OBJETIVOS GENERALES DE LA DISCIPLINA

Supervisees were asked “What personal habits got in the way of their supervision?” I asked this question as I have noticed that I, and the supervisees that I supervise, have habits that we employ during supervision that get in the way of exploring our issues. Three themes emerged: lack of preparation; psychological diversion tactics; and holding a limited view of potential learning.

Lack of preparation

Lack of preparation was the most common habit to which supervisees admitted. This was described as not preparing and ‘winging it’ with the result that they were unclear about what they wanted from the session. “I think the big one is preparation and not

preparing” (B8). Lack of preparation could take the form of bringing

too many issues, bringing superficial material, focusing on tangential or generic issues or bringing an inappropriate topic, for example one supervisee regretted asking her supervisor about transactional analysis because this provoked a didactic response. Supervisees described how lack of preparation led to focusing on one perspective, such as their clients, rather than their personal patterns or the wider system. Another supervisee explained that he had the opposite habit and tended to over prepare and spent too much time “coming back to

those same kind of things” (W7). Supervisors recognised that

supervisees were not always fully present in the supervision sessions for a variety of reasons including being busy and feeling tired,

“rushing in without pre-thought and so their mind is somewhere behind rather than fully in the moment” (P6).

Psychological diversion tactics

Supervisees provided examples of different diversion tactics that they employed – asking the supervisor lots of questions so that they could hide, over talking and getting drawn into stories and getting lost in detail. “I know that one of my supervisors will happily get distracted

119

and doesn’t spot it” (P6). Many supervisees mentioned over-

rationalising and ‘analysis paralysis’, “let’s intellectualise it to death”

(U4). Some supervisees admitted that they could be defensive and

verbally beat themselves up about their inadequacy, being determined to be at fault. Supervisees were self-judging and self- conscious about bringing familiar patterns and issues.

“I catch myself out kind of feeling, my goodness, I’ve been

here before, haven’t I got to grips with this yet? I can’t bring this up again…the fear is, haven’t I learnt that yet?” (N6).

Some supervisees were too polite to ask for what they needed from the session and said too little. “I’m blocking myself often by that

whole thing around introversion, I think through things a million times before I say the end result” (C7). They self censored, were guarded,

displayed diminished curiosity and were concerned to be seen as a good coach. Group supervision increased this self-consciousness,

“the fear of being or doing something wrong or acknowledging that you made a big mistake” (E3). Some supervisees said that they were

overly concerned about being entertaining and not boring the group. Another habit prevalent amongst supervisees at group supervision was worrying that there was not enough time to go into depth on their issue - and so avoided bringing it.

Holding limited beliefs on the potential for learning in supervision

Some supervisees said that they held limited beliefs about potential learning in supervision. This took many forms including focusing on finding solutions to questions rather than learning, not reflecting afterwards, not knowing how to capture the learning from supervision and not committing to actions after the session. One supervisor explained that his problem solving habit involved the supervisor too,

“it starts with the supervisee but the supervisor gets hooked into it” (Q9). A couple of supervisees acknowledged that they were reluctant

to focus on what was going well and held an assumption that supervision is for remedial purposes, “coming to the headmaster”

120

involved in other members’ issues and not reflecting on how the discussion related to their own practice and learning.

“It’s a bit of a mask so you can feel that you are working, you feel you’re being part of the group, but not actually getting into the stuff that’s important to you” (G6).

One supervisee tended to use her partner to talk things through with before supervision and this devalued supervision for her, “when I

come to supervision, it is superfluous” (R4). This raises questions

about what supervisees want to get from supervision. While, in some circumstances, it may be sufficient to self-supervise or to use a peer as a sounding board, supervisees have stressed how valuable they find it to select challenging issues to bring to supervision to explore and learn from, with a qualified supervisor.

Supervisors noticed how some supervisees can limit their learning. Several talked about supervisees going through the motions of supervision to obtain accreditation. One supervisor spoke about supervisees blocking themselves and being unwilling to explore and experiment in the sessions and this reducing their learning; another spoke of how supervisees can hide in sessions, referring to this as “a

small, thin layer of obstruction” (K9). A supervisor had experienced

supervisees taking against the supervisor in some way and therefore not being open to learning, “I suspect that this is probably a

defensive thing on their part” (G5).

Supervisees can block themselves in a number of ways during supervision. Three common practices that supervisees and supervisors talked about were not preparing prior to the session, employing psychological diversion tactics during supervision and holding limiting beliefs about the potential for learning from supervision. Supervisees commented that whilst some of these practices were conscious, others were unconscious. The impact of these tactics is to reduce the potential for learning during supervision.

121