 439–445. Wilkins, P. (1997) Personal and Professional Development for Counsellors, London: Sage. Williams, A. (1995) Visual and Active Supervision: Roles, Focus, Technique, New York: Norton. Williams, D.I. (1992) ‘Supervision: a new word is desperately needed’, Counselling 3, 2: 96. Wilmot, J. and Shohet, R. (1985) ‘Paralleling in the supervision process’, Self and Society: European Journal of Humanistic Psychology 13, 2: 86–91. Winter, M. and Holloway, E.L. (1991) ‘Relation of trainee experience, conceptual level, and supervisor approach to selection of audiotaped counseling passages’, Clinical Supervisor 9, 2: 87–103. Worthen, V. and McNeill, B.W. (1996) ‘A phenomenological investigation of “good” supervision events’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 43: 25–34. Worthington, E.L. (1984) ‘Empirical investigation of supervision of counselors as they gain experience’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 31, 1: 63–75. ——(1987) ‘Changes in supervision as counselors and supervisors gain experience: a review’, Professional Psychology: Research and Practice 18, 3: 189–208. Worthington, E.L. and Roehlke, H.J. (1979) ‘Effective supervision as perceived by beginning counsellors-in-training’, Journal of Counseling Psychology 26, 1: 64–73. Wosket, V. (1990) ‘Counsellor motivation: a neglected factor in helping relationships’, Unpublished MA dissertation, University of Keele. ——(1998) ‘Information for Counselling Supervisors’ (course document), Graduate Diploma in Counselling, College of Ripon and York St John. ——(1999) The Therapeutic Use of Self: Counselling Practice, Supervision and Research, London: Routledge. ——(2000a) ‘Integration and eclecticism in supervision’, in S.Palmer and R.Woolfe (eds) Integrative and Eclectic Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. ——(2000b) ‘The interface between supervision and therapy in the supervision of experienced practitioners’ (Taking supervision forward: a roundtable of views), in B.Lawton and C.Feltham (eds) Taking Supervision Forward: Enquiries and Trends in Counselling and Psychotherapy, London: Sage. Wosket, V. and Page, S. (2001) ‘The Cyclical Model of counsellor supervision: a container for creativity and chaos’, in M.Carroll and M.

Bibliography

289

Tholstrup (eds) Integrative Approaches to Supervision, London: Jessica Kingsley. Yalom, I. (1985) The Theory and Practice of Group Psychotherapy (3rd edn), New York: Basic Books. Yardley-Matwiejczuk, K.M. (1997) Role Play: Theory and Practice, London: Sage. Yesenosky, J.M. and Dowd, T.E. (1990) ‘The social psychology of counselling and psychotherapy: a base for integration’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling 18, 2: 170–184. Yogev, S. (1982) ‘An eclectic model of supervision: a developmental sequence for beginning psychotherapy students’, Professional Psychology 13: 236–243. Youngson, S.C. (1994) ‘Ritual abuse: the personal and professional cost for workers’, in V.Sinanson (ed.) Treating Survivors of Satanist Abuse, London: Routledge. Zuniga, M.E. (1987) ‘Mexican-American clinical training: a pilot project, Journal of Social Work Education 23: 11–20.

Name Index

Allen, G.J. 58, 65, 90, 96, 251 Allphin, C. 123, 149 Amundson, N.W. 86 Aponte, H.J. 229 Aveline, M. 83 Bahrick, A.S. 65, 66 Baker, L.C. 123, 191–2 Baker, R. 125 Barker, C. 145 Barmann, B. 54 Baron, R.A. 118 Barten, H.H. 134 Bartlett, W.E. 34, 65, 66 Beitman, B.D. 13 Benedek, T.F. 1, 11 Bernard, J.M. 10, 18, 23, 34, 70, 151, 152, 153, 185, 204, 220, 222, 227–8 Beutler, L.E. 96, 143 Beyerstein, D. 203 Bion, W.R. 167, 177 Blocher, D. 31, 32, 34–5, 43, 58, 65, 117, 251 Blount, C.M. 31 Blumenfield, M. 56, 57 Bond, T. 2, 17, 25, 176, 181, 182, 186, 189 Borders, L.D. 5, 23, 26, 32, 33, 95, 136, 145, 251 Bordin, E.S. 56, 183 Boyd, J. 10 Brading, J. 206 Bradley, F.O. 4, 40 Bradley, L.J. 4, 22, 92, 145, 251 Brandes, D. 176 Brown, M.T. 217, 222 Buckley, P. 1

290

Budman, S.H. 135 Buhrke, R.A. 220–1, 222 Burley-Allen, M. 176 Calligor, L. 113 Carifio, M.S. 56, 105, 247 Carroll, M. 8, 18, 33, 34, 35, 127–8, 166, 201, 238, 251 Cartwright, D. 177 Casement, P. 20, 26, 27, 107, 121, 138, 195, 241–2, 255 Clarke, P. 145, 214 Coleman, H.L. 222 Collins, D. 208 Connor, M.P. 2, 247, 269 Cook, D.A. 222 Copeland, S. 33, 200, 201 Corey, G. 61, 185 Cummings, N.A. 135 Curds, J. 206 Daniels, J. 25, 212–13, 222 Daniels, M.H. 6, 8 Davis, A.H. 125 Davidson, L. 10 Dearnley, B. 264–5 Dell, D.M. 6 Delworth, U. 6, 8, 31, 32, 33–4, 92, 118, 145, 217, 222–3 De Shazer, S. 135 Ditton, A. 51 Doehrman, M.G. 112 Donohoe, G. 4 Douglas, T. 172 Dowd, T.E. 55 Dryden, W. 4, 10, 22, 135 Dupont-Joshua, A. 212 Dye, H.A. 63

Name Index Eckler-Hart, A. 77 Edwards, D. 10 Estation, J.F. 92 Egan, G. 4, 55, 136–7 Eitingon, M. 1 Ekstein, R. 56, 86 Eleftheriadou, Z. 209, 210, 211 Elliott, R. 145, 146 Ellis, M.V. 6, 31, 34, 35 Emerson, S. 56, 57–8, 100, 251 Farber, B.A. 125 Fear, R. 231 Fennell, D. 18 Feltham, C. 1, 10, 22, 135, 230, 232 Fine, M. 18 Fleming, J. 1, 11 Fordham, 110 Frankland, A. 4, 51 Freeman, E. 118, 142 Freeman, S.C. 65, 67, 71, 151 Freud, S. 1, 9 Friedlander, M.L. 4, 31, 34, 56, Gabriel, L. 211 Garrett, T. 61 Gibson, F. 125 Gilbert, M. 142 Girardi, J.A. 192 Goldberg, D. 82 Gomersall, J. 162 Gonzalez, R.C. 209–10, 214, 226, 227 Goodyear, R.K. 4, 18, 23, 34, 40, 152, 153, 185, 204, 220, 222 Goss, S. 195 Granello, D.H. 224–5 Grant, P. 212, 222 Grater, H.A. 31 Greenson, R.R. 106 Grencavage, L.M. 13, 31 Guest, P.D. 96, 143 Hardy, S. 30 Hart, G.M. 4, 31, 34, 65, 66, 67, 91, 152, 251 Hawkins, P. 14, 15, 34, 35, 92, 188–9, 197, 201, 251, 255 Hawthorne, L. 22, 25 Hayes, R.L. 177 Heifetz, L.J. 125 Hellman, S. 253 Heppner, P.P. 6, 96 Herlihy, B. 61, 192

291

Heron, J. 18, 97, 99, 117, 128, 137, 161 Herron, W.G. 58, 91 Hess, A.K. 4, 31, 32, 56, 61–2, 66, 92, 102, 105, 247 Hewson, J. 45 Hidore, S.C. 70 Hitchings, P. 221, 222 Hogan, R.A. 5 Holloway, E.L. 8, 12, 31, 32, 33, 67, 110, 158, 223, 225, 226, 227, 230, 251 Horowitz, M.J. Horton, I. 65, 135, 231 Hosford, R.E. 54, 251 Houston, G. 56 Hughes, L. 243–4 Hume, G.B. 26 Hutt, C.H. 68–9, 96 Hycner, R.H. 208 Inskipp, F. 8, 24, 34, 160, 222 Ishiyama, F.I. 86–7 Jacobi, J. 113 Jacobs, D. 70, 115–16, 117 Jacobs, M. 24, 29, 109, 196, 208 Jacoby, M. 9, 20, 110 Jenkins, P. 184, 206 Jensen, M. 178 Johnson, R.A. 124 Johnston, R. 158 Jung, C.G. 112–13, 123 Kaberry, S. 12, 22, 61, 189, 210 Kadushin, A. 16, 54, 63 Kagan, H. 92 Kagan, N. 34, 40, 66, 92, 145, 152, 255 Kahn, M. 70 Kant, E. 180 Kauderer, S. 58, 91 Keith, D.V. 232 King, D. 22, 183, 264 Kopp, S. 134 Kottler, J.A. 232 Krause, A.A. 90 Kiibler-Ross, E. 135 Kurpuis, D. 251 Kutter, P. 172 Ladany, N. 69–70 Lago, C.O. 222 Lammers, W. 255–6

292 Name Index Landrum-Brown, J. 217, 222 Langs, R. 128, 190 Lawton, B. 12, 21, 230 Lazarus, A.A. 232 Leach, M.M. 6, 32 Leddick, G.R. 10, 34, 63, 95, 136, 145, 251 Lehrmann-Waterman, D.E. 69–70 Lemma, A. 196 Liddle, B.J. 12, 199 Lidmila, A. 22, 114, 265 Loganbill, C. 31, 228, 251 López, S.R. 32, 222, 223 Lovell, H. 158 McKinley, D. 218 McLeod, J. 2, 61 McMahon, G. 196 McNamara, J. 2 McNeill, B.W. 6, 31, 68, 214, 218 Magnuson, S. 92 Mair, K. 232 Martinez, R.P. 227 Masson, J. 61 Mattinson, J. 9, 111 Mayer, J.E. 90, 93, 94, 95 Melella, J.T. 192 Miars, R.D. 31 Minnes, P.M. Moran, D.K. 176 Nelson, G.L. 96 Nelson, M.L. 67, 222, 223, 225, 226 Neufeldt, S.A. 226 Newman, J.A. 158 Norcross, J.C. 13, 31 Norris, J. 176 O’Neill, O. 180 Orr, M. 241 Oyston, C. 222 Page, S. 11, 20, 24, 48, 124, 135, 136, 163, 166, 173, 177, 196, 201, 222, 244 Palmer, S. 61, 196 Park, A. 30 Patterson, C.H. 40, 56, 58–9, 65, 67, 70–1, 151, 211, 216–17 Patterson, J.E. 123, 192 Pengelly, P. 243–4 Petrie, T. 96, 251 Pettit, P. 180 Pickvance, D. 18

Pope-Davis, D.B. 222 Prieto, L.R. 158 Proctor, B. 51, 63, 158, 159–60, 183, 254 Proctor, P. 8, 24, 34, 160 Progoff, I. 259 Rabinowitz, F.E. 6, 31, 96 Racker, H. Rapp, H. 8, 204, 207, 209, 220, 222, 226, 227 Rawson, D. 227 Ray, P.B. 6 Reising, G.N. 6, 8 Remocker, A.J. 176 Rennie, D.L. 209, 238 Rice, L.N. 65, 83, 91–2, 116–17, 143, 151 Ricketts, T. 4 Robiner, W.N. 12 Roehlke, H.J. 6, 90, 96 Rogers, C.R. 2, 40, 70 Ronnestadt, M.H. 136, 163, 231, 233, 235–6, 260 Rorer, L.G. 186 Rosenblatt, A. 90, 93, 94, 95 Ross, W.D. 181 Rowan, J. 4, 93–4, 95 Rowland, N. 195 Russell, J. 61 Russell, R.K. 96, 251 Rutter, P. 61 Sansbury, D.L. 31 Sayama, M. 134 Schneewind, J.B. 185 Schutz, W. 177, 178 Searles, H.F. 9, 10 Shainberg, D. 20, 119 Sharratt Wise, P. 58 Sheeley, Y.L. 192 Sherwood, E.T. 176 Shipton, G. 22 Shohet, R. 9, 14, 15, 34, 35, 92, 188–9, 197, 201, 232, 251, 255 Sills, C. 142 Sinanson, V. 240 Skovholt, T.M. 136, 163, 231, 233, 235, 260 Snipe, R.M. 192 Spy, T. 222 Sterba, R. 107 Sternberg, T. 177 Stockton, R. 176

Name Index Stoltenberg, C. 5, 6, 8, 31, 32, 33–4, 92, 118, 128, 145, 217, 222–3, 251 Stone, A.A. 185, 205, 216 Storr, A. 186 Strong, S.R. 55 Svennson, A. 240 Swenson, E.V. 192 Szymanska, K. 61 Taylor, M. 225 Thompson, A. 181 Thompson, J. 222 Ticho, E.A. 134 Tracey, T.J. 6, 32 Tuckman, B. 178 Varma, V. 135 Vasquez, M.J. 218 Villas-Boas Bowen, M. 56, 57, 96–7 Wallerstein, R. 56, 86 Watkins, C.E. 211, 216–17 Webb, A. 12, 22, 67, 68, 105, 176 Webb, N.B. 43 Wheeler, S. 22, 67, 68, 183, 264 Whiston, S.C. 56, 57–8, 100, 251

293

Whitaker, D.S. 164 Widiger, T.A. 186 Wilbur, M.P. 175 Wiley, M.O. 6 Wilhelm, R. 112–13 Wilkins, P. 135 Williams, A. 111, 215, 231–2 Williams, D.I. 16, 61 Wilmot, J. 9 Winter, M. 230 Woolfe, R. 231 Worthen, V. 68 Worthington, E.L. 8, 18, 32, 90, 96, 251, 252, 261, 263–4 Wosket, V. 11, 14, 31, 43, 62, 70, 77, 90, 135, 136, 169, 177, 219, 229, 230, 231, 233, 243, 244, 267 Yalom, I. 178 Yardley-Matweijcuk, K.M. 132 Yesenosky, J.M. 55 Yogev, S. 31 Youngson, S.C. 240–1, 243 Zander, A. 177 Zuniga, M.E. 218

Subject Index

abandonment 89, 109, 242 abdication 25 abortion 133 absolute duties/theories 180, 181 abuse 99; child 101–2, 241–2; emotional 61; possibilities of 193; power 61, 182; ritual 240; sexual 192; survivors of 3 acceptance 4, 97, 237; passive 228 accountability 61–3, 167, 168–9, 254; cultural 220, 228 accreditation 50, 252 acculturation 217 acting out 121–2 action planning 4, 127, 136–8 adaptability 15, 160; possibilities for 91 addiction 3 adequacy 70 affirmation 24, 68, 80, 98, 124–5, 142, 217, 219, 244; insufficient 118; possibilities for 247; self 48, 49 age 205, 208 aggression 122 aims 20, 40, 63, 130; group 164 alcohol 182 alliances: collaborative 153; collusive 110; reflective 107, 113, 122; supervision, nature of 141; unhealthy 111; working 69, 106, 166 ambiguities 11, 183–4, 192 amusement 144 anger 106, 123, 209; bottled up 235; suppressed 137; towards client 79 annoyance 53 anonymity 59, 197 antecedents anticipation 63, 106, 181 anxiety 2, 94, 234, 243, 245; early, containing 167; empathic response to 87; evaluation 199; excessive 117; experiencing and exploring 121;

294

finding a way to contain 184; ‘gettingit right’ 6; in touch with own 141; keeping at bay 88; performance 47, 21 6; precipitated by unconsciousmaterial 122;prevention of 53; primitive 177; risk of disclosing 77; single issue provoking 189; unconscious 177; unnecessary 82, 142, 152 apathy 93 application 128, 183; see also bridge stage appraisal 144, 145; negative 153 approaches 24, 31, 39, 43, 48, 64, 89–92, 143, 255; behvioural 13–14; better match of 145; biodynamic 4; compassionate 220; compatibility of 95; core 15; creative 82; developmental 5–6, 33–4; eclectic 14, 15; educational 220; empirically based 35; existential 4; ‘extrapunitive’ 83; generalised 96; Gestalt 4, 14; greater permission to develop own 152; idealistic 190; ‘impunitive’ 83; interpretative 114; ‘intropunitive’ 83; new 161; ‘no model’ 23; personally integrated 231; powerful 86; probing andquestioning 95; psychodynamic 4, 11. 13; ‘seat of our pants’ 35; sink or swim 2 8; transactional analysis 4 approval70 arrogance 215 artwork 85–6 aspirations 103 assertiveness 48, 150 assessment 22, 57, 141, 166, 216; formal 38, 151; formative 151, 152–3; mutual 153; self 199; summative 64, 151, 152, 153–6; two-way 196 associations 113

Subject Index assumptions 18, 39, 41–4, 90, 185, 209; challenges which evaluate 120; cultural 221; of similarity 208 attack 117; psychological 99 attention 4, 45, 73, 88, 110, 112; bringing into the present 176; distracted 165; evenly hovering 115– 16; good quality of 173; individual 233; struggle to pay 172; uninterrupted 51 attitudes 108; compromise of basic values and 91; discriminatory 221, 222, 227; less judgemental and less punitive towards clients intent on self-harm 49; non-defensive 65; oppressive 226 attributes 54, 93, 154, 237; ideal 247; positive 160 authenticity 233, 236 authoritative interventions 97; confronting 98; informative 98; prescriptive 98 autonomy 9, 96, 181, 182, 185–7, 194; partnership model that generates 226; supervisee, encouraging 93, 98; undermining 183, 186 avoidance 69, 118, 141, 150; action as a means of 243 awareness 5, 14, 25, 28, 42, 49, 88, 129; conscious 123; cultural differences 214; free association and 75; growing 154; increasing 257–60; learning and 38; new 139; personal 154; personal reactions to clients 230; relationship dynamics 4; responses and reactions 33; self 79, 96, 98, 99, 230, 238; supervisee’s preferred learning style 96 BACP (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy) 2, 3, 17, 39, 50; Code of Ethics and Practice for Counsellors 169; Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors of Counsellors 31, 52–3, 61, 194–5, 201–2, 203, 206, 222; Complaints Procedure 169; ‘grandparenting’ scheme 254; scheme for supervisor accreditation 252 ‘baddies’ 203 basic affective relationship 105–6, 107, 114 behaviour 6, 8; creative 232; cross-gender 225; discriminatory 221, 222; effect upon client 119–20; facilitator 178; insession, analysing 99; inappropriate 24; interpersonal 176; ‘lousy’ 92; nonverbal 14; patronising 119; politically correct shifts in 227; spontaneous 232;

295

unethical 120; unhelpful 120; workrelated, criticism of 95 beliefs 65; core ; oppressive 226; personal 91; primitive 133; theoretical 139 beneficence 181, 195–6 benefits 55–6, 66; potential 171 bereavement 3, 71, 100, 135 between-group variance 217 bicultural identity 218 blame 221 blindspots 40, 86, 98, 141; challenging 81, 142; monitoring 228 blockages 105 bonds 69 boredom 15, 51, 106, 172 boundaries 14, 53–61, 78, 98, 167–8, 188–90; agreed 18; blurring 183; clear 46, 53, 58, 155; defining 5, 11; failure to observe 93; issues 101–2; maintaining 11, 53; management of 8; overlapping 168; overstepping of 102; practical 21; role 60–1; slipped 157; unaddressed issues 101–2; unnecessarily rigid 237; see also contracts; purpose; space; time breaks 50 bridge stage 36, 38, 55, 104–5, 215; creating 174–5; differences and 204–5; burn-out 125 care 22, 43; duty of 184, 200 career guidance 2 case-load 76 case-notes 82 case-work 231 categorical imperative 180 cathartic work 98, 137, 155 caution 38, 111, 130, 178 Certificate Courses in Counselling Supervision 38–9, 248, 250, 252 challenge 18, 41, 117–20, 178, 238; balance of support and 96, 143, 223; blindspots 81; mediating 167; non-aggressive 98; self 48, 89; supportive 141 chaos 177, 243 child abuse 101–2, 241–2 choices 118–19, 131, 185, 186, 188; rational 192 chronological stage 32 clarification 4, 123, 146, 164 clarity 18, 49, 61, 85, 203, 241; lack of 94; maintaining 117 client-counsellor system 14 clients 24, 38, 54, 228; angry 88; bereaved 100; black 205, 219; choices 131; clinging 88; conceptualisation 2; consent

296 Subject Index of 84; deterring 155; differences between counsellors and 205; difficulties in relation to 55, 65, 79, 85, 88, 89; disadvantaged 204; discussion of 60, 81, 114, 115, 135; distressed 124; drawing of 85–6, 87; empathising with 119; ethnic minority 211; exasperation with 119; experience of counselling 209; extremes of experience 238–46; facilitating growth in 42; female 205; frightened 129–30; gay 205; group supervision of 158, 159; homelesss 205; impact on 124; implications for work with 175; ‘indigestible’ 108; interacting more congruently with 230; interests of 62; interventions focused on experience of 106; irritation and anger towards 79; issues 154; manipulation by 234; meaning and message of experience 150; mess in therapy 123; models for 59; needs of 62, 63, 64, 182, 202–3; needy 88; objectifying 88; older 55; outcomes 152; passive 111–12; perspectives 138–9; ‘playing a hunch’ with 80; potential 196, 199; pressure to increase intake of 77; rebellious 88; referred for psychiatric treatment 101; relationships with 69, 230, 237; respect for 66; responsibilities to 194; returning intermittently 135; risk of assault by 192; safeguards for 202; selfharm 49, 101; self-reports 146; sexual abuse by 192; shared journey with counsellor 18; suicidal 32, 53, 192; suitable 196; unacknowledged personal issue obtruding on work with 100; undermining of autonomy 186; unfinished business from previous client work affecting 100–1; vulnerable 236; welfare of 10, 41, 67, 74, 100, 142; what to do with 23 clinical reality 210 ‘clobbering’ 117–18 closure 178 clues 42, 80, 88 coaching 55 codes of ethics 15, 188, 254; see also BACP cognitive process 130 cohesiveness/cohesion 177, 178 collaboration 41, 83, 108, 116, 118, 141, 153, 210; encouraging 142; peer 253; spirit of 78, 95 collusion 11, 86, 110, 111, 193; possibilities of 48; temptation to 119 colour 205, 212, 219 coming together 178 commitment 9, 24 companionship 159

compatibility 48, 91, 95, 235 competence 34, 41, 53, 54, 80, 120; awareness of 49; confidential statement of 153; cultural 226, 227; culturespecific 204; developing own level of 197; emotional 18; enhancing 142; expected 152; growing 154; monitoring limits of 31; nonmaleficence and 196; reflective 226; transcultural 32 competition: direct 118; dynamics of 24 complacency 48 composure 15, 51, 237 compromise 118 concentration 50, 108 concerns 22, 62, 65, 74, 77, 85, 192; serious 198–9; welfare of client 100 concreteness 105, 247 confidence 65, 79, 96, 193, 195, 245; crisis of 235; lack of 25; self 120, 150 confidentiality 18, 53, 62, 187; boundaries applied to 59–61, 159, 167, 189, 190–2; explicit and agreed 197; confirmation 217; challenge by 118 conflict resolution 220 confrontation 5, 25, 94, 117, 161, 223; fear of level of 118; one of the most powerful forms 120; shying away from 237–8 confusion 4, 37, 122, 142, 149, 232; ability to tolerate 243; anxiety about 123 congruence 52, 97, 230, 238 consent 84; informed 186–7, 188 consequences 180–1; extreme 191; potential 190; unsettling 241–2 consistency 4, 203 consolidation 128–30 consultancy 41, 63 consultation 33 containers 104, 190 containment 24, 53, 59, 85, 120–4; application layer 104–5; emotional 20; lack of 244; qualities of 20, 243; structural layer 104 contamination 78, 243, contemplation 240; ‘island of 107 contextual differences 215–19 contracts 36, 40, 45–72, 74, 103, 164, 211–15; agreed and mutually beneficial 181; clear 155, 167, 187, 168; different types of 198; establishing 45–6, 73; five components 104; formal assessment not part of 151; initial 46, 187, 188, 219; mutual 215; not being faithful to 189; open, honest and non-defensive 211; open-ended, long-term 207; practical aspects 175; regular 215;

Subject Index setting 166–70; short-term 207; written 46, 190; see also recontracting control 12, 149, 150, 214 control analysis 10 convergence 40, 73 conversations 137 co-operation 82, 145 core conditions/qualities see approaches; congruence; empathy; genuineness; respect; warmth corrective action 152 co-supervision 100 counselling relationship 68, 227, 231; abuse of power in 182; awareness of dynamics of 4, 6; caution and sensitivity in 38, 111; dynamics of 156; emotional demands 27; material which may have been missed 14–15; negative effects of intrusion of worker’s personal material 49; Nurturing Parent-Child 20; parallel with 66; supervision and 9, 23, 57–8, 59, 60, 111; terminating 5; therapeutic 138 counsellors/counselling: abusing power 61; anger towards supervisors 106; BACP accredited 50, 252; client-centred 193; conceptualisation of the process 6; consistently pushing client into areas of distress 124; couples 3, 158; courses at Masters level 28, 230; developmental level 8; differences between supervision and 5, 18, 40; dynamics in supervision 4; effective work 76; families 3; female 55, 205; gay 205; good practice 209; greater clarity about the process 49; groups 3, 158–79; incompatible 48; independent identity for 3; inexperienced 8, 131; integrating skills and functions 26; movement to integrate psychotherapy and 13; number taking on the role of supervisor 17; parallel processes in supervision and 8, 111, 112; personal 49, 55; personal qualities 154; professionalisation of 3; psychodynamic 193, 248; psychotherapy and 56; puritanical 237; qualifications 199; rationale for conceptualisation 43; reliability and predictability 128; research 32; responsibility for the work of 183–5; supervising in groups 158–79; surrogate 23; training programmes/courses 1; transcultural 205; see also counselling relationship; trainee counsellors counter-transference 14, 70, 109, 112, 121, 192–3; fatherly 134; feelings 55,

297

134; illusory 110, 111, 115, 120, 122, 136, 172; syntonic 110, 115, 136 courage 118, 120, 221, 237, 242, 245 creative flow 117 creative thinking 114 creativity 31, 82, 133, 138, 196 credibility 157 crises: of confidence 235; of conscience 78; personal 74, 197 criteria 164, 196, 200 cross-cultural differences 210–11, 216, 217 cues 146 culture blindness 207 curiosity 117 dangers 5, 43, 105, 110, 142, 160, 198, 246; masking racism and injustice 216; steps to minimise 190–1; twin 215 deafspots 86 debriefing 48, 49, 123, 234, 239, 244 decision-making 181–2, 202; autonomous 226 defence: collusive 133; psychological 124 defensiveness 99, 117, 119, 130, 208 demoralisation 49 denial 22 dependence 56, 144, 186 depression 119, 172, 185; short-term 192 deprivation 189 desires 65; omnipotent 134 despondency 125 development 34, 63, 68, 154; creative 160; facilitating 33; female supervisees 225; fruitful 236; group 162, 175, 178; indicating areas for 142; learning and 40–1, 131; monitoring 6; multicultural 228; opportunity for 39; personal 96, 216; professional 216, 226, 229–38; self 135; training and 247–70 developmental stages 5, 6, 32, 118, 216; group 178 dialogue 65, 67, 83, 101, 146–8, 149–50; honest 214; internal 237 difference 204–28; see also diversity difficulties 12, 26, 51–2, 68, 119, 201; coping with 95; difference 206; endings 71, 82; ethical 183; group 173, 177; making regular appointments 156; relating to clients 55, 65, 79, 85, 88, 89; single issue that raises the greatest number of 189; see also experience dilemmas 67, 70, 101, 117, 131, 150, 185; difference 206; experienced practitioners 234; inappropriate haste to resolve 122–3

298 Subject Index diligence 215 Diploma courses 38–9, 77, 155, 156, 248, 252; Graduate 62, 84 direction 37 disability 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 215; hidden 211 Disability Discrimination Act (1995) 206 disappointment 90, 120 disbelief 241–2, 246 discernment process 114 disclosure 52, 78, 94; entrusting 59; free 62; inhibitors of 105; intimate 178; premature 117; risk of 77, 79; self 69–70, 131, 148, 214, 247; sensitive material 67; unpalatable 241 discomfort 132, 141, 142 discontinuity 128 discouragement 117 discrimination 64, 195, 206, 209, 218, 222, 227; intransigent 221 discussions 60, 81, 114, 115, 135, 153; confidential 190; difference 213; energy levels 173; impetus for 156; information fed in during 171; initial 170; intense or emotional 129; potential space for 220; usefulness of 145 disengagement 117, 143 disinterest 215 disquiet 236 disrespect 215 distraction 165, 176; distress 95, 98, 123, 155, 242, 245; containment for 85; counsellor consistently pushes a client into areas of 124; managing 20; personal 51, 79 divergence 40 diversity 89, 90, 204–28 divorce 134 Doctoral-level programmes 230 doctors 15 doubts 65, 88, 121, 149, 242; risk of disclosing 77; self 78, 218 drawings 82, 85–7 dreams 234 drugs 185 dumbspots 86 duration 49–50, 188 duties 180, 181; of care 184, 200 dynamics 12; awareness, counselling relationship 4, 6; competition 24; complexity of 165; destructive 163, 172; family 171; group 168, 172, 177–9; hidden or unfolding 14; interpersonal 227; intra-personal 28; power 225; powerful 172; therapeutic 193; transference 115; unconscious 13, 25; see also relationship dynamics

eclecticism 14, 15; wild 90 educational process 6, 16, 58, 63, 79–80; shame-based 142 ego 106 ego strength 118, 147 embarrassment 15, 237 emotions 11, 63, 236; see also under various headings, e.g. abuse; behaviour; containment; difficulties; energy; experience; holding; responses; stress empathy 5, 41, 68, 70, 71, 97, 99, 105, 119, 138, 241; advanced 80; factors in supervisees’ life that might be contributing to difficulty in 56; ideal supervisor possesses appropriate levels 247; responses 87; shadows and 124 emptiness 130 encouragement 6, 25, 105, 118, 220 energy 50, 172, 235; emotional and relational 124; monitoring patterns of 173; potential 177 engagement 51; effective 110; non-defensive 53 envy 99, 163 equivalence 160 ethical and professional issues 64, 100, 164, 180–203; imperatives 151, 180, 188, 194; requirement for the job 251 ‘ethical inquisitor’ position 25 ethnicity 33, 208, 210, 211, 217, 218 evaluation 38, 62, 65, 140, 144–50, 154; basis for 81; feedback 143, 200; formative 152; internal sense of, to replace external sense 152; IPR as a tool 146; mutual 145, 199–200; negative 58, 95; objective 243; peer 253; personal characteristics 154; self 152, 253; sentence stems designed to stimulate 86; specific strategies or interventions 83; subjective 151 evidence 115, 119, 191, 195; monitoring 196; tangible 155 expectations 6, 15, 18, 20, 46, 48, 63–6, 167, 169–70, 192–3; awareness to 214; challenges which evaluate 120; extent to which met 175; initial 145; overlaying own 205; social 225; unrealistic 78 experience 2, 85, 143, 213, 217, 218; affective 107, 113; anxiety-laden 243; childhood 113; client 150, 238–46; confused 123; culturally specific 217; debriefing 48; emotional 124, 175; extreme 240; felt 106, 114; female supervisees 225; group 165, 196;

Subject Index helping, past/present 56; hierarchy of 161; learning 10, 65; negative 46, 68; new, attempt to master 56; pivotal 26; positive 68; powerful 173, 174; reflecting 172–3; sharing 55, 141, 159; traumatic 123; unproductive 92 experimentation 68, 132 exploration 55, 63, 65, 86, 103, 105, 173, 184; bridging and 128; depth of 178; encouraged 68, 69; energy out of 235; goals and 132, 134; nondefensive 215; open 69, 215; relationship issues 110, 156; facilitated groups 161–2, 196 facilitative conditions see concreteness; empathy; genuineness; respect facilitative interventions 97; catalytic 98; cathartic 98; supportive 98 facilitators 146, 161, 164, 165, 167, 171, 172; behaviour of 178; important part of the role 173 failure 79 fairness/fair practice 193, 194–5 fallibility 149 false hope 196 families 3, 171, 205 fantasies 108, 115, 193 fathers 55, 89, 100, 134, 137 fatigue 50, 51 fears 94, 141; irrational 220 feedback 12, 85, 99, 140, 141–3, 150; application to client work 174; balanced 154; conciliatory 118; constructive 41, 142, 152; direct 98; encouraging 141, 152; evaluating 200; guidelines on what is required 62; honest 148; inviting 141; mechanisms 198, 199, 200; mutual 38; ongoing 153, 250; open 148; open to receiving 64, 65; peer 253; positive 6; regular 152, 153–4; risky and uncomfortable 149; sensitive 154; skills and 251, 256–7; specific 154; statements 200; supportive 153; systematic 247; variety of 167; written 200 feelings 86, 88, 95, 98, 113, 146, 173; allowing to subside 129; archaic 114; articulation of 55; attempting to deny 79; aversion to owning and talking about 155; counter-transference 55, 134; dealing with 161; disclosure of 94; forced termination 74; ‘fraudulence’ 77; generated by material 51; help to voice 71; inner(most) 59, 231; offloading 243; opportunity to ventilate own 194; painful 133; pent-

299

up, releasing 142; pervasive 114–15; restricted 115; strong 155; unrelated 15; unresolved 55; see also under various headings, e.g. aggression; anxiety; fears; frustration; inadequacy fees 52, 84, 188, 205 fidelity 181, 187–93 flexibility 36, 43, 91, 92, 160, 176, 210; boundary 190 focus 73–102, 103, 104–5, 116, 135, 215; counterbalance to 144; identifying 170–1; loss of 56, 64; primary 57 forgiveness 137, 138 free association 75, 82, 87, 156 freedom 12, 57, 87 frequency 50, 72, 157, 188 friendships 53, 168 frustration 2, 76, 90, 112, 223 functioning 178, 235 games 148 gatekeeping apparatus 183 gay people 205, 221 gender 33, 90, 205, 206, 212, 215; power and 224 generalisations 89 genuineness 4, 41, 69, 71, 99, 105, 247 Gestalt 4, 14, goals 48, 69, 81; clarification of 4; developmental 136; failure to achieve 137; fulfilling 120; learning 135–6; mutual 63; outcome 70; realistic and workable 120; setting 133–6, 227; short- and longer-term 96; supervisory 136; therapeutic 133–5, 167, 185; unspoken 136 good faith 220 ‘goodies’ 203 gratification 189; sexual 61 gratitude 181 ground rules 47, 162, 167, 173, 187–8 grounding 92, 140, 143–4 groups 3, 158–79, 196; cultural 210, 216, 217; differentiating between 217; disadvantaged 90; minority 216, 227; see also peer groups guidelines 34, 50, 62, 168, 171, 188–9, 204; developing 222; suggestions applied as 220–1; supervision training 252; useful 209, 223 guiding principles 41–2, 87 guilt 137, 138, 139, 226; restimulated 184 half-life test 173 hallucinations 108 harm: self 49, 101; serious danger of 190; see also nonmaleficence

300 Subject Index hierarchy 55, 67, 71, 161 HIV infection 192 holding arrangements 20, 119 homophobia 220, 221 honesty 65, 117, 148, 211, 212, 214, 221 hopelessness 125 hostility 25, 94, 109 humour 144, 208 hunches 14, 80, 115 hypotheses 40, 122, 131; new 129; Oedipal 131; tentative 117; validity of 114, 115 ideas 9, 51, 116–17, 174; contradictory 232; cross-fertilisation of learning and 160; new 129, 131 ignorance 226 images 14, 51, 85, 86, 87, 115, 173; new 116; stray 108 ‘imitation of experts’ 163 immediacy 55, 71, 156, 235; emotional 177 impotence 76 inadequacy 2, 26, 43, 79, 95, 147, 148, 218 incompatibility 48 induction 66, 222 inequalities 57, 71 information 198, 201; confidential 168, 191; cultural 211; permission before passing 190; responsibility of practitioners to provide 187; sharing 55 information giving 127, 128; direct suggestion 130–2; new technique 131–2; references 132–3; role play 132; self-disclosure 131 injustice 216 inner conflict 56 insecurity 99, 121, 237 insensitivity 43, 208, 220; egocentric 58 insight 13, 72, 95, 103, 114, 168; application to client work 174; new 129 intangibles 14 integration 13, 26, 31, 217, 222, 223 integrity 118, 202, 203, 237 intentional work 81 intentionality 37 inter-cultural differences 217 internal processes 14 internal shift 129 internal supervisor function 27, 80, 107 internalisation 152 interns 218 interpersonal influence 55 interpretation 5, 57, 94, 114, 138; confrontational 223; ‘smuggling’ in 117 interventions 14, 18, 21, 23, 49, 55, 131, 244; alternative 155, 156; anxiety about 88; appropriate 135; balance of

support and challenge in 96; brief 135; challenging 118; confronting 117; degenerate 99; dismissed 106; educative function 79–80; effective 70, 232; evaluating 152; help in deciding whether or not to make 8; informative 132; options 2; perverted 99; planned 139; potent 230; preferences for 90; psychological 195; range of 238; reliable influence on trainees 143; specific 83; style of 6; supervisee-centred 92; tailoring to fit the stage 32; uninvited 58; unpalatable 95; unsolicited 189; usefulness of 145; see also authoritative interventions; facilitative interventions intimidation 43 intra-cultural differences 217 introspection 230 intrusion 49, 78, 183, 189, 208 investigation 113–17, 122 IPR (Interpersonal Process Recall) 92, 146, 148, 149, 213–14, 255 irritation 79 isolation 159, 168, 242 issues 21, 25, 29, 64, 75, 80, 195; administrative 47; anxiety-provoking 189; boundary, unaddressed 101–2; client 154; complex 205; countertransference 193, 231; cultural 223; dependency 144, 186; developmental 96; difference 211, 227; difficult 70, 133, 142; explored in depth 73; fundamental 236; group process 167, 168; important 85, 101; inexperienced therapists out of depth with 239; lesbian-related 220; loss 100; multicultural 204; organisational 76, 101; painful 70; personal 11, 55, 78–9, 100, 230; procedural 47; psychological 115; racial 212; recurring 85; relationship 108, 110, 156; relevant 76; resolution of 37; review 175; sensitive 67; specific 132; transcultural 212, 223; transference 89, 231; unawareness of 222–3; underlying 58; unresolved 137; workrelated 60; see also boundaries; competence; confidentiality; ethical and professional issues; management ITC (International Training Commission) 1 Joint Learning Statement 62, 81–2, 153, 155 judgement 22, 25, 166; moral 238 justice 181, 193–5 language 15, 99, 207; strong 43

Subject Index leadership 160 learning 6, 10, 59, 161; ability to translate into practice 154; active 253; consolidation of 154; crossfertilisation of ideas and 160; cultural 212–13; development and 40–1, 131; disability 205; discovery 214; dynamic 40; field of 42; goals 135–6; healthy and natural part of the process 78; needs 29, 135; opportunities 157, 160, 221; personalised portfolio of experiences 253; progression 253; real test of 39; self-directed 98; styles of 64, 65, 96; see also Joint Learning Statement legal liability 184–5; prosecution 190 lesbians 219, 220, 221 limitation 153, 220 loss 71, 100, 197; attempting to deny feelings of 79 love 117 loyalty 169 management 53, 59; boundaries 8; caseload 76; intentional group 162; line 201–3; self 52; time 64 managers 15; practice/function 16 manner: constructive 67, 219; dismissive 123; fair 202; healing 219; honest 211; inappropriate 184; negatively critical 118; non-defensive 211; nonpunitive 155; open 67, 211; passive 112; punitive and critical 112; thoughtful and reflective 173; unethical 198–9; untypical 108 marginalisation 165, 168 marriage 4–5, 90; low level of affection in 120 Masters level courses/training 28, 224, 230 material 14–15, 37, 50, 197; background 88; censored 42, 87; client 168; confidential, tendency to leak 123; counter-transference 112, 136; feelings generated by 51; innovative ways of exploring 175; intra-personal 189; issues arising from 55; made available to others 190; making sense of 123; negative 109; negative effects of intrusion of 49; new 129; personal 12, 20, 49, 58, 79, 189; psychological 111, 113; reading, specific 132; sensitive 67; shadow 124, 163; transference 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115; unconscious 108–9, 111, 114, 122; see also presentation mature students 216 meaning 86, 150, 161, 226; ascribing 98

301

mediation 33, 167, 183 medication 76, 185, 194 memories 34, 146 mental health 3, 122, 205 mentors 55 metaphors 14, 85, 86, 87 method(ology) 35, 39, 82, 232; basic research 164; workable 34 Mexican-American trainees 218 minorities 211, 215, 216, 218, 227 misconduct 169 mismatch 91 mistakes 149, 157, 251, mistrust 217 misunderstanding 53, 106, 142, 187, 207, 226 mixed-race supervisees 219 models 13, 30–44, 66, 69, 86, 162–3, 255; alternative 201–2; conceptual 34; consultative 197; contemporary 185; core theoretical 39; counsellingbound 9; cyclical 35, 40–1, 104, 158, 177, 178, 212, 215, 243; developmental 5, 6–8, 32–5 passim, 92, 225; functional 8; integrated 31, 217, 222; invaluable 80; need for 30– 5; partnership 226; pragmatic 31; process 14, 35, 92; systematic skills 4; theoretical 43, 89; theory and practice of 30–1; therapeutic 232; training 232; various 178; see also bridge; contract; focus; review; space monitoring 6, 10, 16, 63, 68, 145; blindspots 228; conscious 175; limits of competence 31; own practice 183; patterns of energy 173 moods 134; dark 133; sudden changes in 15 morality 181 mothers 113, 121, 137; sexual contact with son 131 motivation 77–8, 106 multiculturalism 204, 209–10, 217, 226, 228 mutuality 46, 141, 142, 157, 214, 215; encouraging 149; see also assessment; evaluation; feedback; responsibilities; trust ‘nameless dread’ 243 needs 70, 85; client 62, 63, 64, 160, 182, 202–3; cultural 89, 207; developmental 6; extent to which met 175; individual trainee counsellor 5; learning 29, 135; presumed 211; psychological 32; reluctance to assert 8; unresolved 154 negligence 185 ‘no model’ approach 23

302 Subject Index nonmaleficence 181, 182, 185, 191, 192, 196–7 non-punitive encounters 61 norms 177, 183 nourishment 124, 125 objectives 81–2, 130; being clear about 65, 170; explicitly stated 227; institutional 200; learning 136; shortand longer-term, for future development 154; workable methodology for accomplishing 34 objectivity 12, 60 observation 183; learning by 161; Oedipal hypothesis 131 omnipotence 109 openness 12, 65, 220 opinions 100, 155, 224 outcomes 48, 70, 152; finite 223; ideal 226 ‘pairing’ 168, 196; gender 224 panic 146 parallel process 8, 9, 109, 111–12, 113, 122, 172, 255 passive optimism 25 passivity 112 pastoral work 2 payment 18, 72, 206; see also fees peer groups 49, 161, 162, 163 perceptions 57, 67, 87, 91, 214; unrealistic 195 persecutory elements 22, 120 personal qualities/characteristics 43 personality 48, 155; traits 32 perversion 141 place 18, 23 planning 144, 161, 164; action 4, 127, 136–8; aid to 65 political correctness 227 portfolios 253, 255 power 212, 215, 217, 226; abuse of 61, 182; assumption of 224; balances/ imbalances of 12, 41, 70, 219; dynamics of 225; equality of 166; gender and 224; hierarchy and 67; inequality of 57, 224; lack of 214; misuse of 209; shared 227; unequal 216, 221 practice: ability to translate learning into 154; agreements about 169; antidiscriminatory 195, 206, 209, 221, 222; anti-oppressive 222, 227; competent 222, 226; culturally sensitive 220; ethical 59, 226; fair 194– 5; good 59, 142, 200, 222, 227; monitoring own 183; nondiscriminatory 64; oppressive 227; poor 142; private 205; quality of 190;

serious concerns about 198; slapdash 90; theory and 255–6; transcultural 210; unethical 58, 102, 234; unorthodox 67; unsafe 232 pragmatism 36, 135, 173, 181; reluctant 190 precautions 59 preconceptions 220 preferences 46, 49, 63, 88, 90, 118, 139; culture-specific 207 pregnancy 133 prejudice 90, 215, 220, 221, 223 preparedness 72 presentation 18, 20, 46, 163, 170–1; background 81, 82, 88–9; caution in 178; methods 82–8 ‘presenteeism’ 51 priorities 74, 99–102, 135, 163 problem-solving 97, 177 problems 68, 200; mental health 122; unconscious repetitive ways of addressing 56 projection 109, 163, 172 promises 180, 181; explicit and implicit 187 psychiatric treatment 101 psychoanalysis/psychoanalysts: literature 121; opacity may fit 215; supervision as part of the training process 1; tradition 10, 11, 207; ‘working alliance’ aspect 106; see also acting out; containment; ego; countertransference; transference psychodrama 4, 171 psychodynamics 4, 5, 11, 13, 40, 57, 75, 89, 109, 193, 248; integrated 207 psychology 11, 75, 99, 113, 115, 135; clinical 2; culture of 218 psychosynthesis 4 psychotherapy 2, 4, 223; best and worse supervision 65; concepts and ideas taken from 9; counselling and 56; informed supervisor avoids combining supervision with 247; main task of 56; movement to integrate counselling and 13; patient freedom 57; relationship 38; research 68; see also therapy/ therapeutic process psychotic tendencies 185 purpose 37, 63, 166; mutuality of 141; shared 121 ‘pussy-footing’ 117 qualifications 199; see also Certificate; Diploma; Doctoral; Masters quality 66, 67, 70, 91, 112 questions 146, 155, 169–70, 205, 235, 244–5; self-reflective 95

Subject Index race/racism 90, 205, 207, 210, 212, 215, 218, 219; danger of masking 216 rape 123 rapport 67, 105 rationalisation 242 reassurance 65, 121, 147 reciprocity 155 recognition 22, 38 recontracting 37, 46, 50, 156–7; intermittent 140 referrals 76, 101; self 205 reflection 9, 27, 85, 103, 106, 111, 114, 128–9, 172–3; counter-transference 112; encouraging 98, 105; focused 233; intentional 238; interventions that generate more 226; ongoing 153; quiet time for 51, 144; self 24–5, 238, 253; ‘smuggling’ ideas or connections in under the guise of 116; reflective stance 233 reflexivity 238 regression 33 regularity 18, 29 relationship dynamics 21, 60, 88, 142; conceptualising 107; lapses which can throw important light on 50; ‘reflected’ or ‘paralleled’ 9 relationships 20–1, 193–4, 230, 237; appropriate 10, 18; collaborative 116; core conditions 4; counter-transference 192–3; direct 197, 198; dual 62; external 168; facilitative 10, 64, 66, 71; fantasy 163, 193; functional 66; good enough 211; healthy 18, 213; hierarchical 55, 67, 71; indirect 197; interpersonal, difficult 69; positive 69; previous/past 89, 109; psychoanalytic, working alliance aspect 106; respectful 213; rivalrous sibling 24; safe and secure 105; sexual 53, 131; social, with client 120; supportive 157; therapeutic 2, 55, 71, 134, 199; transference 106, 131, 192–3; trusting 212; warm 66; working 55, 66, 152, 167; see also counselling relationship; relationship dynamics; supervision/ supervisory relationship religion 205 reparation 181 reports: self 146, 155; verbal 82, 84, 156 resentment 77, 111; unacknowledged 113 resistance 98, 207, 223 resources 22–4, 235; in clients 80, 137 respect 4, 41, 51, 66, 70, 71, 99, 105, 247; mutual 72; professional 166 responses 97, 149–50, 155, 223, 231; affective 95, 114; awareness of 33;

303

challenging 178; complementary 110; concordant 110; countertransference 115; emotional 115, 123, 134, 171; facilitative 83; favourable 95; feeling 115; giving and receiving 141; identifying the source of 172–3; immediate 148; internal 237; judgemental 94–5; natural 22; not effectively contained 24; punitive 94; resentful 111; shared 87; spoken aloud 171; strong 135–6; subjective 94–5; syntonic 110; unconscious 110; untangling 20 responsibilities 6, 10, 18, 22, 51, 61, 97, 150, 196; ensuring clients get what they are expecting 193; family 205; feedback 62; fees/payment 52; formal assessment 151; group supervisees 169; hierarchy of 161; joint 60; legal 21, 206; line management 201; monitoring 16; mutual 199; personal 185, 226; range of 64; roles and 60; shared 220; social 221; supervisor and unethical trainee 198–9; work of counsellors 183–5 retreat 238 revenge 189 ‘reversed mirroring’ 172 review 36, 38, 50, 82, 140–57, 211–15; basis for 81; group issues for 175; objective and collaborative 83; questions as part of 170 Ripon and York St John, University College of 39 risk 29, 53, 169; assault by the client 192; child abuse 101–2; client’s welfare 41; disclosing doubts and anxieties 77; objectifying the client 88; safety and 175; suicide 184, 185; third-party, HIV infection 192 rivalry 24, 163 role induction 66 role models 5; powerful 55 role play 55, 82, 131 roles 12, 16, 17, 20, 26, 28; assessment 57, 151; authoritative 29; boundaries 60–1; clearer definition of 49; client 138; distinct 163; educative 225; emotional competence to fulfil 18; emphasis on 8; facilitative 29, 162, 173; family 171, 205; monitoring 10; new 23, 196; overlapping 53, 198; ‘police-officer’ 61; previous personal and professional 95; responsibilities and 22, 60; social 60; various 209 sabotage 123, 163

304 Subject Index sadism 99 safeguards 59, 62, 202, 247 safety 53, 175; relative 238 scapegoating 163, 172 scrutiny 129, 184; self 237 sculpting 82, 85 security 120, 147, 240; financial 205 self: active 238; connection with 232; definition of 236; grandiose sense of 78; obscured 233; professional and personal 233; shadow side of 123–4; therapeutic use of 156, 230; turning back on 238; vulnerable areas of 68; see also affirmation; assessment; awareness; challenge; confidence; disclosure; doubts; reflection; reports self-analysis 114 self-consciousness 82 self-esteem 235; damaged, forgiveness and 137 self-improvement 181 self-interest 181 self-revelation 70 sensations 108, 146 sensitivity 22, 38, 43, 46, 111, 130, 153; cultural 89–90, 204, 222, 223, 227; lack of 99; shadows and 124; useful approach to developing 220 sentence stems 86–7 sexual matters 3, 211; abuse 192; bisexuality 108, 215, 219; contact 131; exploitation of supervisees 61; gratification 61; orientation 33, 205, 215, 221; relationships 53, 131 shadow 123–4, 163, 237 shame 142, 221, 235, 237 siblings 24, 113–14 ‘significant others’ 143, 226 skills 9, 15, 24, 26, 33, 57, 85, 162; acquisition of 68; advanced 156; applying beyond the counselling field 27; basic 54; challenging 155; clientcentred 193; developing 160; feedback and 251, 256–7; growing 154; hierarchy of 161; higher-order 156; interpersonal 18, 43; intervention 256–7; lack of 45; learned 248; learning needs and 135; micro 156; modifying 179; necessary 196; specific 31, 250; systematic models for counsellor training 4; therapeutic 6, 18; trusting 121; vital 80 ‘smuggling’ 116, 117 social influence 217, 247 social work(ers) 30, 201 space 36, 103–26, 171–4, 178, 189, 215; creating 37; difference and 204, 219–

28; evaluation 145; potential, for discussion 220; psychological 50; transition to bridge 128–9 spirituality 238 standards 21, 59; good 260–3; see also ethical and professional practice status 205, 207, 216; minority 215 stimulation 118, 132, 214 stimulus 146 strategies 6, 14, 71, 78; alternative 81, 156; clinical 230; planned, effect upon client 138; possible 137; reviewed 139; self-punitive 108; specific, evaluation of 83; to get the client to leave 8; without a great deal of exploration or reflection strengths 125, 218, 235; client 80; highlighting 79, 142; personal and professional, awareness of 257–60 stress 76–7; emotional 197 structures 142, 160, 161; intensive training 183; session 175–7; setting up and managing 162 stuckness 76 styles 5, 26, 48, 74, 92, 109; authoritative 93; better match of 145; didacticconsultative 93; greater permission to develop own 152; integrated 236; interpersonal 226; intervention 6; key influences governing 96; laissez-faire 94; learning 64, 65, 96; mediating 33; personally authentic 233 success 79–80, 119–20 suffering 237 suggestions 81, 93, 150, 155, 174, 220– 1; direct 130–2; ‘smuggling’ in 117 suicide 32, 53, 100–1, 184, 185, 192 supervision/supervisors 3; administrative function 54; amorphous 94; anger towards 106; approach-oriented 13, 14, 31; behaviourial-oriented 13–14, 92; benefits 26–7; borderline area 111; boundaries and interfaces change 231; client-centred 4, 13, 70, 92, 116; cognitive-behavioural 4, 40; conceptualisation of the process 41, 54; confrontational 94; constrictive 93–4; consultative 184, 202; counselling theory in the practice 4; danger of sliding into therapy 189; destructive events in 43; development of 8, 247–70; developmental 5; difference and diversity in 204–28; differences between counselling and 5, 18, 40; distorted 104; duration of session 49–50, 188; eclectic 14, 15,

Subject Index 254; educative function 54, 63; effective 10, 22, 42, 70, 105, 124–5, 244; evolution 5; experienced practitioners 229–46; facilitative 10; female 224; formative, restorative and normative functions 63; fragmented state of theory 34; Gestalt-oriented 4, 14; good 41, 209, 226, 233; group 49, 158–79; historical context 1–16; ideal 247; immature, inadequate, insensitive 43; informed supervisor avoids combining psychotherapy with 247; insight-oriented 95; internal 255; main task of 56–7; managerial 17, 63, 201– 3; multicultural 209–10, 217; nature of the alliance 141; non-managerial 17, 60, 61, 63; parallel processes in counselling and 111, 112; part of the training process in psychoanalysis 1; persecutory 22; philosophy of 42; pitfalls for 24–5, 211, 240; process and function 31; psychodynamic 4, 5, 11, 13, 92; quality of 141; roles 5, 8; starting 28; supervision of 25, 28–9, 228; supportive 47, 54, 63, 239–40; systematic framework 31, 35; teaching task of 128 theory and practice 260; therapeutic 94–7; therapy and 55–9; training and 54–5, 197–200, 247–70; transcultural 214, 216; transition from counselling 23; unpalatable interventions 95; unsupportive 90, 94; usefulness of 141; within organisations 200–1 supervision/supervisory relationship 47; Adult-Adult 20; affective 56, 66, 105–6, 107, 108, 114; apparent paradox 16, 120; balances of power within 12; boundaries 46; cementing and developing 142; characterised by transparency and mutuality 215; comfortable, collusive 48; components 20, 21; contaminated 112; contracting 37; counselling and 9, 23, 57–8, 59, 60, 111; Critical Parent-Child 21; development of 112–13, 149, 154; difficulties in 65; effective and dynamic 211; emotional demands 27; facilitative 70; female trainees 224–5; formal assessment responsibility 151; good 68; healthy 37; honest 221; inadequacy and vulnerability of counsellor 43; ineffective 112; influences acting upon 201; interpersonal dynamics of 227; maintaining 149, 154; paradoxical 20–1; parallel between

305

counselling relationship and 8; personal material in 189; power in 220; quality of 66, 67, 70, 91, 112, 125, 145, 152; reflective alliance aspect 107; significance of 69; therapeutic 70; tools and framework for 6, 45; supervisor-as-partial-learner 210 supervisor-counselling system 14 support 18, 59, 63, 142, 222; balance of challenge and 96, 143, 223; symbols 86, 87, 131 tape recordings 99, 101, 154–5; audio 82, 83, 84, 156, 214, 224, 230; video 83, 84, 145–8, 214, 253 Tarasoffcase 185 teachers 15, 30, 54 techniques 2, 55, 89, 91, 138; ‘as if 114; assertiveness 150; different client populations 211; end-of-session reviewing 148; new 131–2; outlandish 105; powerful and persuasive 146; specific 132 tension 10, 11, 69, 201, 243 termination 5, 106; forced 74; premature/ early 46, 65 testing 178 theory 13, 35; practice and 255–6; understanding of 9 therapists 212, 214; art 15; developing 232; dissatisfaction with supervision 125; drama 15; experienced 229, 230–1; female 224; good 23; immature 94; inexperienced 239; most effective 235; personal and professional selves 219, 229–30; professional individuation 233; purist 31; self-reports 146; transcultural 209; trust in 211 therapy/therapeutic process 11, 14, 53, 71, 189–90; assisted to move forward 194; brief forms 135; client’s mess in 123; clinical approach to 34; danger of supervision sliding into 189; factually correct access to 83; impact on 90; long-term 18; orientation 91; personally integrated approach 231; potent interventions 230; rational emotive 92; reflecting upon 27; supervision and 55–9, watering down of 211 ‘thinking out loud’ 131 third-parties 191; HIV infection 192 thoughts 146, 173, 174, 176; exploratory 86; extraneous 51; innermost 59; stray 108, 115

306 Subject Index time 18, 50, 64, 81, 135, 188; allocation of 174; dividing up 176; quality of 177; slippage 176 timing 20, 50, 118, 141, 157 tiredness 15, 77, 172 trainee counsellors 77–8, 156; audio and video tapes 83; ethnic minority 218; individual needs 5; responsibility to potential future clients 199; right to protest 222; supervision 1, 2, 12, 33, 158, 182; vulnerability 57 training 11, 15, 28–9, 33, 39, 196; advanced 230; backgrounds in 40; basic 54; capacity to address deficits in 233; development and 247–70; good 68; group-work 179; intensive structure 183; natural ability may atrophy during 232; supervision and 1, 54–5, 197–200; systematic, lack of 34; systematic skills models for 4; Training the Counsellor (Connor) 247 transactional analysis 4, 20 transference 9, 89, 113, 192–3, 207, 215; dynamics 115; material 109, 110, 111, 112, 114, 115; relationship 106, 131 transparency 215 trauma 123, 242, 243, 245, 246 trial identification 138–9 trust 59, 71, 148–9, 177, 184, 211; inviting 220; mutual 1 66; potential threat to 199; undermining 189 uncertainty 53, 85, 87, 114, 156, 192; ability to tolerate 243; creative 244; informed 210 unconscious mind 42, 108, 114, ; see also material Index compiled by Frank Pert

understanding 8, 89, 103, 121, 168, 184, 188, 203; conceptual 14, 23; empathic 41; lack of 215; new 1 15, 129, 174; personal 209; potential consequences 190; self 135; shared 168, 169; striving for 243; systematic framework for 35; theoretical 9 unease 85, 193 United States 2, 8, 28, 125, 151, 185 universal differences 215–19 universities: Counselling Services 190–1, 200–1; Ethics Committees 164 untrustworthiness 89 vagueness 94 validation 177 validity 195, 225, values 91, 205, 207 valuing 161 vicarious responsibility 185 violence 185, visual case summaries 87 voluntary agencies 76, 158, 205, 234 vulnerability 12, 43, 69, 147, 149, 244; safe to expose 71; shared 70; see also clients; self; trainee counsellors wailists 76 warmth 41, 71; mutual 106 weaknesses 80, 142, 153, well-being 240 ‘wild analysis’ 57 wisdom 54, 186; clinical 210, 232; received 231 within-group difference/variance 216, 217 words 87, 88

Supervising The Counsellor: A Cyclical Model

Training the Counsellor: An Integrative Model

The Making of a Counsellor

The State Counsellor

The State Counsellor

Developing the Counsellor

Supervising Doctorates Downunder

The State Counsellor (Erast Fandorin 6)

Just For Laughs, Counsellor

Supervising Postgraduate Research

The Standard Model: A Primer

The Standard Model: A Primer

A model summer

The Model

Language: A Biological Model

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

A Shorter Model Theory

Giardia: A Model Organism

The Model

The Model

Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way

Language: A Biological Model

Language: A Biological Model

Supervising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives

The Model

Nightingale, Adam - Just For Laughs, Counsellor

A New Model of the Universe

Supporting and Supervising Your Teaching Assistant

A Nonstationary Model of the Universe

The baccalaureate: a model for curriculum reform

Supervising The Counsellor: A Cyclical Model

Training the Counsellor: An Integrative Model

The Making of a Counsellor

The State Counsellor

The State Counsellor

Developing the Counsellor

Supervising Doctorates Downunder

The State Counsellor (Erast Fandorin 6)

Just For Laughs, Counsellor

Supervising Postgraduate Research

The Standard Model: A Primer

The Standard Model: A Primer

A model summer

The Model

Language: A Biological Model

Cyclical Change (Linguistik Aktuell Linguistics Today)

A Shorter Model Theory

Giardia: A Model Organism

The Model

The Model

Supervising Student Teachers: The Professional Way

Language: A Biological Model

Language: A Biological Model

Supervising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives

The Model

Nightingale, Adam - Just For Laughs, Counsellor

A New Model of the Universe

Supporting and Supervising Your Teaching Assistant

A Nonstationary Model of the Universe

The baccalaureate: a model for curriculum reform

Recommend Documents