Self-Supervision

A Primer for Counselors and Human Service Professionals

Patrick J. Morrissette

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000423662
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Bildung
• Subtopic: Bildungsberatung

Self-Supervision synthesizes the literature on the theory and practice of self-supervision and provides counselors and human service professionals with a plan for the pursuit of independent professional growth. The classic edition includes a new preface from the author reflecting on his work and on the changes in society and the field since the book's initial publication.

In these chapters, professionals will find cost-effective and efficient strategies for developing their skills while still ensuring that they're providing quality treatment. They'll also find a diverse array of strategies for self-supervision and a thoughtful discussion of reflective processes required to effectively evaluate one's own practices.

CHAPTER 1

Counselor Self-Supervision: A Historical Overview

There are two main responses to a disturbing therapeutic experience and the likelihood of unconscious contributions from the therapist: the insightful and open pursuit of self-supervision or the development of major resistances to that process.

—Robert Langs, 1979

The term self-supervision appears to have surfaced concurrently in Europe and North America during the late 1970s. According to Littrell, Lee-Borden, and Lorenz (1979), publications and conference presentations pertaining to counselor self-supervision were only beginning to emerge during this period (e.g., Bandura, 1978; Kahn, 1976; Lecomte & Bernstein, 1978; Meyer, 1978).

In 1979, the British psychoanalyst Robert Langs devoted a chapter in his book, The Supervisory Experience, to self-supervision. By his own admission, Langs noted that the chapter was, in fact, only an afterthought. To his knowledge, although the self-analytic process had been addressed in the literature, no papers had been written specifically on the subject of self-supervision. As a result, Langs committed himself to articulating a process whereby his students could examine their thoughts, feelings, and actions in relation to their clients. Within this process, students were encouraged to increase their self-awareness and better understand relational dynamics.

A year earlier, on the other side of the Atlantic, Meyer (1978) had published a review paper regarding self-supervision, and Lecomte and Bernstein (1978) had delivered an address to the annual meeting of the American Personnel and Guidance Association entitled “Development of Self-Supervision Skills Among Counselor Trainees.” Meyer discussed how behavioral principles could be used to influence counselor self-control and self-management. He also remarked that the concept of self-supervision was not novel or untried. In his review of the literature, although the term self-supervision never surfaced, Meyer identified counselor self-management, self-control, self-analysis, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation programs.

In her article “The Irma Dream, Self-Analysis, and Self-Supervision,” Blum (1995) described how, through the psychoanalytic method and process, Freud considered himself his own analyst and supervisor. According to Blum, Freud’s self-analysis and self-supervision proceeded primarily in reference to dreams and focused on the concepts of transference and countertransference. Although the term self-supervision was being introduced to the counseling profession, clearly Sigmund Freud’s interest in dream analysis and self-analysis was a precursor, and, instrumental in the eventual process of counselor self-exploration.

Similar to other historical developments in the helping professions, when charting the evolution of counselor self-supervision, it becomes clear that the emergence of self-supervision developed in relative isolation in different helping professions and in different parts of the world.

□ Broadening the Supervisory Lens

Ultimately, Langs (1979) might be credited with developing the first model of counselor reflection and monitoring wherein the reciprocal nature of counseling was emphasized and examined. In contrast to Freud’s self-analysis, Langs considered self-supervision to be broader than self-analysis and to have a much wider perspective because it was competency-based, identified and punctuated individual strengths, and continued even when counseling appeared to be going well. During this process, clinicians attempted to remain mindful of various intrapersonal, interpersonal, and larger systems issues that impinged on the counseling relationship and, ultimately, on the outcome of treatment. Self-supervision evolved into an ongoing search for therapeutic errors (Bross, 1982), countertransferences, and the identification of positive aspects of a counselor’s work.

Langs (1979) contended that self-supervision was a disregarded dimension of supervision and further postulated that the lack of attention rendered to the self-supervision process was fueled by two major assumptions. First, it was assumed that counselors would remain vigilant to conscious and unconscious issues that were identified during formal supervision, continually scrutinize their work with clients, and incorporate supervisory attitudes that were learned in the traditional supervision context to resolve issues related to therapeutic impasse. In essence, this process would parallel the traditional two-person supervisory situation whereby “accrued insights would be maintained on some level as part of a self-examining process related to each therapeutic experience” (Langs, p. 384).

Second, it was assumed that counselors would use and transfer the same skills they used to supervise others to themselves. Under this assumption, counselors were expected to transcend their clinical work, assume a metaposition, become introspective, and consider the origin and impact of issues that impinged on counseling. Of course, it was presupposed that counselors were prepared and competent to execute this task without formal guidelines or mentoring. The aforementioned assumptions, coupled with the lack of discussion and investigation regarding the self-examining process, prompted Langs to conclude that the proposed theory was not being accurately translated into actual practice. A similar finding was later echoed by Casey, Smith, and Ulrich (1989), who also believed that the ability of students and clinicians to self-supervise did not happen by chance. These latter authors suggested that, “probably few persons perceive that they have totally reached this stage…that they do not need some kind of peer interaction for continued professional growth and development” (p. 52).

From a psychoanalytical perspective, Langs (1979) understood self-supervision to be a process whereby counselors would monitor their own inner experiences and the communications of clients for unconscious perceptions and commentaries on therapeutic endeavors. Although he articulated skills that he used with students to help them gain a better understanding of self, Langs believed that he made the same assumptions and failed to delineate the process and design a methodology.

From these two assumptions alone, one begins to sense the high degree of insight, rigor, and responsibility involved in deconstructing the counseling process to improve self-awareness, clinical skills, and quality service to clients. Despite sounding straightforward and reasonable in theory, however, the skills and demands inherent in the self-supervision process remain vague and enigmatic and cannot be underestimated. Langs (1979) expressed concern about the lack of attention to counselor self-examination and wrote:

Viewed in the worst light, the lack of literature on the subject might be taken as evidence of a considerable degree of neglect, disinterest, and fear of self-supervision, not only in terms of formal investigations, but also in respect to actual practice. (p. 386)

He continued:

For too long now we have taken self-supervision for granted, neglecting the development of a basic format and failing to attend to the very specific problems involved. As with every other dimension of the therapeutic experience, self-supervision can rely only minimally on the therapist’s natural proclivities and basic understanding; much must be done to sharpen these assets and to bring them into full awareness so that they might serve as efficacious therapeutic tools. (p. 299)

In directly addressing his concern, Langs (1979) suggested a model and format for self-supervision. Within his proposed model, Langs encouraged counselors to obliterate memories of past sessions, knowledge, and attitudes. This process is comparable to the bracketing procedures found in qualitative inquiry whereby researchers attempt to suspend assumptions and biases so that they can be open to different perspectives and shared narratives. Langs was interested in having counselors foster a new beginning during each session with clients and search for the unknown. Succinctly stated, this process created a state of mind in which

old concepts can be discovered anew, and revised as needed, and new self-supervisory issues can best be detected, while old ones are remembered in a specific context during the session. In all, this approach fosters the setting aside of relatively fixed self and general knowledge, in favor of the fresh discovery of truths about oneself, the patient, and the therapeutic process. (p. 386)

To accomplish this process, counselors suspend or interrupt the way in which they perceive, think about, and interact with clients. They attempt to transcend normal interactions and try to broaden their perspective by considering behaviors in unique ways. This generally involves generating different hypotheses and reformulating the problem behavior. As discussed later, however, not all counselors may be able to accomplish this rigorous task.

□ The Influence of Constructivism

What is remarkable about Langs’s (1979) vision is the eventual emergence and influence of constructivist and postmodern thought on counselor training and supervision (Franklin & Nurius, 1998; McNamee & Gergen, 1995; Sexton & Griffin, 1997). In concrete terms, there was a movement toward counselors turning in on themselves and looking inward for a better understanding of self in relation to others. As Mahoney (1991) remarked,

Whether our interest lies more with psychological change or stabilization, it involves an inevitable amplification of self-study. Although psychological self-focus may not be universal, it has clearly become one of the cardinal characteristics of the twentieth-century humanity. Living in the most complex and changing environment in Earth’s history, we humans have exhibited a growing fascination with ourselves, our self-awareness, and an awareness of our awareness. (p. 6)

As a result of this movement in counseling, no longer were counselor thoughts, feelings, and behaviors considered separate from the professional-client relationship. Rather, working toward understanding how a counselor’s disposition and context could influence transactions with clients introduced an expanded and critical dimension to supervision.

During this developmental period, a less objective and more humanistic/existential perspective on human interactions was evidenced. Bandura (1978) succinctly asserted that, “People are not only perceivers, knowers, and actors. They are also self-reactors with capacities for reflective self-awareness that are generally neglected in information-processing theories based on computer models of human functioning” (p. 356). Along these lines, Neufeldt (1997) commented that in a reflective stance counselors could examine their actions, emotions, and thoughts, as well as the interactions between themselves and clients in a profound and meaningful way. In defending personal reflection, Mahoney (1991) contended that this process was not an antiseptic expression of logic but rather, “an active, exploratory, self-examining attitude that embodies a passionate commitment to knowing” (p. 25). To him it was a continual integration of thinking, feeling, and actions.

The notion of reflexivity can be understood as a bending back on itself (Steier, 1991) or a turning back of one’s experience upon oneself (Mead, 1962). Embedded in the concept of reflexivity is a circular process wherein counselors focus on issues of self-reference and how these issues can influence their perceptions and interactions with clients. The concept of reflexivity directly challenges the traditional idea of counselor objectivity and emphasizes the idea that what counselors say about clients is merely a reflection of something about themselves (e.g., values). In sum, with the emergence of constructivism, counselors were invited to consider how their private and personal ideas and life experiences influenced their knowing process and interpersonal relationships.

As discussed throughout this book, self-supervision is a continual process that concerns both the strengths and needs of counselors. It is not a process that occurs occasionally with a simple focus on either counselor needs or weaknesses but rather a process that embraces a holistic perspective. For example, when queried about how they reflect on their work, counselors report a tendency to review their work after disappointing sessions, when conflictual interactions with clients surface, or when clinical goals are not being achieved. It is as if an alarm suddenly sounds prompting counselors to investigate the therapeutic process. For these professionals, the reflection process does not occur on an ongoing basis and is usually provoked by negative factors. Conversely, counselors who enter into the self-supervision process are interested in tracking moment by moment transactions with clients to better understand personal issues that affect their interactions with clients and counseling in general. In concrete terms, self-supervision should be understood as an underlying philosophy and not a technique or strategy.

□ A Changing Tide: The Influence of a Solution-Focused Orientation

Historically, counselor supervision has been steeped in a problem-focused orientation and students have been conditioned to focus on negative aspects of an interview. In retrospect, it is no wonder that students have traditionally dreaded the infamous supervision hour and have walked away feeling defeated and insecure about their skills and ability to help clients. Unfortunately, for many students, clinical supervision does not represent a time of support and encouragement. Rather, supervision is associated with the involvement of expert supervisors who point out mistakes and suggest more effective ways of conducting treatment and helping clients. As noted by Neufeldt (1997), “Expert authorities transmit knowledge to uninformed counselors, in what Freire (1993) has called the banking concept of education, in which, in this case, supervisees are receptacles and supervisors make deposits” (p. 193). This process serves to perpetuate the obvious supervisor-counselor hierarchy (top-down), inadvertently disempowers counselors, and places unnecessary pressure on supervisors to appear wise and omnipotent about all types of clients and cultures.

When considering traditional supervision practices, two major issues surface: student counselor disempowerment and supervisor development and skills. In terms of the former issue, there may be residual effects for clients when counselors are second-guessed or criticized by supervisors. For instance, counselors whose efforts are criticized may inadvertently begin criticizing client efforts in a parallel fashion. These counselors may believe that their supervisors consider their efforts to be substandard and, in turn, accuse clients of poor effort.

Over the years, there has been a persistent and erroneous assumption that effective counselors are also competent supervisors. Although the American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy has long recognized the specialized Approved Supervisor designation, only recently has the National Board of C...