Training Counselling Supervisors

Strategies, Methods and Techniques

Elizabeth Holloway,Michael Carroll

• Publisher: SAGE Publications Ltd
• Year: 1999
• ISBN:
  9781446239261
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Psychologie
• Subtopic: Éducation en psychologie

`Experienced supervisors would find it useful to read as a part of their continuous professional development? - Counselling at Work

Highlighting the crucial themes intrinsic to the supervision process, this volume offers a varied selection of methods for educating supervisors. Experienced international trainers describe how they teach critical elements in the practice of supervision and outline their models for teaching in the context of their practice.

The book covers a wide range of topics including: contracting; reflective processes; supervision in group and multicultural contexts; and evaluation. The text is organized to bring continuity across the elements addressed, and to heighten awareness of educational methods as a whole. Case studies and exercises for teaching are provided.

1	A Framework for Supervision Training

Elizabeth Holloway

My work is held in a university that invites me to choose my question and then frees me to pursue it. The university knows full well that no definitive solution awaits me, but trusts that the pursuit will uncover new perspectives and relevant meanings for me and my fellow professionals. And so, what I have done over the last twenty years is practice, teach, study, and write about professional training. Early on as a graduate student it was my practice of supervision that fuelled my motivation to ask questions about this method of teaching. What was really going on in the conversation of supervision? What incidents in supervision were critical to a person learning to be a therapist? I spent the first ten years of my work recording, transcribing and analysing the talk of supervision. Empirical findings from these studies were interesting, informative, and dispelled some assumptions held about the supervision process. For example, supervision with a novice trainee is largely a teacher/student relationship in role, attitude and behaviour. These interactions are characterized by supervisors offering their opinions and suggestions and supervisees asking questions of clarification, or extending and agreeing with supervisors’ ideas.

However interesting at the manifest level, these descriptions left out a large part of my experience in supervision. How was I thinking about supervision in the moment, as I designed training approaches or reacted to particularly intense interactions with supervisees? The empirical methods I was using were not uncovering the questions that emerged out of my experience. And so I sought a way to uncover the talk of supervision. What are the perceptions and attitudes that supervisors have about their role and actions? What do supervisees need at different junctures of their training? How do they name what they need? These among many other questions set me off talking with supervisors and supervisees to learn of their experience. Again I was interviewing, recording and transcribing, but in these cases I was looking for emergent understandings of the phenomena as remembered and articulated by the participants themselves.

This pursuit of understanding supervision has taken me to countries in Europe and Asia where I have met trainers and supervisors who have added immeasurably to my understanding of the practice of supervision. I remember in my early days in Britain when Terri Spy would look at me at the first tea break and say, ‘Well, is it done?’ I knew immediately what the ‘it’ was – a book on my model of supervision – a Systems Approach to Supervision (SAS) (Holloway, 1995). It wasn’t until two years later I was able finally to exclaim in response, ‘Yes, Terri, IT is done!’ Yet, it is not at all done, for as I continue to be involved in different contexts of supervision practice the model has transformed itself (alphabetically!) to SAM-LP (Systems Approach to Mentoring in the Legal Profession), to SAM-A (Systems Approach to Mentoring in Academics), and to SAT-MT (Systems Approach to Training Multidisciplinary Teams). However, this is all in the making and Terri’s question will prevail for a decade to come. For now, I present in this chapter the original framework for SAS.

Purpose of the SAS model

To me, supervision can be depicted as an instructional method that is hand held, parsimoniously constructed in the moment, accountable in the long term and remarkably intense as an interpersonal construction. One becomes, as a supervisor, a ‘conversational artist’. The purpose of the Systems Approach to Supervision (Holloway, 1995) is to guide supervision teaching and practice by providing a framework based on empirical, conceptual and practice knowledge to guide supervision teaching and practice. Those factors that have consistently been identified as salient to the process and outcome of supervision (Bernard and Goodyear, 1992; Holloway and Neufeldt, 1995; Russell, Crimmings and Lent, 1984) have been used to build a dynamic model that can assist in systematic assessment of (a) the supervisee’s learning needs, and (b) the supervisor’s teaching interventions in idiosyncratically defined contexts. The model can be used as a frame of reference for an individual practitioner to think through a dilemma, for case consultation of supervision, or for training in supervision. It provides a strategy for systematically using a ‘case method’ approach that encompasses the presentation of client and supervisee histories, accompanied at times with examples of the supervision interaction, and followed with a conceptualization of the supervision situation and suggestions for interventions. It is an effort to understand supervision by offering a common language that is relevant to supervisors and educators across different theoretical points of view. The model is meant to raise questions about what each of us does as a supervisor rather than to tell a supervisor what to think and what to do.

The SAS framework provides four components of support for educators and practitioners to uncover their own thinking, attitudes, decision-making and behaviours: (a) a descriptive base, (b) guidelines stating common goals and objectives, (c) a way to discover meaning as it relates to participants and the profession, and (d) a systematic mode of inquiry to determine objectives and strategies for interaction during supervision. The confines of this chapter prevent the detailed discussion of the SAS structure, but none the less the heuristics of the model will be presented. The reader is referred to Holloway (1995) for a complete presentation of the theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the components of SAS.

Goals of the SAS model

The primary goal of supervision is the establishment of an on-going relationship in which the supervisor designs specific learning tasks and teaching strategies related to the supervisee’s development as a professional. In addition, the supervisor empowers the supervisee to enter the profession by understanding the skills, attitudes and knowledge demanded of the professional and guiding the relationship strategically to facilitate the supervisee’s achievement of a professional standard. The overall goals of the SAS model are:

1. The goal of supervision is to provide an opportunity for the supervisee to learn a broad spectrum of professional attitudes, knowledge and skills in an effective and supportive manner.
2. Successful supervision occurs within the context of a complex professional relationship that is on-going and mutually involving.
3. The supervisory relationship is the primary context for facilitating the involvement of the learner in reaching the goals of supervision. The essential nature of this interpersonal process bestows power to both members as they form the relationship.
4. For the supervisor, both the content and process of supervision become an integral part of the design of instructional approaches within the relationship.
5. As the supervisor teaches, the supervisee is further empowered by (a) acquiring the skills and knowledge of the professional work, and (b) gaining knowledge through experiencing and articulating interpersonal situations.

Dimensions of the Systems Approach

Seven dimensions have emerged from the empirical, conceptual and practice knowledge bases of supervision. These dimensions have been integrated conceptually into the SAS model as the seven factors depicted in Figure 1.1. The seven factors are represented as wings connected to the body of supervision, that is, the relationship. Task and function are represented in the foreground of the interaction with the more covert influences of supervisor, supervisee, client and institution in the background. The relationship is the core factor and contains the process of the supervision interaction. This is the foundation of SAS. It is understood that the components of the model are also part of a dynamic process in that they mutually influence one another and are highly interrelated. The graphic model is used to identify anchor points in this complex process and to encourage supervisors to discover and name the most salient factors in a particular piece of work as related to: (a) the nature of the task, (b) what function the supervisor was carrying out, (c) the character of the relationship, and (d) what contextual factors were relevant to the process.

The relationship of supervision

In the SAS model relationship is the container of dynamic process in which the supervisor and supervisee negotiate a personal way of utilizing a structure of power and involvement that accommodates the trainee’s progression of learning. This structure becomes the basis for the process by which the supervisee will acquire knowledge and skills – the empowerment of the supervisee. Both the supervisor and supervisee are responsible for establishing a relational structure that is flexible enough to accommodate the trainee’s particular professional needs in an intense, collaborative learning alliance. The supervisor, however, exercises the guiding function (that is, how the supervisor is different from the supervisee) of evaluation and support within the structure of this professional relationship. The structure and character of the relationship embody all other factors and in turn all factors are influenced by the relationship.

Figure 1.1 The SAS model: tasks, functions, relationship and contextual factors (Holloway 1995; copyright by Sage Publications, Thousand Oaks, CA. Reprinted with permission of the author.)

There has been considerable research on the relationship and process of supervision (Carroll, 1996; Holloway, 1992; Russell, Crimmings and Lent, 1984). From the empirical base and practice knowledge, I have identified three essential elements: (a) interpersonal structure of the relationship – the dimensions of power and involvement; (b) phase of the relationship – relational development specific to the participants; (c) supervisory contract – the establishment of a set of expectations for the tasks and functions of supervision (see Figure 1.1).

Interpersonal structure

Because of the centrality of relationship to the SAS model I have included a more extended description of the empirical literature that influences this dimension of the model. Note that research on relationships from a variety of contexts and disciplines is integrated into the conceptualization. Power and involvement are helpful constructs in understanding the nature of the supervisory relationship. Supervision is a formal relationship in which the supervisor’s task includes imparting expert knowledge, making judgements of trainees’ performance, and acting as a gatekeeper to the profession. Formal power, or power attributed to the position, rests with the supervisor, and in this regard the supervisory relationship is a hierarchical one. However, the exercise of power cannot be accomplished independently. The mutually influential process of relationship and the on-going interaction between individuals allow for a shared influence to emerge. Power may take very different forms depending on the personal and institutional resources available and the type of involvement of the individuals, a point of view not always given consideration (Hinde, 1979).

Three preferred methods have been used in supervision research to describe the power of the supervisor: French and Raven’s sociological typology (1960); Strong, Hills and Nelson’s (1988) circumplex model; and Penman’s (1980) communication matrix. However, Leary’s (1957) circumplex model, on which both the Strong et al. (1988) and Penman (1980) classification systems are based, provides a framework to place power in a relational system that includes an involvement or affiliation dimension which, in his view, every relationship has by definition. This theory of interpersonal relations undergirds the SAS interpersonal structure of the supervision relationship (power through involvement). Although the relationship takes on a unique character that can be defined by power and involvement, the participants bring their own history of interpersonal style. These interpersonal histories influence how the supervisor and supervisee ultimately present themselves in forming their new relationship.

Involvement might also be referred to as intimacy that includes ‘attachments’, the degree to which each person uses the other as a source of self-confirmation (Miller, 1976). This type of ‘involved affiliation’ influences the exercise and effect of power in the dyadic relationship and is crucial in creating more individualized versus more role-bound relationships. Both participants determine the distribution of power or the degree of attachment to one another (Morton, Alexander and Altman, 1976). The degree of relational influence potential will determine the degree of social bonding and thus the persuasiveness of the relationship. As the relationship develops, the participants will utilize more personally relevant interpersonal, psychological and differentiated information to make predictions of each others’ behaviour and thus reduce interpersonal uncertainty. The basis of mutuality adjusts to these new levels of personal knowledge (Morton, Alexander and Altman, 1976).

Phases of the relationship

In the development of informal relationships two factors have consistently been observed. First, as a relationship evolves, the participants rely less on general cultural and social information and more on idiosyncratic information of the participant. Predictions regarding the other person’s behaviours come from information that differentiates the person from other members of his or her corresponding social group. The other becomes unique in the eyes of the perceiver, and the relationship is said to have moved from a non-interpersonal to an interpersonal one (Miller, 1976). As the relationship evolves to an interpersonal one, there is a process of reduced uncertainty. After initial interactions, participants come to know one another better and are thus more accurate in their predictions about the other person’s reactions to their messages. With decreased uncertainty, they are better able to use control strategies and communicative modes that will reduce the level of conflict in the relationship. Participants also become increasingly more vulnerable and more willing to risk self-disclosure, whereas in the initial stages genuine self-disclosure is seldom observed (Morton, Alexander and Altman, 1976). Extrapolating from the friendship studies, it could be suggested that the advanced supervisees, having a blueprint for the relationship of supervision from previous experience, were able to truncate the discomfort of uncertainty and resultant need for reassurance by relying on known general expectancies for supervisory roles. Thus, they could move more quickly to establish specific expectancies of an interpersonal (as opposed to non-interpersonal) relationship by self-disclosing aspects of self-relevancy to their counselling performance. On the other hand, the beginning level supervisee might still be discovering the role expectations of the supervisor and supervisee, because these general cultural, social and formal rules must be discovered before moving to an interpersonal relationship.

The development of an interpersonal relationship promotes a focus on shared idiosyncratic rules created just for that particular relationship. Nevertheless, supervision is a formal, professional relationship defined by certain relational rules and is more role-bound than friendship relations. Supervision initially provides a general expectancy base for certain interactive behaviours; however, as the relationship develops, it is individualized around the learning needs of the supervisee and the teaching approaches of the supervisor. These idiosyncratic reciprocal rules the participants will...