Jan Grant, Sarah Crawford & Margot J Schofield, “Managing Difficulties in Supervision: Supervisors’ Perspectives”

This article explores the difficulties in supervision from the perspective of the supervisor and various intervention systems. It does through by way of a qualitative study that draws on three conceptual domains: the social constructivist assumption that knowledge is socially constructed through interaction with others (Neimeyer, 1993); phenomenology’s focus on inner experience and its relationship with the external world; and the integration of these two theories in the reflective practitioner model (Schon, 1991).

Difficulties in supervision “can lead to conflict and ruptures within the supervisory relationship” (529). The study indicated that supervisors sustained difficulties in “the broad domains of supervisee incompetence and unethical behaviour (e.g., inappropriate interventions; sexualization of therapeutic relationship); supervisee characteristics (e.g., arrogance, defensiveness, validation-seeking); supervisor counter- transference (e.g., anger, criticalness, boredom); and specific problems in the supervisory relationship (e.g., transference, triangulation, parallel process, attraction)” (531).

The research indicated several relational interventions in relation to the difficulties sustained by supervisors. These included: naming the difficulty, validating and normalization, being attuned to supervisee needs, support, anticipation, exploring parallel processes, acknowledge mistakes, and modeling.

Furthermore, the reflective intervention was identified by supervisors as a way to think deeply about and understand the challenging supervisee processes that occur with clients and supervisors. This was actively used by supervisors and consisted of facilitation of reflectivity, remaining mindful while monitoring, remaining patient and transparent, processing countertransference (through monitoring reactions internally), seeking supervision on supervision, and conceptualizing the case.

Supervisors noted that when difficulties were unable to be resolved through reflective or relational strategies, supervisors engage in more direct and confrontative strategies, including tentative confrontation, direct confrontation, withdrawal, denial, avoidance and then confrontation, assessing the level of directness before confrontation, confrontation while recognizing the limits of supervision, use of immediacy to confront, refuse or terminate supervision, take formal action, refer to personal therapy or become directive.

The least used means of intervention was avoidant. This involves waiting for external intervention, withholding, withdrawal, ignoring, or denial.

Jan Grant, Sarah Crawford & Margot J Schofield, “Managing Difficulties in Supervision: Supervisors’ Perspectives” (2012) 59:4 J Counseling Psychology 528.