Supervisor Training - Issues and Approaches (Guide To Supervision) (2009, Karnac Books)

Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page i
CHAPTER TITLE I
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 SUPERVISOR TRAINING
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page ii
111 Guide to Supervision Series

2 Published and distributed by Karnac Books
3
4 Other titles in the Series
5 A Different Wisdom: Reflections on Supervision Practice
6 Penny Henderson
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4 Orders
5 Tel: +44 (0)20 7431 1075; Fax: +44 (0)20 7435 9076
6
E-mail: shop@karnacbooks.com
7
8 www.karnac books.com
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page iii
111
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
SUPERVISOR TRAINING
9
10 Issues and
1
2 Approaches
3
4
5 edited by
6
7 Penny Henderson
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page iv
111
2
3
4
5 First published in 2009 by
6 Karnac Books Ltd
7 118 Finchley Road, London NW3 5HT
8
9
10
1
Copyright © 2009 to Penny Henderson for the edited collection, and to the
2 individual authors for their contributions.
3
4 The rights of the contributors to be identified as the authors of this work
5 have been asserted in accordance with §§ 77 and 78 of the Copyright
6 Design and Patents Act 1988.
711
8 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored
9 in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means,
20 electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the
1 prior written permission of the publisher.
2
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
3
4 A C.I.P. for this book is available from the British Library
511
6 ISBN 978 1 85575 402 7
7
8
9
311 Edited, designed and produced by The Studio Publishing Services Ltd
1 www.publishingservicesuk.co.uk
2 e-mail: studio@publishingservicesuk.co.uk
3
Printed in Great Britain
4
5
www.karnacbooks.com
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page v
111 CONTENTS
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ix
1
ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xi
2
3 INTRODUCTION xvii
4
PART I: ISSUES 1
5
6 CHAPTER ONE
7 Training supervisors 3
8 Penny Henderson
9
CHAPTER TWO
30
It is all in the relationship: exploring the differences 15
1
between supervision training and counselling training
2
Roger Casemore
3
4 CHAPTER THREE
5 Training supervisors in multi-disciplinary groups 27
6 Julie Hewson
7 CHAPTER FOUR
8 Recruitment and access 43
911 Caro Bailey
v
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page vi
vi CONTENTS
111 CHAPTER FIVE

2 Assessment design and implementation 55
3 Caro Bailey
4
CHAPTER SIX
5
Developing trans-culturally sensitive theory and practice 69
6
Valerie Batts
7
8 CHAPTER SEVEN
9 Online learning and teaching of supervision of 81
10 counselling and psychotherapy
1 Michael Townend and Wendy Wood
2 CHAPTER EIGHT
3 The internal supervisor: developing the witness within 93
4 Penny Henderson and Caro Bailey
5
6 CHAPTER NINE
711 Developing skills: practice, observation, and feedback 107
8 Anthea Millar
9 CHAPTER TEN
20 Developing authority from the inside out 123
1 Penny Henderson
2
CHAPTER ELEVEN
3
The impact of the organization: the primary care context 143
4
Antonia Murphy
511
6 CHAPTER TWELVE
7 Training for group supervision 157
8 Brigid Proctor and Francesca Inskipp
9
311 PART II: APPROACHES 173
1
CHAPTER THIRTEEN
2
Supervision: a psychodynamic and psychoanalytic 175
3
perspective on supervisor practice and supervisor training
4
Christine Driver
5
6 CHAPTER FOURTEEN
7 Training for supervisors of transactional analysis 185
8 practitioners and others
911 Charlotte Sills
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page vii
CONTENTS vii
111 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

2 Person-centred supervision training across theoretical 197
3 orientations
4 Rose Battye and Anna Gilchrist
5
CHAPTER SIXTEEN
6
Training for supervising cognitive–behavioural 209
711
practitioners and others
8
Alec Grant
9
10 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN
1 Learning to supervise using a solution-focused approach 223
2 Carole Waskett
3 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN
4 Training for supervising transpersonal therapists and others 231
5 Suzanne Dennis
6
7 Epilogue 241
8 Penny Henderson
9 APPENDIX 1: Professional organizations with some 245
211 involvement in supervision
1
2 INDEX 247
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page viii
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page ix
111 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Many colleagues have contributed to the book. First, and most pro-
1 foundly, thanks go to the authors of the chapters who have engaged
2 full heartedly in the project, and tolerated my requests for re-writes
3 and even cuts with generosity.
4 Second, thanks to colleagues who have read my contributions,
5 most particularly Caro Bailey, Brigid Proctor, Hazel Johns, and
6 Anthea Millar. You have sustained me in the moments of difficulty
7 as author and editor, and encouraged and advised me in ways only
8 you know.
9 Members of my supervision development group, and of the
30 Cambridge Supervision Training (CST) staff team, and current and
1 past students on the courses, have been and are hugely influential.
2 Thank you.
3 Acknowledgement is also due for permission to reproduce illus-
4 trations as follows.
5 To TMS Development International, for permission to reproduce
6 Figures 3.1 and 3.2, and Table 3.1.
7 To Sue Wheeler for permission to reproduce Figure 9.1.
8
911
ix
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page x
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xi
111 ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Caro Bailey is a British Association for Counselling and Psycho-
1 therapy (BACP) accredited counsellor and supervisor. She has
2 worked for over thirty years as a counsellor, supervisor, and trainer.
3 She works in private practice in Bristol and with colleagues on the
4 CASCADE Training Supervision course.
5
6 Valerie Batts, PhD, is Executive Director and co-founder of
7 VISIONS Inc., a consulting organization that helps individuals and
8 groups effectively to recognize, understand, and appreciate differ-
9 ences (www.visions-inc.org). She leads the consultation and train-
30 ing components of the company. Author of Modern Racism: New
1 Melody for the Same Old Tune, she is the originator of the VISIONS
2 training model and experiential workshops. As a licensed clinical
3 psychologist, she provides training to human service providers,
4 clinicians, educators, and managers, nationally and internationally,
5 to develop and maintain environments that support, respect, and
6 appreciate differences.
7
8 Rose Battye is a counsellor and psychotherapist, registered with
911 BACP and UKCP. Having worked for eighteen years in the NHS,
xi
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xii
xii ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
111 subsequently she has worked as an independent practitioner.

2 She has co-tutored, with Anna Gilchrist, supervision courses in the
3 person-centred approach to supervision since 1998, and over the
4 years has worked as a trainer in various subjects, including super-
5 vision, with other counselling and psychotherapy institutions.
6
7 Roger Casemore is Senior Teaching Fellow and Director of Coun-
8 selling and Psychotherapy Courses at the University of Warwick.
9 He has been in private practice as a person-centred therapist for
10 over forty years and as a supervisor for over thirty years. He is a
1 Chartered Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Personnel and
2 Development, a Fellow and past Chair of BACP, and is currently a
3 member of the Professional Ethics and Practice Committee.
4
Suzanne Dennis, BA, MSc, CQSW, is a chartered counselling psy-
5
chologist and BACP accredited supervisor of individuals and
6
groups. As senior trainer and supervisor at the Psychosynthesis and
711
Education Trust, she developed and co-tutored the Trust’s supervi-
8
sion course. She has set up and delivered workplace counselling
9
services for two local authorities, and has over ten years’ experience
20
as a manager in a large organization. She has trained in a range of
1
approaches to therapeutic work, and has been working with indi-
2
viduals, couples, and groups for over twenty-five years. She has a
3
private practice in counselling, psychotherapy, and supervision in
4
South Devon and in London.
511
6 Christine Driver is a Professional Member of the SAP (Society of
7 Analytical Psychology) and a training therapist of FPC (Foundation
8 for Psychotherapy and Counselling). She is Director of Training and
9 Clinical Services at WPF Therapy, and previously ran their super-
311 vision trainings. She is also in private practice. She has written and
1 co-edited (with E. Martin) two books on supervision: Supervising
2 Psychotherapy (Sage, 2002), and Supervision and the Analytic Attitude
3 (Whurr, 2005) and was Chair of BAPPS (British Association for Psy-
4 choanalytic and Psychodynamic Supervision).
5
6 Anna Gilchrist is a BACP registered counsellor and psychothera-
7 pist. She has had an independent private practice for twenty years
8 as a counsellor, supervisor, and trainer. Since 1998, she has co-
911 designed and tutored a supervision course with Rose Battye.
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xiii
ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xiii
111 Alec Grant is a British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive

2 Therapies (BABCP) accredited supervisor, trainer, and practitioner.
3 He is the course leader for the PGDip/MSc in Cognitive Therapy
4 and the Increased Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) PGDip
5 in Cognitive Behavioural Therapy at the University of Brighton.
6 His doctoral research focused on the organisational mediation
711 and uptake of clinical supervision and he is an advocate of real
8 time-equivalent (DVDs, audio- and video-based) forms of clinical
9 supervision.
10
1 Penny Henderson is a BACP accredited counsellor, supervisor,
2 and Fellow. After twenty-seven years as a counsellor, trainer, and
3 supervisor, she is still involved in supervision, supervision training,
4 writing, and research. She has published books, chapters, and
5 articles about adult learning, training group workers, exam stress,
6 counselling in primary care, medical education, and supervision.
7
Julie Hewson, BA (Hons), PGCE, Dip. SW, CQSW, TSTA, CTA, is
8
Director of the Iron Mill Institute, a BACP registered supervisor,
9
registered with UKCP, and a trainer and supervisor for the Euro-
211
pean Association of Supervision. She is a painter, photographer,
1
and writer of short stories, and a trained mediator, coach, and
2
coaching trainer. With colleagues, she set up the Czech Institute of
3
Supervision, and worked in Prague. The Iron Mill Institute runs
4
both national and European accredited courses in psychotherapy,
5
counselling, supervision, coaching and management. This reflects
6
the range of her application of psychological and other areas of
7
expertise, including conflict resolution, mediation, supervision,
8
consultancy, and teaching.
9
30 Francesca Inskipp has been involved in the counselling field since
1 1970 as trainer, supervisor, counsellor, writer, and broadcaster. With
2 Brigid Proctor, she started CASCADE training for supervisors. She
3 still maintains a small practice of supervision and counselling, and
4 runs occasional supervision workshops with Brigid. She has been
5 an active member of BACP since its beginning as an organization,
6 and is an accredited supervisor and Fellow.
7
8 Anthea Millar, MA, is a counsellor, supervisor, and counselling/
911 supervision educator. As a BACP accredited counsellor, she works
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xiv
xiv ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS
111 in independent practice, and is also director of a four-year coun-

2 selling training in Cambridge. With Penny Henderson, she co-
3 founded Cambridge Supervision Training, which runs assessed
4 supervision training and continuing professional development
5 workshops for supervisors. She also regularly offers training in
6 other parts of Europe, more recently in Latvia, Greece, and
7 Hungary.
8
9 Antonia Murphy is a CPC Registered Member and Supervisor
10 Member, is UKCP registered and BACP senior accredited. She
1 graduated from WPF psychodynamic counselling, counselled in
2 primary care, then became Co-ordinator of the Southern Derbyshire
3 Managed Counselling Service. She is involved in the national deliv-
4 ery of counselling and psychotherapy in primary care as Director of
5 Professional Standards for CPC (the Association of Counsellors and
6 Psychotherapists in Primary Care). She is course director of CPC’s
711 specialist supervision training programme, and continues to work
8 clinically alongside her strategic roles. She is the author of several
9 papers on aspects of psychotherapeutic practice in primary care
20 and the wider NHS. She was formerly editor of the Journal for
1 the Foundation of Psychotherapy and Counselling, and is currently an
2 editorial board member of the Journal of Psychodynamic Practice and
3 editor of the CPC Review. She is co-author of Psychological Therapies
4 in Primary Care: Setting up a Managed Service (Karnac, 2004).
511
6 Brigid Proctor, formerly Director of Counselling Courses at South
7 West London College, has worked as trainer, supervisor, supervisor
8 trainer, external assessor, consultant, and writer since retirement.
9 She was active in the development of BACP and its various com-
311 mittees and is a Fellow of BACP. With Francesca Inskipp, she has
1 co-created Open Learning Materials for supervisors and super-
2 visees, while initiating Cascade Training Associates. She has long
3 been driven by a desire for integrative counselling and psycho-
4 therapy that could be focused on working appropriately with the
5 wide variety of clients, rather than counsellor preference. In 1978,
6 she wrote/edited Counselling Shop (Burnett Books), in which she
7 interviewed ten practitioners seeking wider integrative frameworks
8 in their different theoretical and practice bases. She has contributed
911 to many books on supervision and supervision training, and the
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xv
ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xv
111 second edition of Group Supervision: A Guide to Creative Practice was

2 published by Sage in 2008.
3
4 Charlotte Sills is a UKCP registered integrative psychotherapist
5 and BACP accredited supervisor in private practice. She is also a
6 teaching and supervising transactional analyst, the former Head of
711 the Transactional Analysis Department at Metanoia Institute and a
8 Visiting Professor at Middlesex University. She is the author or
9 co-author of several books and articles in the field of counselling
10 and therapy, including, with Helena Hargaden, the EBMA award
1 winning Transactional Analysis: A Relational Perspective (Routledge,
2 2002).
3
4 Michael Townend is a Reader in Cognitive Behavioural Psycho-
5 therapy and a BABCP accredited therapist, BABCP accredited
6 supervisor, BABCP accredited trainer, and Fellow of the Higher
7 Education Academy. He is a programme leader at the University of
8 Derby.
9
211 Carole Waskett After many years of primary care counselling,
1 being supervised and supervising, she now teaches, coaches, and
2 works with NHS staff teams, within an NHS Trust and as a private
3 practitioner. Once a psychodynamic therapist, she has made a com-
4 plete shift to a solution-focused approach. She is always moving
5 towards simplicity, pragmatism, and humour, both in and outside
6 work.
7
8 Wendy Wood is a Senior Lecturer in Counselling and Psycho-
9 therapy and programme leader at the University of Derby.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xvi
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xvii
111
2
3
Introduction
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9 This book aims to create a lively and readable resource that will
211 be informative and inspirational for those planning training for
1 supervisors of counsellors, or who create, teach on, or apply for
2 supervisor training. It is intended to be consciously forward looking
3 in a period of rapid development, and is designed to highlight dif-
4 ferences between providers as well as the approaches and ideas they
5 share. It is the work of eighteen authors, all of whom are, or have
6 been, involved in supervisor training in the UK.
7 Supervision courses are designed to meet and respond to the
8 needs of senior practitioners. This entails support for them to engage
9 with real dilemmas, and encouragement to work out their own solu-
30 tions. Courses must be connected to whatever the current political
1 and professional developments require.
2 Considering how much experience there now is in providing
3 supervisor training in the UK, relatively little has been written about
4 it. Some published details of course design and curricula created by
5 UK trainers are referred to in Chapter One. A shared value among
6 these authors is that supervision is a practical activity; thus, that ex-
7 perience, including observed practice with feedback, is crucial. Par-
8 ticipants need courses whose structure and process mirrors what is
911 to be learnt by way of values, skills, and approaches.
xvii
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xviii
xviii INTRODUCTION
111 The book might well also be of interest to colleagues involved in

2 training supervisors in other contexts and allied professions: social
3 work, medical and nursing professions, coaching, and teaching. The
4 chapters span a range of theoretical approaches to supervisor train-
5 ing, and authors thus inevitably write from quite different basic
6 assumptions about supervision. They call on a huge range of pub-
7 lished resources, many only available in journal articles within their
8 particular modality that have not entered the mainstream. One great
9 gift, thus, is the lists of references for each chapter.
10
1
2 Considering difference
3
The following questions may be a prompt to reflect on the con-
4
tribution each chapter makes to the development of supervision
5
training in general.
6
711 1. How do the ideas of each chapter develop supervision training
8 in general? How do they fit with your own particular interests
9 and approach?
20 2. What are the implicit and explicit assumptions about super-
1 vision within the models and approaches being described?
2 3. What would be different, easy, or difficult in these ideas for a
3 supervisee from the theoretical modality within which you
4 work?
511 4. Are the ideas applicable to your practice or a course you teach?
6 5. How many of the references they offer have you read?
7
8
9 Some bases for understanding about supervision
311
1 A definition of supervision now widely used was provided by
2 Inskipp & Proctor (2001), and used as a basis for a research review
by Wheeler (2003):
3
4 A working alliance between the supervisor and counsellor in which
5 the counsellor can offer an account or recording of her work, reflect
6 on it, receive feedback and, where appropriate, guidance. The
7 object of this alliance is to enable the counsellor to gain in ethical
8 competence, confidence, compassion and creativity in order to give
911 of her best possible service to her client. [p. 8]
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xix
INTRODUCTION xix
111 There is a distinction between the functions and purposes of

2 supervision. The primary purposes are to “ensure the welfare of
3 clients and enhance the development of the supervisee in relation to
4 professional practice”. Different orientations and practitioners
5 emphasize these two foci differently. Some assert that, barring live
6 supervision, it is impossible to “ensure” the welfare of a client
711 whom the supervisor has never met. For many, the focus is on the
8 development and support of the supervisee, with the intention that
9 the supervision will support and enable the supervisee’s practice in
10 the ways detailed in the Inskipp and Proctor extract.
1 To achieve this purpose, three main functions are commonly
2 identified.
3
4 Educative function. This focuses on encouraging the development of
5 supervisees’ skills, abilities, understanding, personal awareness,
6 and academic knowledge.
7
Supportive and creative function.This encourages supervisees to
8
acknowledge and explore how personal issues, their own life
9
events, and responses to clients affect their work. Supervisors need
211
to be aware of elements that might be affecting supervisees’ capac-
1
ity to fulfil their roles and duties while not overstepping a bound-
2
ary between supervision and therapy. More positively, this function
3
supports creativity and liveliness in the work.
4
5 Managerial function. This involves supporting, appraising and
6 assessing a supervisee’s work against the norms and standards of
7 the profession, society, or context by referring to ethical codes or
8 organizational or legal requirements. This function may dominate
9 when supervising trainee practitioners, where there may also be a
30 formal or informal assessment role, and be particularly salient
1 within organizational work where audit is a high priority, but it is
2 also an essential element for all supervisory contracts.
3
4 In practice, supervision commonly intertwines these functions.
5 The needs of supervisees and the stage of their career may deter-
6 mine which one takes precedence. It also varies with the interests
7 and competency of supervisors and their interpretation and under-
8 standing of their responsibilities in providing supervision and the
911 purpose it serves.
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xx
xx INTRODUCTION
111 Good practice in supervision

2
Supervisors generally agree on the importance of an effective work-
3
ing alliance with supervisees. Safety in the relationship may sup-
4
port openness to reflection and maximum disclosure of difficulties
5
and matters affecting fitness to practise. A safe relationship is
6
enhanced by:
7
8 ● clear negotiated contracts about expectations, aims, and func-
9 tions;
10 ● discussion of responsibilities and accountability, especially con-
1 cerning welfare of clients, and relationships with employer or
2 training organizations;
3 ● development of a non-threatening atmosphere to facilitate an
4 honest working alliance;
5 ● supervisor and supervisee both being open to learning and
6 respectful of differing learning styles;
711 ● needs of the supervisee normally, though not exclusively, taking
8 precedence over those of the supervisor;
9 ● process and quality of supervision itself being reviewed regu-
20 larly.
1
2
3 Research information about supervision
4 and supervision training
511
6 The systematic scoping research reviews by Wheeler (2003), and
7 Wheeler and Richards (2007) aimed to provide baselines for future
8 UK-based research about supervision and outcomes of supervision.
9 Wheeler (2003) identified 388 research sources, eleven of which
311 were conducted in the UK, and only six about experienced practi-
1 tioners. Of the twenty-eight that were about supervision training,
2 none was directly about UK courses.
3 In a second review, of research on the impact of supervision
4 (Wheeler & Richards, 2007), two items met their inclusion criteria
5 for good methodology, and none relates to supervisor training. As in
6 the previous review, most studies were from the USA, and about
7 supervision of trainee counsellors. They found two studies that indi-
8 cated that self-awareness is enhanced through supervision, five that
911 provided evidence of skill development as a product of supervision,
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xxi
INTRODUCTION xxi
111 five that examined supervision and self-efficacy, two that considered
2 the relevance of timing of supervision, two that explored theoretical
3 orientation, one that reviewed support and challenge in supervision,
4 and three that tried to assess client outcomes. Unsatisfactory though
5 some of the methodologies might be, these indicative resources sug-
6 gest topics for further research, and for designers of supervisor
711 training courses to bear in mind. If supervisors and supervisees
8 believe supervision to be useful, it is important to find and share
9 research methodologies to test these beliefs, and capitalize on reflec-
10 tive practice for evidence that researchers can accept as valid.
1 BACP undertook a mapping exercise carried out by Docchar
2 (2007) (internal document) to identify details about supervisor
3 training courses. Initial results suggest there were more than eighty
4 supervisor training courses within further and higher education
5 and private institutions, 75% at diploma level or above. She could
6 not identify obvious equivalence between similar qualifications.
7 Stevens, Goodyear, and Robertson (1997), in the USA, concluded
8 that experience and supervision training together and not length of
9 experience alone was associated with more supportive, less critical,
211 and less dogmatic supervisory thoughts (quoted in Wheeler, 2003,
1 p. 47). This is a potentially productive finding, worthy of further
2 exploration in the UK to identify if it applies here. If supervisor
3 training does improve on straightforward length of experience,
4 what elements of it enable more encouraging frames of thought?
5 Miller, Hubble, and Duncan (2008) identified the importance for
6 highly effective therapists of working harder to improve perfor-
7 mance by reaching for objectives just beyond one’s level of pro-
8 ficiency and checking outcomes. That is, combining intentional
9 practice with direct feedback that is specific about the next develop-
30 mental step.
1
2
Accreditation expectations
3
4 Criteria for individuals to be accredited/registered are variable,
5 and currently much in flux and development. In September 2008,
6 the accredited supervisors from UK professional organizations
7 totalled close to five hundred (BACP, 310; CPC, 82; BABCP, 46;
8 EATA/ITAA, 107) plus the 198 registered BAPPS supervisors. Thus,
911 five hundred accredited supervisors serve a population of many
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xxii
xxii INTRODUCTION
111 tens of thousands of accredited counsellors, non-accredited coun-

2 sellors, trainees, and others wanting supervision. The majority of
3 supervisors are neither accredited nor trained on an assessed
4 course.
5 BACP currently does not, in 2008, have a scheme to recognize
6 training courses for supervisors, and has yet to undertake the work
7 that would lead to this, although Counselling and Psychotherapy in
8 Scotland (COSCA) has gone down this path. The British Associ-
9 ation for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Supervision (BAPPS)
10 was originally set up by people involved with one course, and reg-
1 istered members are expected to have had some training in super-
2 vision or considerable experience, and be registered or accredited
3 as a counsellor or psychotherapist by one of a number of profes-
4 sional bodies. Sills, in this volume, describes how transactional
5 analysis has created integrated structures within national and inter-
6 national TA Associations (EATA/ITAA).
711
8
9 Regulation and supervision competences
20
1 Predictions in Autumn 2008 are that regulation of counsellors by the
2 Health Professions Council will be in place by 2011. The Increased
3 Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT) initiative has developed
4 some initial competences for supervisors as a part of another
511 governmental initiative. For details consult the University College
6 London, website: http://www.ucl.ac.uk/clinical-psychology/CORE/
7 competence_frameworks.htm or the IAPT website: www.iapt.nhs.
8 uk/2008/02/supervision_competences_framework, or http://www.
9 iapt.nhs.uk/2008/12/iapt-supervision-guidance/
311 There will be implications for training supervisors if the profes-
1 sional bodies lean primarily on the competences model for super-
2 visor accreditation or research. Competences strip out assessment of
3 knowledge in favour of “abilities”, i.e., observable performance,
4 often stated generally. There is little reference to creativity or a
5 restorative function. The analysis is functional rather than relational.
6 Yet, this book reveals fundamentally differing assumptions about
7 supervision among senior practitioners that are obscured by the
8 competences’ disinterest in knowledge and assumptions. A benefit
911 might be that competences connect to National Occupational
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 8/6/09 11:28 am Page xxiii
INTRODUCTION xxiii
111 Standards and thus could support development of supervision

2 across the professions.
3 The impact of the process of regulation, driven by governmental
4 imperatives, has been and will be considerable. There is a current
5 culture, exacerbated by government-funded initiatives, for services
6 designed to follow manuals and be protocol based, and these are
711 anathema to many counselling and supervisory approaches. There
8 are risks that supervision will be squeezed out from highly pres-
9 sured jobs within organizations without a culture that values reflec-
10 tive practice. Until there is a firmer evidence base, this is a particular
1 risk for experienced practitioners.
2 Trainers of supervisors can contribute to the development of our
3 professional organization’s grasp, and representation, of super-
4 vision in these interesting times. I hope this book will contribute,
5 too.
6
7 Penny Henderson
8 April 2009
9
211
1 References
2
Docchar, C. (2007). Mapping of UK Supervision Courses for counsellors
3
and psychotherapists (BACP internal document).
4
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2001). The Art, Craft and Tasks of Counselling
5
Supervision, Part 1: Making the Most of Supervision (2nd edn). Twicken-
6
ham: Cascade.
7 Miller, S., Hubble, M., & Duncan, B. (2008). Supershrinks. Therapy Today,
8 19(3): 4–9.
9 Stevens, D. T., Goodyear, R. K., & Robertson, P. (1997). Supervisor devel-
30 opment: an exploratory study in changes in stance and emphasis.
1 Clinical Supervisor, 16(2): 72–88.
2 Supervision competences frameworks accessed at:
3 www.ucl.ac.uk/clinicalpsychology/CORE/supervision_framework
4 www.iapt.nhs.uk/2008/02/supervision_competences_framework
5 Wheeler, S. (2003). Research on Supervision of Counsellors and Therapists: A
6 Systematic Scoping Search. Lutterworth: BACP.
7 Wheeler, S., & Richards, K. (2007). The Impact of Clinical Supervision on
8 Counsellors and Therapists, Their Practice and Their Clients. A Systematic
911 Review of the Literature. Lutterworth: BACP.
Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page xxiv
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson_BOOK_FINAL 8/6/09 12:12 pm Page 1
CHAPTER TITLE 1
111
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
PART I
1
2 ISSUES
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
1
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER ONE

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training supervisors
8
9
10 Penny Henderson
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
211 his chapter provides a platform for the book by condensing
1 many publications that signal the development of some British
2 ideas in the last twenty years. It covers curriculum develop-
3 ment and content, the creation of congruent values between the
4 process of supervision being studied and the curriculum and method-
5 ology of the course, the aims of a course, and underlying principles.
6 Consensus between authors is striking around the need to embody
7 core values about supervision in the processes of the training.
8 Although there is no single acknowledged and generally agreed
9 core curriculum for supervisor training, the ideas of Inskipp and
30 Proctor (1993, 1995), Hawkins and Shohet (2006), and Page and
1 Wosket (2001) are particularly influential. With no agreement in
2 professional bodies or between course providers about appropriate
3 length and style of courses for different levels of supervisory quali-
4 fication, Docchar’s research (2007) could not assess the depth at
5 which elements are addressed or identify equivalence between
6 them. Applicants find it difficult to know from course advertise-
7 ments which course might best suit their needs.
8 Up to the1980s, many counsellors took on the supervisor role as
911 a natural developmental step, as if this role demanded no more
3
111 than experience as a counsellor and as a supervisee. Some became

2 supervisors after many years of practice, others during or soon after
3 completing counsellor training, largely because of their prior or
4 other roles and experience in youth work, social work, and educa-
5 tion or health settings. Few training courses were available for
6 supervisors, so a minority undertook significant training. Little
7 theory about supervision was widely available until the 1990s. An
8 apprenticeship model was the norm, and for many people it is still
9 the preferred route to becoming a supervisor. Stewart (2006)
10 describes this as learning through “the crucible of experience”.
1 Even in the early years of writing about supervisor training, there
2 were authors who wanted to encourage readers not to assume that
3 there is a natural career progression from counselling to super-
4 vision. Rather, they assert, these are different activities, requiring
5 distinct skills, qualities, frames of mind, and theoretical approaches
6 (Clarkson & Gilbert, 1991).
711 Specifically, supervisors have to combine relevant ideas and
8 material with finely-tuned intuition and awareness of sensory clues
9 within the supervisory relationship. They benefit from clarity about
20 roles and tasks, and the potential choices of focus within super-
1 vision. They must develop ethical problem-solving skills, and
2 specific supervisory skills. Supervisors and supervisor trainers also
3 need flexibility to engage with people whose learning styles differ
4 from their own, particularly when these people have had prior bad
511 experiences at school.
6 The therapy and supervision professions are changing rapidly.
7 A degree level qualification will be required for therapists when
8 regulation is implemented. Many people are training as counsellors
9 at a younger age, some in their twenties as a first career. Some
311 people apply to train as a supervisor after three years experience or
1 less following initial qualification as a counsellor, even when they
2 have undertaken counsellor training relatively early in life. This is
3 not considered unusual among other colleagues, such as clinical
4 and counselling psychologists, who often find themselves super-
5 vising older and more experienced colleagues because of their
6 role or status. Some who advertise themselves as “experienced”
7 supervisors might not have done more than a few years of super-
8 vision and might have little or no formal training in it (Henderson,
911 2006).
TRAINING SUPERVISORS 5
111 Identifying training needs

2
3 Hawkins and Shohet (2006) propose that new supervisors carry out
4 a self-appraisal and assessment of their learning needs under the
5 following headings:
6 ● knowledge: the purpose and boundaries of supervision, the
711 types of supervision;
8 ● supervision management skills: explaining the purpose of
9 supervision, negotiating a contract, maintaining boundaries;
10 ● supervision intervention skills: they frame these in terms of
1 Heron’s (1975) six-category intervention analysis;
2 ● traits or qualities, including having commitment, using auth-
3 ority appropriately, being sensitive and adaptable, having a
4 sense of humour, and ethical maturity;
5 ● commitment to own ongoing development, including super-
6 vision, commitment to professional and personal develop-
7 ment, recognizing limitations, and getting feedback.
8
9 They emphasize the importance of exploring the concept of empa-
211 thy, and of working out its expression in the supervisory relation-
1 ship (ibid., p. 131). Reflecting the increase in training opportunities
2 since 2000, they propose five distinct foci for supervisor training
3 courses. These convey the complexities of supervision, and thus the
4 impossibility of dealing adequately with these issues within one
5 short course or at an initial stage.
6 1. Core supervision course for new supervisors.
7 2, Core supervision for student and practice supervisors.
8 3. Courses in group and team supervision for those who super-
9 vise in team or group settings.
30 4. Therapeutic supervision courses for those who supervise in-
1 depth counselling or psychotherapy or other therapeutic work.
2 5. Advanced supervision courses for those who have to super-
3 vise across teams and organizations or teach supervisors or
4 want to become advanced practitioners.
5
6 Decisions to attend Certificate, or “core”, courses may be made
7 pragmatically, determined by time available to study, or as a “toe in
8 the water” process to find out if supervision is a desired next career
911 step. Participants might have extensive experience of supervision as
111 a supervisee, and sometimes from having practised as a supervisor.

2 They will be used to reflection. A course with a pragmatic practice
3 base is valuable for those practitioners who are unwilling to put
4 time and money aside to study for another degree, but who want
5 some frameworks for thought, feedback on observed practice, or
6 reassurance that their practice is sound, over and above what is
7 available from attending a conference session or day workshop.
8
9
10 Course requirements and assessment
1 Course requirements specify criteria for application, attendance,
2 and assignments. The Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Educa-
3 tion (QAA) academic levels (2001) provide a resource for course
4 designers to create course outcomes or propose specific learning
5 aims in terms of Doctorates, Masters, Honours, Intermediate, and
6 Certificate levels. However, supervision courses do not fit neatly
711 with this academic hierarchy until they are offered at Masters level,
8 because Certificate and Diploma courses that are primarily focused
9 on professional development are not necessarily related to, or inte-
20 grated with, academic standards.
1 Supervision courses might serve some participants who have
2 prior degrees or higher education experiences and many who do not.
3 Participants’ professional experience could mean they are, or can
4 become, capable of “critical analysis”, “originality of application”, or
511 “creative syntheses of ideas”, which, in QAA terms, fits at Masters
6 level. The course assessment criteria, however, might not require this
7 of all who qualify. This leaves some course designers at Certificate
8 and Diploma levels uncertain about appropriate standards when the
9 course is not recognized by a university or accrediting body. Some
311 groups of practitioners or private training institutions offer short
1 supervision courses, and have to invent their own standards as well
2 as their curriculum topics. If the professional bodies do not wish to
3 recognize or register Supervision Diploma training courses, perhaps
4 most courses should be encouraged to register with one of the award-
5 ing institutions, such as ABC, or the Counselling and Psychotherapy
6 Central Awarding Body (CPCAB), or with a university. However,
7 this increases course costs substantially.
8 Courses that are registered have to ensure that written as-
911 signments (process analyses, reflective practice reports, essays, or
111 portfolios) are linked to the aims of the course and to explicit
2 criteria that have an obvious relationship with the theoretical orien-
3 tation and academic level of the course. Professional Practice
4 assessment can be done live, or through recorded materials with
5 written reflections, and assessed by observation and reflection by
6 the participant, by peers, and by the trainers. Masters level courses,
711 because of their university locations and resources, provide more
8 opportunities to study at the forefront of related academic disci-
9 plines. Critical analysis of texts and capacity to understand, use,
10 and undertake research is supported and expected, and assessment
1 has to be geared to this academic level.
2 It is useful to separate the requirements for the completion of a
3 course from those necessary to complete a qualification. The latter
4 might require practice hours, supervision hours, and external
5 reports or references about the trainee supervisor’s practice. For
6 Increased Access to Psychological Therapies (IAPT), supervisor
7 qualification might some day be linked to competences such as
8 those identified by CORE (2008) or National Occupational
9 Standards (NOS, 2008) or accreditation processes used by profes-
211 sional bodies. There is, as yet, little consensus on what constitutes
1 a “qualified” or “experienced” supervisor (Henderson, 2006).
2
3 Core values and course philosophy
4
5 Clarkson and Gilbert (1991, pp. 143–169) noted some necessary shifts
6 in frames of reference for counsellors who are training as super-
7 visors. These arise from the change in role, and include a different
8 sort of responsibility for clients they will never meet, and the need
for more and different skills. Their summary of core concepts, below,
9
is informed by values many counsellors and supervisors can still be
30
expected to share almost twenty years later.
1
2 ● To foster the creative drive of human beings to learn and
3 develop.
4 ● To respect individual differences and delight in them. Staffing
5 contributes to this by including role models who are different.
6 ● To convey a valuing of individual responsibility for behaviour,
7 and responsibility towards others.
8 ● To have a congruent value system underlying the materials to
911 be taught.
111 ● To embrace the paradox of valuing tradition while also being

2 willing to change, and to learn by discovery and reflection and
3 self direction. To foster the creative drive of human beings to
4 learn and develop.
5
Weston (2004) describes how developing a training for couple
6
supervisors in Scotland challenged their working party to clarify
7
what they really believed in about life, as well as supervision and
8
counselling. Their bedrock principles were that the training process
9
needed to offer the freedom to be vulnerable and admit ignorance
10
and mistakes, the valuing of widely different personalities and
1 skills, and an egalitarian culture that minimized the abuse of power.
2 They began with first principles to consider what couple counselling
3 services needed from supervision, why they were offering a super-
4 vision course, what kind of course, what level was appropriate, and
5 so on. There was also a focus on specific skills of supervising couple
6 counsellors. Thus, the course developed from their assessment of
711 training needs for an organization, and their wish to convey and
8 embody the qualities of a good supervisory relationship. The philo-
9 sophical focus was on relationships, integrity, power, and human
20 potential. The practical implications were that “The way we taught
1 was almost more important than what we taught”.
2 Their decision to co-tutor emerged from the team development
3 process. They wished to model different but complementary styles
4 of supervising, and to demonstrate in their own relationship the
511 egalitarian principles they wanted to inculcate. “Our differences
6 kept us balanced.”
7 Pocknell (2001) was an early advocate of focus on difference and
8 equality, and providing a space to explore attitudes and prejudices
9 within a safe learning environment. Her core curriculum included
311 what she described as the essential elements of supervision, and
1 common factors independent of theoretical orientation: establishing
2 clear contracts, building an effective supervisory relationship, and
3 holding appropriate authority in the role of supervisor.
4
5
6 Curriculum and syllabus
7
8 Page and Wosket (2001) and Hawkins and Shohet (2006) clarified
911 aims for detailed content in the curriculum. They agree on the need
111 to develop a knowledge base, to develop a supervisory style and

2 some specific skills, and to sustain a commitment to professional
3 and personal development.
4 Page and Wosket (2001) refer to the British Association for
5 Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) guidelines for accredita-
6 tion of supervisors for their recommendations for the design and
711 content of supervisor training. They recommend completing a
8 training course if supervisors intend to offer supervision beyond
9 their own core model of counselling. Their supervisor training
10 course has five broad aims (pp. 255–263):
1 ● to gain an understanding of various theories, models and
2 approaches;
3 ● to develop and practise a range of interventions and feedback
4 skills relevant to the functions of supervision. This entails
5 creating the opportunity to experiment, make mistakes, test
6 out a style and take risks;
7 ● to increase awareness of personal and professional strengths
8 and areas for development;
9 ● to enable the supervisor to develop their own informed style
211 and approach to supervision, integrating theory and practice;
1 ● to develop awareness of ethical and professional practice
2 issues to enhance the professional identity of the supervisor
3 and instil good standards and practice.
4
5 Development of personal awareness becomes salient for super-
6 visors to build the relationship and understand parallel process.
7 (Parallel process includes various forms of unconscious communi-
8 cation enacted between counsellor and supervisor.) The supervisor
9 might be willing to make their internal struggles and sensations
30 explicit to a supervisee in service of explorations of parallel process,
and ask for the supervisee’s reactions in understanding the rele-
1
vance of this.
2
Hawkins and Shohet (2006) recommend principles to design
3
supervisor training.
4
5 ● Start with a focus on self-awareness, developed through expe-
6 riential learning processes.
7 ● Develop the individual’s “authority, presence and impact”
8 through high degrees of feedback in small groups where
911 trainees undertake supervising with their peers.
111 ● Teach basic skills and techniques in the most lively way possi-
2 ble, using demonstrations, illustrations, stories, engagement,
3 and trainees’ reflecting on experiences from their lives. Provide
4 plenty of opportunity to practise and receive feedback.
5 ● Teach theory only when experiential learning is already under
6 way.
7 ● “Just-in-time” learning: learning is most effective when the
8 learner has already recognized the need for that piece of learn-
9 ing, and can apply the learning close to receiving it.
10 ● “Real-time” learning: learning is greatly enhanced by the
1 learners addressing real issues that are current and unresolved,
2 rather than case studies from the past. They refer to this as
3 “real play” rather than “role play”.
4 After the initial training period, they argue, learners need a
5 prolonged period of supervised practice before they return to create
6 their own integration between self-awareness, skills, theory, and
711 their experience of practice.
8 They note the crucial skill of giving feedback. They encourage
9 readers to use Heron’s (1975) six categories of intervention to iden-
20 tify preferred and avoided ways of relating. These are: prescriptive,
1 informative, confrontative, cathartic, catalytic, supportive. They
2 encourage trainees to use learning about skills or theoretical maps as
3 an action research tool to find out more about their own supervision.
4 For their advanced supervision course, they recommend less
511 structure, and more reflection on knowledge and skills already
6 identified, plus use of interpersonal process recall (IPR), video, trig-
7 ger tapes, work on ethical dilemmas, development of trans-cultural
8 competence, issues dealing with appraisal, evaluation, and accred-
9 itation, and reflections on case material involving inter-agency
311 dynamics. They observe that supervision training can never be a
1 substitute for having good supervision oneself.
2 Publishing ten years apart, Clarkson and Gilbert (1991) and
3 Wheeler (2001) concur on the ethical and contractual base for
4 supervision, but otherwise reveal how choices within courses by
5 well-established providers differ (Table 1).
6 Practising ethical decision-making is essential to both a coun-
7 sellor and their supervisor. Each needs to be familiar with an ethi-
8 cal framework. Carroll (1996, pp. 159–165) describes a four-step
911 process that begins with creating ethical sensitivity and formulating
111 Table 1.1. Curriculum comparison: Clarkson and Gilbert (1991) and
2 Wheeler (2001).
3 Clarkson and Gilbert (1991) Wheeler (2001)
4 Generic curriculum content Generic curriculum content
5
The nature and varieties of Comprehensive understanding of the
6
relationship ethical framework
711
The importance and use of Ethical decision making
8 individual styles Clarity about lines of
9 Contracts and contracting responsibility and accountability
10 Conceptual models Contracts with supervisees and with
1 Educational methods, means, and placement agencies
2 media Risk assessment
3 Developmental stages of learning Managing mistakes and complaints
4 Intervention strategies and Balancing support and
5 techniques confrontation
6 Timing and rhythm Organizational dynamics
Selecting priorities and sequences The dynamics of power and
7
Transference, countertransference, authority and its use
8
and parallel process Balancing supervision and
9
Values and ethics psychotherapy
211 Organizational or contextual factors Managing cultural diversity in
1 Group dynamics, group supervision
2 development and group Equal opportunities issues that
3 management: methods and goals affect clients, supervisees, and
4 Evaluation of process and outcome organizations
5 Special preparation for examination Recognizing limits of supervisory
6 or assessment procedures competence
7 Self care and modelling of Working with theoretical diversity
8 personal and professional Assessing trainees
development Supervision modality: peer, group,
9
telephone
30
1
2 a moral course of action, continues by implementing an ethical
3 decision, and concludes with emphasis on the requirement to live
4 with the ambiguities of an ethical decision. Several authors in
5 Wheeler and King (2001) explore the dilemmas of supervisory
6 responsibility in relation to supervisees. A number of extremely
7 thorough and useful BACP information sheets emphasize the legal
8 base, and the processes of ethical decision-making (BACP Informa-
911 tion Sheets DG1, E6, G1, G2, P4, P11, P12, P14).
111 Gorell Barnes, Down, and McCann (2000) evaluate the practical
2 and theoretical issues involved in implementing effective super-
3 visory training within a family therapy practice, and examine the
4 relationship between supervisor and trainee, and the implications
5 for training, in terms of power, gender, ethnicity, and sexuality.
6 Tudor and Worrall (2007) describe a person-centred approach to
7 learning and deconstruct the notion of a syllabus.
8
9
10 Current challenges in course focus
1 There are some key professional development issues to be
2 addressed in supervision training. The first is sensitization to issues
3 of difference and equality, to working trans-culturally as a super-
4 visor, to noticing and taking account of the many differences of
5 learning style, life style, race, class, age, gender, sexual identity, dis-
6 ability, and the related value-laden issues pertinent to supervisor or
711 supervisee. This is crucial to practice in a post-industrial society
8 operating within a global economy. Encouraging trainee super-
9 visors to be interested in difference and how to explore it creates a
20 base for a safe supervisory alliance (Henderson, 2009).
1 Another issue is development of a capacity to talk about the
2 supervisory relationship itself, to review it regularly, to commit to
3 speaking when there are uncomfortable feelings about it. Scaife
4 (2009, p. 325) invites supervisors to take responsibility for their
511 part of a difficulty in a working alliance: “Since the difficulty is
6 being identified by the supervisor, it is the supervisor who is experi-
7 encing the problem and inviting the assistance of the supervisee in
8 its solution”. She offers a number of useful strategies to pursue this.
9 Most important of all, training can offer tools to encourage an
311 atmosphere of safety and enable intentional “play” in supervision,
1 so that the supervisee’s concerns are non-judgementally explored,
2 stuck feelings are released, and necessary issues are addressed.
3 This chapter charts considerable consensus about the value base
4 of supervisor training and how it is to be conducted. The range of
5 topics that are considered essential in training of differing theoreti-
6 cal orientations vary, as Part II of this book indicates, and it is clear
7 that even the essentials cannot be explored in depth in most of the
8 Certificate and Diploma training courses currently available. For
911 the sake of applicants to courses, and any future recognition by
111 regulatory authorities, more work on equivalence for basic training

2 through a core curriculum, and options for post qualifying provi-
3 sion, is desirable.
4
5 Acknowledgement
6
Thanks to Keith Tudor for ideas incorporated here.
711
8
9 References
10 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2003). Making
1 Notes of Counselling and Psychotherapy Sessions. Information Sheet P12.
2 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2005). The
3 Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy
4 within the NHS. Information Sheet DG10.
5 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009).
6 Confidential Guidelines for Reporting Child Abuse. Information Sheet
7 E6 (updated March 2009).
8 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009). Access to
Counsellor Records. Information Sheet G1 (updated March 2009).
9
British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009). Confiden-
211
tiality, Counselling and the Law. Information Sheet G2 (updated
1
March 2009).
2 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009). Guidance
3 for Ethical Decision Making: A Suggested Model for Practitioners.
4 Information Sheet P4 (updated March 2009).
5 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009). Making a
6 Contract for Counselling and Psychotherapy. Information Sheet P11
7 (updated March 2009).
8 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2009).
9 Contingency Plans if Personal Crises Impact on Independent Practice.
30 Information Sheet P14 (updated March 2009).
1 Carroll, M. (1996). Counselling Supervision: Theory, Skills and Practice.
London: Cassells.
2
Carroll, M. (1999). Training in the tasks of supervision. In: E. Holloway
3
& M. Carroll (Eds.), Training Counselling Supervisors (pp. 44–66).
4 London: Sage.
5 Clarkson, P., & Gilbert, M. (1991). The training of counsellor trainers
6 and supervisors. In: W. Dryden & B. Thorne (Eds.), Training and
7 Supervision for Counselling in Action (pp. 143–169). London: Sage.
8 Docchar, C. (2007). Mapping of UK Supervision Courses for counsellors
911 and psychotherapists (BACP internal document).
111 Gorell Barnes, G., Down, G., & McCann, D. (2000). Systemic Supervision:
2 A Portable Guide for Supervisory Training. London: Jessica Kingsley.
3 Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the Helping Professions.
4 Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
Henderson, P. (2006). What is a qualified supervisor? Therapy Today,
5
17(10): 51–52.
6
Henderson, P. (2009). A Different Wisdom: Reflections on Supervision
7 Practice. London: Karnac (in press).
8 Heron, J. (1975). Six Category Intervention Analysis. Guildford: Univer-
9 sity of Surrey Press.
10 IAPT Supervision Competences framework (2008). http://www.iapt.nhs.
1 uk/2008/02/supervision-competences-framework (February) and
2 www.ucl.ac.uk/clinicalpsychology/CORE/supervision_framework.
3 Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (1993 1st edn, 2001 2nd edn). The Art, Craft and
Tasks of Counselling Supervision, Part 1: Making the Most of Super-
4
vision. Twickenham: Cascade.
5
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (1995 1st edn, 2001 2nd edn). The Art, Craft
6 and Tasks of Counselling Supervision, Part 2 Becoming a Supervisor.
711 Twickenham: Cascade.
8 National Occupational Standards: http://www.ukstandards.org/
9 Admin/DB/0049/GEN35.pdf
20 Page, S., & Wosket, V. (2001). Supervising the Counsellor: A Cyclical
1 Model. London: Routledge.
2 Pocknell, C. (2001). Tutoring on a supervision training course.
3 Counselling and Psychotherapy Journal, 12(4): 32–33.
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2001). The Framework
4
for Higher Education Qualifications in England, Wales and Northern
511 Ireland. Document available online at: http://www.qaa.ac.uk/
6 academicinfrastructure/FHEQ/EWNI/default.asp or on the Karnac
7 website: www.karnacbooks.com.
8 Scaife, J. (2009). Supervision in Clinical Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide.
9 London: Routledge.
311 Stewart, N. (2006). Training standards for supervisors in primary care.
1 In: D. Hooper & P. Weitz (Eds.), Psychological Therapies in Primary
2 Care: Training and Training Standards (pp. 112–141). London: Karnac.
Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (2007). Training supervisors. In: K. Tudor &
3
M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise II: Developing Person-Centred
4
Approaches to Supervision (pp. 211–219). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
5 Weston, H. (2004). Developing a supervision training course—the prac-
6 ticalities. Therapy Today, 15(10): 39–41.
7 Wheeler, S. (2001). Are supervisors born or trained? Counselling and
8 Psychotherapy Journal, 12(10): 28–29.
911 Wheeler, S., & King, D. (Eds.) (2001). Supervising Counsellors: Issues of
Responsibility. London: Sage.
111 CHAPTER TWO

2
3
4
5
6
711 It is all in the relationship:
8
9
exploring the differences between
10 supervision training and
1
2
counselling training
3
4
5 Roger Casemore
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction and background
1
T
2 he scoping review of research evidence on the impact of
3 supervision (Wheeler & Richard, 2007, p. 3) showed that,
4 while there is little empirical evidence of the effectiveness of
5 supervision in counselling and psychotherapy, there seems to be an
6 implicit belief in the profession that it is an essential process. A
7 generally held view is that supervision can provide emotional,
8 psychological, practical, and professional support and containment
9 for therapists and enable and possibly ensure maintenance of appro-
30 priate standards to protect clients. The history of supervision train-
1 ing is that it seems to have developed in a very ad hoc manner in the
2 UK since it was first written about in 1988, when it was described as
3 a process of “enabling and ensuring” (Marken & Payne, 1988).
4 In this chapter, I explore the differences I have experienced
5 between training diploma students to become qualified therapists
6 and enabling experienced therapists to gain a qualification in
7 supervision. This suggests some issues about how supervision
8 courses might need to be structured and run differently from coun-
911 selling courses.
15
111 The relationship is the key

2
3 Carl Rogers wrote of the importance of the relationship in therapy
4 (Rogers, 1951, pp. 51–56). He described central characteristics or
5 attitudes of the therapist that need to be experienced by the client
6 within the counselling relationship. He further postulated that
7 these characteristics needed to be developed as an integrated part
8 of the self of the therapist, as a way of being. I have long held the
9 view that, in the person-centred approach, it is through a relation-
10 ship where the client experiences those characteristics of the thera-
1 pist that growth and healing takes place. I believe this also to be
2 true of supervision and training relationships. In the same way that
3 the nature of my relationship with a supervisee is very different
4 from that with a client, so the relationships with students on certifi-
5 cate or diploma in counselling and psychotherapy courses are qual-
6 itatively different from those with participants on the supervision
711 courses. I note that I have used the term “students” for those on the
8 counselling courses and “participants” for those on the supervision
9 course.
20
1
2 Differentiation
3
4 For me, that differentiation between students and participants is
511 one key to differences between counselling training and super-
6 vision training. I see the participants in supervision courses as prac-
7 titioners whose professional knowledge and experience is as
8 valuable as mine, with whom I want to develop a collegial rela-
9 tionship, rather than as students, needing to be taught.
311 Another reason for differentiating between the training of thera-
1 pists and supervisors is that supervision is not counselling writ
2 large. Significant differences between counselling and supervision
3 lie in the relationship between therapist and client vs. that between
4 supervisor and supervisee. The functions of the supervisor are also
5 very different from the functions of a therapist. I do believe that
6 supervision can be therapeutic in that it enables change to take
7 place, but it should never be therapy as such, or used as a substi-
8 tute for therapy. I have some very real concerns about those who
911 see supervision training as some kind of extension, or advanced
IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 17
111 stage, of therapist training, rather than training for a very different
2 role and function. This misconception has led to some individuals
3 wanting to go straight on from completing their counselling dip-
4 loma to do a supervision course; I think anyone commencing super-
5 vision training should have been qualified for at least two years and
6 should have at least four hundred and fifty hours of supervised
711 counselling practice, to enable them to feel confident and compe-
8 tent enough to work effectively as a supervisor and for their super-
9 visees to feel safe in the relationship.
10 As the purpose and functions of supervision seem to me to be
1 distinctly different from those of counselling, it may be helpful at
2 this point to identify some definitions that will help to differentiate
3 between the two processes.
4
5
6
What is counselling?
7
8 The British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP)
9 definition of counselling: (BACP, 2007)
211
1 Counselling takes place when a therapist sees a client in a private
2 and confidential setting to explore a difficulty the client is having,
3 distress they may be experiencing or perhaps their dissatisfaction
4 with life, or loss of a sense of direction and purpose. It is always at
5 the request of the client as no one can properly be “sent” for coun-
selling . . .
6
7
8
9 What is supervision?
30
1 The BACP definition of supervision:
2
Supervision is a formal arrangement for therapists to discuss their
3
work regularly with someone who is experienced in counselling
4 and supervision. The task is to work together to ensure and develop
5 the efficacy of the therapist–client relationship. The agenda will be
6 the counselling work and feelings about that work, together with
7 the supervisor’s reactions, comments and confrontations. Thus
8 supervision is a process to maintain adequate standards of coun-
911 selling and a method of consultancy to widen the horizons of an
111 experienced practitioner. Though not concerned primarily with

2 training, personal therapy or line management, supervisors will
3 encourage and facilitate the ongoing self-development, continued
4 learning and self-monitoring of the therapist. [Mearns, 2007, p. 1]
5
6 These definitions indicate that one of the most significant differ-
ences between counselling and supervision is the presence or
7
absence of a requirement to attend. For counselling to be effective
8
it must be a relationship of choice by the client; supervision is
9
clearly a professional obligation, or requirement for every BACP
10
practitioner, as defined in the Ethical Framework (BACP, 2007) and
1
it is often a requirement imposed by employers as well.
2
3
4
5 The requirement for supervision and for supervision training
6
The Ethical Framework (BACP, 2007b) defines a requirement for
711
supervision as follows:
8
9 Beneficence:
20
There is an obligation to use regular and on-going supervision to
1
enhance the quality of the services provided and to commit to up-
2
dating practice by continuing professional development.
3
4 Self-respect:
511
There is an ethical responsibility to use supervision for appropriate
6 personal and professional support and development, and to seek
7 training and other opportunities for continuing professional devel-
8 opment.
9
311 Thus, BACP is unequivocal about this. I note that this Ethical Frame-
1 work does not appear to require either therapists or supervisors
2 to be trained and qualified, though it is now considered likely
3 that this will change when regulation of the profession takes effect.
4
5
6 Basic assumptions about learning
7
8 I believe that the education of therapists and supervisors should be
911 based on principles of the education of adults, rather than basing it
111 on the principles of educating children, which largely come from

2 Piaget (1972). His assumption is that the teacher has ownership of
3 knowledge and the student will often be treated as an empty vessel
4 into which the knowledge has to be decanted, a process known as
5 pedagogy. Little account is taken of, or respect given to, the
6 student’s prior knowledge and experience. Paulo Freire defined this
711 as the ‘Banking concept of education’ (Freire, 2001).
8 In Andragogy in Action (1984), Knowles defined four assump-
9 tions that adult educators should have about adult learning.
10
1 1. Adults move from dependency to self-directedness;
2 2. Adults draw upon their reservoir of experience for learning;
3 3. Adults are ready to learn when they assume new roles;
4 4. Adults want to solve problems and apply new knowledge
immediately. [p. 12]
5
6
Accordingly, they suggested that adult educators should:
7
8
● set a cooperative learning climate;
9 ● create mechanisms for mutual planning;
211 ● arrange for a diagnosis of learner needs and interests;
1 ● formulate learning objectives based on diagnosed needs and
2 interests;
3 ● design sequential activities for achieving the objectives;
4 ● execute the design by selecting methods, materials, and
5 resources; and
6 ● evaluate the quality of the learning experience while re-diag-
7 nosing needs for further learning. [ibid.]
8
9 Freire suggested that education should be based on a relation-
30 ship of dialogue between teacher and student in which the starting
1 point for learning is the sum total of all the knowledge and experi-
2 ence of both tutor and student. Based on this, some years ago, I
3 wrote about what I see as the important principles or assumptions
4 that should form the basis of the approach of any educator work-
5 ing with adults. My points, additional to Knowles, above, included:
6
7 Basic Assumptions in the Education of Adults
8 1 Adults are social beings whose nature results from their inter-
911 actions or transactions within their social or historical context.
111 2 Adults have the potential to undergo further qualitative

2 changes in their thinking throughout their entire life span. In so
3 doing, they move towards increasing control over their own
4 thinking and learning.
3 Learning is synonymous with thinking and involves the
5
creation of knowledge, questions, ideas and skills.
6
4 Knowledge is something that can be used or created.
7 5 Teaching is a process that involves enabling individuals to
8 think and learn along with others who are thinking and learn-
9 ing.
10 6 Education is about critical thinking; questioning, problem
1 posing, synthesis and discovery in a continuous cycle of reflec-
2 tion, action and reflection, so that from each end emerges a new
3 beginning.
4 7 Adults learn best in situations in which they as individuals are
valued.
5
8 The teacher is there to learn as well as to enable others to learn.
6
[Nottingham Andragogy Group, 1985, p. 36]
711
8 A developmental objective for all adult educators should be
9 for adults to gain increasing control over their own thinking, feel-
20 ing, and learning. This process is seriously inhibited if a teacher
1 assumes autonomous control over any phase of learning.
2
3
4
The differences
511
6 I have always felt that the structure and format of counselling
7 courses should model the ethos of counselling and of the particular
8 modality being taught, and, similarly, the structure, format, and
9 very nature of supervision courses should model the ethos of and
311 best practice in supervision.
1 In some counselling qualifying courses, students may have been
2 taught the “skills” of counselling in a quite mechanistic and peda-
3 gogical way, and will have been taught how to do and not to do
4 certain things in order to become qualified as therapists. Even in
5 those institutions where more dialogic approaches to education are
6 present, and where there might well have been some negotiation on
7 content and structure, the attitude of tutors and institutions might
8 still be largely pedagogical and didactic. Often, this is most appar-
911 ent in the ways that tutors retain responsibility for, and the power
111 over and control of, assessment and marking of students’ practical
2 and written work. This can lead students to believe that there is one
3 “right way” to do the things that therapists do, and that only the
4 tutors know what that is. I do not believe this to be good educa-
5 tional practice for counselling courses, and it is completely anti-
6 thetical for supervision courses.
711 Supervision courses can model good practice in supervision. I
8 am working with experienced professional colleagues to enable
9 them to develop sufficient knowledge, skills, confidence, and exper-
10 tise to be able to practise effectively as supervisors. They are
1 already trained and qualified as therapists. They are engaged in the
2 same business as I am when I am working as a therapist. I aim to
3 support them to develop themselves as supervisors.
4 At the start of a counselling course, especially for those students
5 returning to learning in a formal educational setting, unconscious
6 processes and expectations might take over. Some automatically
7 go into “pupil mode”, with pens and pads poised, expecting to be
8 “taught” by the tutors. Much to my surprise, I have also experi-
9 enced this happening at the start of supervision courses, when
211 students begin behaving as though the supervision course is the
1 same as those courses they have been on before. I see it as my
2 responsibility to comment that this is a very different learning situ-
3 ation. This is one in which they are equal partners with me and my
4 fellow tutors in exploring the knowledge and experience we all
5 have in order to enable them to develop their personal construct of
6 supervision and their approach to practising as a supervisor, and
7 one in which we, as tutors, will also be exploring and further devel-
8 oping our knowledge and practice. Through that sharing, each will
9 develop greater understanding of the theory and practice of super-
30 vision, personal and professional growth, and even create new
1 knowledge to be shared with the wider world. I also need to watch
2 that I do not re-experience my feelings from previous classroom
3 situations where I have been a more traditional teacher, and begin
4 to behave as though they are pupils in a classroom.
5 I feel some discomfort in using the term “tutor”. There is, of
6 course, the paradox that at the same time as I want participants and
7 tutors to be in a relationship as equals, it is not possible for me
8 completely to abrogate the institutional power that I hold. I need
911 openly to acknowledge that power which the institution places on
111 me, along with the responsibilities that I am expected to carry. At

2 the same time, I need to do my utmost not to let that power get in
3 the way of the relationship between me and the participants, by
4 making sure that I use power sensitively, only when it is essential,
5 and in a way which is commensurate with collegial relationships on
6 a supervision course and never in an authoritarian and indiscrimi-
7 nate way. I am there to learn as well. One of the ways I have of deal-
8 ing with this is to raise it as an issue explicitly while developing the
9 learning contract that we agree between tutors and participants.
10 This seems to me to be a useful and good parallel with contracting
1 for the supervision relationship.
2
3
4 The learning contract
5
6 Since I believe that the relationship between tutors and participants
711 is of paramount importance, I must begin a course by explicitly
8 describing how I see that relationship as a fundamental principle of
9 the course. I need to set out to offer a relationship that will closely
20 model the relationship between supervisor and supervisee, and
1 begin by negotiating a clear and explicit agreement on the structure,
2 content, ground rules, and boundaries of what and how we are
3 going to learn together. I want to make clear that this is a course
4 that is not pedagogic, but is based on the very different principles
511 of a developmental model; the aim of the course is to develop a
6 relationship in which we work together as colleagues who can help
7 each other to reflect on all dimensions of our supervision practice
8 and, through that process, to develop our effectiveness as super-
9 visors. I want to establish a working alliance between us all, in
311 order to enable each of us to gain in ethical competence, confidence,
1 and creativity, and give the best possible service to our supervisees.
2 Importantly, I will want to establish agreement that each of us takes
3 personal responsibility for our learning and for assessing our learn-
4 ing through a joint continuous assessment process. The tutors will
5 not take sole responsibility and total control of marking and assess-
6 ment of written work and practice assignments, but will share that
7 with all the participants through a process of negotiation.
8 Starting a supervision course does feel different from a coun-
911 selling course. Many students on a counselling course might have
111 no real idea of what counselling is, are unlikely to be practising

2 as counsellors, and some might never have experienced therapy as
3 a client. On a supervision course, all the participants will have a
4 pretty good idea of what supervision is, and will have experienced
5 supervision as supervisees. Furthermore, all of them will be prac-
6 tising as therapists and will be in supervision when they start the
711 course. They will have a level of knowledge and understanding
8 about the practice of supervision that will be substantially more
9 than the knowledge and understanding that counselling students
10 will have when they start their courses. It is, therefore, critical that
1 participants’ knowledge and experience is fully valued and taken
2 account of. This is bound to have an impact on the nature of the rela-
3 tionship between participants and tutors on a supervision course.
4 Another difference in the relationship between participants and
5 tutors will arise from an important attitudinal difference that paral-
6 lels the supervision relationship. As a supervisor, I do not want to
7 be perceived as an “expert”. I do want to be seen as having some
8 expertise, even wisdom, to share with my supervisee. I would want
9 this to be the same in the relationship between participant and tutor
211 on a supervision course. In a counselling course, it might be neces-
1 sary to be seen at times as knowledgeable about theory and about
2 the application of theory to practice, particularly in the early stages,
3 when counselling students have such a steep learning curve to
4 negotiate and there are issues of students’ safety and their clients’
5 safety to consider. On a supervision course, without denying the
6 knowledge, experience, and expertise that I have, I really want to
7 communicate a collegial attitude and to encourage all the partici-
8 pants to develop that as well.
9
30
1 Content: differences between supervision
2 and counselling courses
3
4 There will, of course, be many differences between the content and
5 structure of counselling and supervision courses, and there will be
6 some similarities, too. This does not seem to be the place to do a
7 detailed comparison and assessment of the differences in their
8 content and structure. However, there are some points I wish to
911 make.
111 I believe it is important for the content of supervision courses to

2 be based on a balance between theory and the application of theory
3 to practice in both counselling and supervision, and to ensure that
4 participants have enough knowledge about each of the main
5 approaches to counselling. The course content should enable
6 participants to refresh and/or improve this knowledge and under-
7 standing, in order that they can be competent to supervise a
8 counsellor who practises in another modality.
9 In some cases, where a participant might have had training as a
10 counsellor that was clearly inadequate, this could mean that they
1 might need some additional, personalized opportunities to improve
2 their knowledge of theory and their ability to apply it to practice.
3 Careful selection of applicants notwithstanding, I do start all of my
4 supervision courses with a reprise of the various counselling theo-
5 ries to enable participants to have some parity of understanding of
6 theory, which they can share with each other.
711 In terms of the actual content, I suggest that there should be a
8 focus on the core values of supervision and a substantial element
9 on ethical dilemmas. It can also be very helpful to teach participants
20 a model for the ethical decision-making process. I have written
1 about this elsewhere (Gabriel & Casemore, 2003), and BACP has a
2 range of relevant useful information sheets, too. It is plainly very
3 important to introduce participants to the range of supervision
4 models that exist in order to enable them to develop their own
511 construct of supervision, which they feel confident and competent
6 to practise. I feel it is essential to include a substantial exploration
7 of psychopathology and to have a continuing theme of valuing
8 difference and developing cultural competence throughout the
9 course. Finally, I believe that it is essential to enable participants to
311 have an acceptable level of knowledge of group dynamics theory
1 and practice, particularly if they are going to be doing group super-
2 vision.
3 For me, the most significant difference between counselling
4 courses and supervision courses that needs to be taken into account
5 is in the nature of the relationship between tutors and participants
6 on supervision courses. I would urge those readers who wish to
7 develop a supervision course and those who are currently running
8 supervision courses to take account of the special nature of that
911 relationship. I would also strongly urge those who are running or
111 developing supervision courses to see them as education with

2 adults, based on the basic principles I have outlined above.
3
4
5 References
6
711 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) (2007a).
8 Information Sheet T1: What is Counselling? Lutterworth: BACP.
9 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (BACP) (2007b).
10 Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling & Psychotherapy.
1 Lutterworth: BACP.
2 Freire, P. (2001). The banking concept of education. In: P. Freire, A. M.
3 A. Friere, & D. Macedo (Eds.), The Paulo Freire Reader (pp 67–79).
4 New York: Continuum.
5 Gabriel, L., & Casemore, R. (2003). British Association for Counselling
6 and Psychotherapy, Information Sheet P4: Guidance for Ethical
7 Decision Making—A Suggested Model for Practitioners.
8 Knowles, M. S. (1984). Andragogy in Action. Applying Modern Principles
of Adult Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
9
Marken, M., & Payne, M. (1988). Enabling and Ensuring. Leicester:
211
National Youth Bureau.
1
Mearns, D. (2007). British Association for Counselling and Psycho-
2
therapy, Information Sheet S1: What is Supervision? Lutterworth:
3
BACP.
4
Nottingham Andragogy Group (1985). Andragogy—A Developmental
5
Approach to the Education of Adults (p. 36). Nottingham: Nottingham
6 University.
7 Piaget, J. (1972). Intellectual evolution from adolescence to adulthood.
8 Human Development, 15(1): 1–12.
9 Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client Centred Therapy. London: Constable.
30 Wheeler, S., & Richards, K. (2007). The Impact of Clinical Supervision on
1 Counsellors and Therapists, Their Practice and Their Clients: A Sys-
2 tematic Review of the Literature. Lutterworth: BACP.
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER THREE

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training supervisors in
8
9
multi-disciplinary groups
10
1
2
Julie Hewson
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
W
211 hen training people in supervision from a number of
1 disciplines, cultures, and expertise, I am aware of a
2 number of factors that need to be considered.
3 The first is similar to that of the process of getting to know
4 the client: it involves enquiry and curiosity, like that of an an-
5 thropologist getting to understand another professional tribe.
6 The language is different, the culture, norms, and values might be
7 different, the context in which they work different, in addition to
8 the roles and expectations people have of them and they have of
9 themselves.
30 The second is the modelling they have experienced during their
1 own training. In the past, medical training, for example, was quite
2 often draconian, lacking in emotional literacy, and often exposing
3 and humiliating. With initiatives such as bringing in mentoring and
4 coaching training for GPs and teaching skills of communication and
5 emotional intelligence, those days are long gone.
6 So, whether supervising or training people in other professions
7 to deliver supervision to their own colleagues, or training people
8 from one profession to supervise those in another, sensitivity is
911 necessary, and an understanding of roles, goals, working contexts,
27
111 priorities, operational strategies, personal preferences, and differing

2 learning styles.
3 The necessity for supervision within professions other than
4 counselling and psychotherapy, in different cultures, becomes clear
5 in some of the stories and narratives that follow.
6 Imagine a wet autumn afternoon, on a busy and efficient ward,
7 with a pervasive air of melancholy, in direct contrast to the bright
8 murals and pictures of happy babies and joyful parents. There had
9 been a death, a tragic death of a neonate in which two members of
10 different professions were implicated, both assuming the other
1 knew a particular procedure, both fearful of admitting they did not.
2 There were the parents, distraught beyond measure, the two young
3 professionals whose working lives were in tatters, and a shocked
4 team whose whole raison d’être is to preserve lives of fragile babies.
5 All had been seriously affected by this accident.
6 A critical incident debrief had taken place, but the nursing and
711 medical staff were dealing with it in differing ways with different
8 outcomes for the staff concerned. The cause of the mistake was, to
9 a great extent, the lack of supervision as part of the professional
20 norm. None of the staff had the regular relationship that those of us
1 in the worlds of psychotherapy, social work, or counselling take for
2 granted. Naturally, during training there had been formal mentor-
3 ing, but recourse to regular supervision was not part of the tradi-
4 tion then. There was mentoring for some young doctors and
511 tutelage in the nursing profession, but the kind of open forum and
6 reflective space we can hope to expect in the therapeutic services
7 was simply not the norm. The old manner of training doctors was
8 particularly shame-based, and supervision per se seemed to be seen
9 as an exposing and shaming process, if it existed at all.
311 Setting up the first supervision training in Prague, I came across
1 incidents that were very specific to the historical context and culture
2 of the time. The only groups who were able to able to meet without
3 fear of reprisal during the Soviet occupation were the Balint groups
4 for doctors, where patients were ostensibly discussed. Actually,
5 these were the groups that the dissidents were able to use for their
6 political planning to free themselves from the occupier. One exam-
7 ple was of a psychiatrist who, for the purposes of being able to work
8 in a particular hospital, had to subscribe to communism, and was
911 faced with either having to commit some of his dissident colleagues
TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 29
111 to psychiatric institutions or expose them, with the probable out-

2 come of prison or worse. He was not able to get supervision on this
3 moral dilemma at the time, either from the communist authorities or
4 from those of his colleagues who were overt dissidents, who treated
5 him with suspicion. He told me that he had saved the lives of a small
6 number of his colleagues who were under suspicion, but the legacy
711 of his position was cumulative trauma and self-medication.
8 Another case was that of a psychotherapist, specializing in the
9 field of addictions. She was clearly being ostracized by many of her
10 colleagues on the training programme. Privately, she had told me
1 of her experiences as a loved child, feeling happy and confident,
2 who went to school and faced a wall of incomprehensible hatred.
3 Her father was a communist, and she had no awareness of this
4 or the implications of it until she went to school. She told me that
5 two daughters of another communist sympathizer were killed in
6 the next village. In her training group, I watched a more subtle
7 ostracism taking place, partly created by herself because of the
8 overcompensation for her experiences as a child. Until they had a
9 foreigner who was not party to either side, some of these issues
211 could not be addressed or healed. Who could she go to for super-
1 vision on this issue?
2 These two narratives illustrate a need for supervision that
3 attends to context and culture, outside the normal context of indi-
4 vidual case supervision. I have outlined a menu of supervision else-
5 where (Hewson, 1999), and others have looked at the tasks and
6 functions of supervision (Carroll, 1996; Holloway, 1995).
7
8
9 Needs differ as experience grows
30
1 Initially, like should supervise like. In the early stages of the profes-
2 sional’s life, a homoeopath needs to supervise a homoeopath, a
3 social worker a social worker, and so on. This is because part of the
4 nature of the supervisory relationship at this stage is one of men-
5 toring, teaching, and resourcing. Thus, it is essential, as in the first
6 story, that the doctor and the nurse both needed to have been
7 taught a specific procedure relevant to their role, or have a space
8 where they could revisit it or ask for help. At this stage, there is
911 also the position of the role model, demonstrating professional
111 behaviour. This requires emotional intelligence, which is part and

2 parcel of best practice in the talking therapies, but is not necessar-
3 ily abundant in some of the other professions: the law, medicine,
4 osteopathy, and chiropractic.
5 However, what becomes very interesting is that some of the
6 most effective supervision at master practitioner level can come
7 from trained supervisors whose original discipline is in another
8 field. They bring a refreshing perspective which is outside the norm
9 and challenges people’s comfort zones, while still working from the
10 shared meta-perspective. In a piece of supervision on the training
1 course, a former military policeman placed more emphasis on
2 rational, rather than theoretical, perspectives (using the seven-level
3 model of Clarkson, 1992, pp. 1–27). A psychotherapist had been
4 agonizing about a borderline client’s accusations about being late
5 for appointments or running over time. The former military police-
6 man simply asked if she had a diary with her, and, on examination,
711 it was clear on a purely factual and rational basis that the accusa-
8 tion was impossible. This proved to be the universe of discourse
9 that was most needed, not agonizing about transference or coun-
20 tertransference issues, diagnostics, or value-laden discussions
1 about how to manage the client. A simple, factual, rational inter-
2 vention cleared the air in next to no time and put the supervisee
3 back in the driving seat with her client. I have also observed a
4 teacher supervising an experienced counsellor, in one of the train-
511 ing sessions in which the stated contract was about some help to
6 explore possible interventions with a highly traumatized client. It
7 was clear to all of us that the counsellor herself had become trau-
8 matized by the events she had heard, and this had interfered with
9 her being able to resource herself. The supervisor in training could
311 himself have become involved in a parallel process and become de-
1 skilled, but, with elegance and agility, he focused on the counter-
2 transference and brought the supervisee back to a position where
3 she knew exactly what to do.
4
5
6 Taking account of context and culture
7
8 Supervision is a reflective space for a number of professional issues.
911 There is a need to take account of the profession itself, its identity,
111 context, and culture. There also needs to be awareness of safety and
2 what that means to different professional groups. Professions vary
3 widely in how they view supervision. Trainers in supervision have
4 to be aware of the differing emphases and culture about how the
5 supervisor is seen: i.e., as a facilitator, educator, mentor, or coach.
6 These issues are all the more pertinent when considering training a
711 range of professionals in the same group in the art and science of
8 supervision. Significant research based on the work of Fielden
9 (2008) indicates that much early supervision takes an educative
10 function, and the roles are those of the expert and the learner;
1 however, as the practitioner becomes more skilled, there is a shift in
2 relationship, one of more equality and a sharing in dialogue. What
3 this process throws up is the multiplicity of the roles in the super-
4 visor role set. Early on, the supervisor might have an evaluative
5 and assessing role, which leads to a very clear power imbalance
6 that might have unexpected consequences, such as the supervisee
7 hiding ignorance or difficult cases for fear of being judged. The
8 supervisor might be required to be another kind of teacher, enab-
9 ling the trainee or novice practitioner to become more skilled,
211 knowledgeable, and confident. At this stage, there might be more
1 authoritative interventions (Heron, 1990) as well as facilitative ones.
2 Some examples of working with mixed groups will show how these
3 areas can be addressed.
4 One of the most useful, if rather obvious, things to say here is:
5 “keep the language clear and simple”. I have noticed how Peter
6 Hawkins and Nick Smith (2006) slightly adjust their terminology
7 when describing interventions from Gestalt and elsewhere, to make
8 it understandable to anyone who has not been trained in Gestalt
9 psychotherapy. Demonstrating the process of enquiry has been
30 useful: for example, “I know what . . . [a term or a state] means for
1 me but I do not know what it means for you. Would you help me
2 understand?”
3 Much of the perceived difficulty is in semantics, and what
4 I internally refer to as tribal languages. Words like “supervision”,
5 which seem neutral for one profession, are highly charged in
6 another. I recently happened upon a case of a person who was
7 formerly a schoolteacher, and a very good one. She came into
8 counselling work quite late, and felt drawn to specializing in coun-
911 selling adolescents. She then began to teach on a Further Education
111 counselling course, and, because she unconsciously identified her-

2 self primarily as a teacher, she forgot the importance of supervision
3 for herself in her dual roles. She opted for coaching, and missed a
4 significant difficulty in one of her students that the necessary kind
5 of supervision would have uncovered, with quite serious results.
6 I think she was still unconsciously labouring under the impression
7 that supervision was a judging process rather than a professional
8 support. Teaching a mixed group is a fascinating forum for dis-
9 cussing the function and purpose of these related, but different,
10 perceptions of professional roles.
1 However, these points aside, what I have also observed when
2 training multi-disciplinary groups in “supervision as a meta-
3 perspective”, is that highly qualified psychotherapists can be effec-
4 tively supervised by a properly trained and expert homoeopath, or
5 a social work manager trained supervisor can be profoundly effec-
6 tive in working with a GP. At this stage, the role of the supervisor
711 is much more that of the facilitator, taking the wider view and
8 attending to broader areas of assessment of the problem, the effect
9 the problem has on the person, interventions, ethical issues and so
20 on. I have played that role to a number of GPs over the years, even
1 though I am not a medic. If he or she needed clinical supervision, a
2 medically trained colleague would clearly be more appropriate, but
3 much of what senior practitioners bring in all fields, which the
4 results of my research showed, was that the areas that most need
511 discussion are those to do with countertransference issues and ethi-
6 cal dilemmas.
7 We may not know what we want, or what it is called, or even
8 if it exists at all. How can we ask for something we do not know
9 about? This question led me to develop a menu of supervision
311 (Hewson, 1999) with colleagues from a different profession. The
1 very process of listing what could be on offer uncovers the areas
2 or language that seem incomprehensible at first sight, the classic
3 term, for example, being countertransference. This could be
4 explained by asking a series of questions such as: so how did that
5 patient affect you? What was your reaction to them? If you were
6 to consider a metaphor for them what would it be? What was
7 the invitation to you, how did they want you to be with them?
8 You haven’t thought about that before? Well, shall we give it a
911 go now?
111 The central role of contracting

2
3 It is important for trainee supervisors to contract explicitly about the
4 specifics of the supervisee’s role and clinical knowledge, for to do
5 otherwise would be wholly unsafe and unethical. It is also impor-
6 tant to attend to the context of the supervisee’s practice, otherwise it
711 is so easy to make assumptions and a crucial piece of information
8 could be lost. If we ask, and ask, and ask again from a position of
9 humility, assuming we will not know, expecting not to understand a
10 particular profession or context, we are more likely to be of use to
1 the professional who has come for a new perspective. Such ques-
2 tioning enables the supervisor to be respectful of the supervisee’s
3 dilemmas and clients/responsibilities. An example of this is of an
4 organization specializing in community projects and initiatives
5 which, with good heart, funded one of their team to come on to a
6 supervision training course in order to increase the profile and effec-
7 tiveness of supervision within the organization. The organization
8 was convinced that the line manager should be the supervisor,
9 which is not unusual outside the counselling and psychotherapy
211 world. During the training, the candidate could see some of the
1 dilemmas of the conflict between these two roles. It became clear, in
2 a piece of taped supervision, that she had been effectively and
3 successful mentoring a colleague, in fact “growing him up”, profes-
4 sionally speaking, in a nurturing and generous way. However, a
5 more collegial based supervisory relationship, in which the super-
6 visee is invited to explore his thinking, acknowledge his dilemmas,
7 and make and own mistakes, had been lacking. This had led to a
8 psychological game of “Do me something” (Berne, 1964), in which
9 he was passively waiting for her to provide structure and direction.
30 The organization appeared to lack coherent structures for contract-
1 ing for the numerous and worthwhile creative projects it was under-
2 taking. Thus, it was “Doing something” for very many community
3 groups, and my colleague’s dilemma was a kind of parallel process.
4 The importance and subtlety of the contracting process might
5 not be immediately evident to professionals in some other spheres.
6 Often, assumptions are made, and the new supervisor goes hell for
7 leather along the route to finding a solution to the problem, with-
8 out taking account of the process needed for each individual super-
911 visee to get there. Contracts for process as well as content are quite
111 new to many, and are shown to be very important in expanding the
2 richness and safety of the supervisory relationship. If the contract is
3 clear for the manner in which the supervision is conducted, then the
4 danger of hiding difficult and dark areas of professional life is less
5 likely to occur. If the supervisee feels safe in the knowledge that
6 they have a clear contract with their supervisor as to how the
7 process is to be conducted, and how they can resolve the more diffi-
8 cult areas of their professional life, then supervision will truly be
9 able to protect clients and practitioners to the greater good of all.
10 An example of this is to do with shame-based issues. Being unable
1 to express what they know effectively often embarrasses gifted
2 people in the learning process. A contract enabling learning to
3 happen without exposure or judgement would be essential. It could
4 go something like this:
5
6 Let us negotiate how to conduct our sessions in a way that enables
711 you to explore what you already know, what you think and feel
8 and how effective your intuitive hunches have been in the service
of the client thus far. It then seems to me that what you are asking
9
for is to feel more confident in expressing yourself using psycho-
20
therapy terms, so that you can express what you know through the
1 cognitive categories of the profession. This may help further in
2 accurate diagnosis and treatment planning and enable you to con-
3 verse effectively with others in your inter-disciplinary team. It will
4 also help you do yourself justice and keep your client safe when
511 discussing your work with the examination board. How does that
6 sound? Shall that be our current overarching contract?
7
8
9 Attending to shame
311
1 A slightly tangential example, but one that illustrated for me
2 how much I needed to learn, was when I was training people as
3 supervisors in Dublin. We had been discussing what prevented
4 people from taking supervision or trusting their supervisors with
5 really difficult cases when I mentioned the word shame, and the
6 research I was engaged in on shame and supervision. There was an
7 audible release of breath, almost a sigh, in the lecture room. As I
8 looked at my students, who comprised Christian Brothers, nuns,
911 and non-religieuses, mostly counsellors, teachers, psychotherapists,
111 or coaches, one large and kindly man, showing great emotion, said
2 that just being told that released him from some kind of demon
3 from the past. He said that, for him as a boy, learning had been
4 steeped in humiliation and pain, and although he had become a
5 Brother for some years, he had later left in order to marry. He still
6 worked with the Brothers, and thought very highly of his current
711 colleagues, but he realized how steeped in shame the teaching prac-
8 tices for many of his generation had been in Ireland. What I later
9 learned was that, at that very time, there was a significant investi-
10 gation going on in Ireland about the abuse of boys by a small
1 number of Christian Brothers a generation or more before, and how
2 terribly this had hurt those good men who were engaged in teach-
3 ing in the order now.
4 For some of the nuns, humiliation was the norm when they
5 were girls, and I sensed that many had dedicated their lives to
6 teaching or counselling to redress this at a systemic as well as
7 personal level. To encounter this kind of collective knowing of
8 shame as more of a norm than I had ever come across before was a
9 salutary and important lesson for me to learn.
211
1
2 Necessary strategies and relevant models
3
4 What, then, are the necessary strategies for training supervisors in
5 mixed groups within and outside the counselling and psychother-
6 apeutic professions?
7
8 1. To return to an earlier paragraph, “ask about the context, cul-
9 ture, ethics, expectations, skills, and assumptions that belong
30 to a supervisee from another professional group”.
1 2. Clarify the significance of language: what do terms familiar to
2 us mean to them, and what do terms familiar to them mean
3 to us?
4 3. Train supervisors not to make assumptions about almost
5 anything. For example, who is the client? People from each
6 professional group make assumptions about the others’
7 perspective, values, and procedures. We can use the analogy of
8 getting to know the tribe that each professional represents in
911 the team, much in the way an anthropologist might describe
111 culture, norms, language, rituals, and significance of emphasis.

2 It can be an eye-opener.
3 4. Give information as to the nature and function of supervision
4 and show how it differs from line management, mentoring,
5 and performance coaching. The notion of a reflective space
6 without fear or favour is new to many groups. It has been
7 noticeable that, early on, people feel the need to fix the prob-
8 lem rather than provide a forum for reflection or a containing
9 relationship. This is why the existence of a range of models of
10 supervision can bring comfort and relief to some professionals
1 who need structure in order to be creative.
2 5. Clarify the range of relationships that are possible under the
3 umbrella of supervision.
4 6. Encourage the balance of art and science, creativity and order.
5 This is a gift and a discipline for all of us, whether supervisors,
6 musicians, painters, or photographers. Structure can provide
711 the container in which we can improvise, make associations,
8 and compose.
9
20 One of the challenges of supervision training is development of
1 the skills needed to create the reflective space. It requires modelling
2 the process as the trainer, being curious, respectful, facilitative, and
3 supportive. It also requires the knowledge of when to increase the
4 challenge and provide structures and conceptual frameworks
511 that make sense of the creative confusion the client brings into the
6 field.
7 Some of the models that have been shown to be effective are:
8
9 The CLEAR model (Hawkins & Smith, 2006);
311 The Bands of Supervision (Clarkson & Gilbert, 1991);
1 Cyclical Model (Page & Wosket, 1994);
2 The SAS model (Holloway, 1995);
3 Integrative Transactional Analytic model of supervision
4 (Hewson, paper delivered to Czech Institute for Supervision,
5 2002).
6
7 Supervision training of itself can be an oasis for professionals in
8 a busy, demanding life. It has been my experience that, as the rela-
911 tionships have developed in the context of practice supervision on
111 the course, the theories of contracting, process, menus of super-

2 vision, negotiation of responsibilities, and genuine respect and
3 compassion become visible, and this leads to a confidence in the
4 delivery of high quality reflective learning that is both challenging
5 and kind, creative and systematic. We all aspire to be able to learn
6 from each other, and when we have in one training group a range
711 of perspectives that cut across the normal cart tracks of our think-
8 ing, it is exciting and liberating.
9
10
1 Offering ideas from a team development model
2
3 Finally, as an example of another perspective, I would like to intro-
4 duce the model from Margerison and McCann, delivered by TMS
5 Development International, which is used to great effect in manage-
6 ment consultancy and has its roots, to some extent, in Jung’s typol-
7 ogy. It notes stages in project management, and identifies the key
8 roles in each of those steps. It identifies the roles individuals enjoy
9 best and what they bring to the feast in a way that differs from the
211 more familiar but equally useful Belbin (2004) material. Although
1 this model comes from organizational culture, it can be valuable to
2 reflect on any project an individual, pair, group, or team under-
3 takes. Certain styles of working will place more emphasis on one
4 part of the project wheel rather than another.
5 This approach asserts that any project involves eight types of
6 work and an awareness of each of these is useful to run an effective
7 organization (Table 3.1). Noting these roles and positions helps the
8
9
30 Table 3.1. The sequence of types of work.
1 Advising: Gathering and reporting information
2 Innovating: Creating and experimenting with ideas
3 Promoting: Exploring and presenting opportunities
4 Developing: Assessing and testing the applicability of new approaches
Organizing: Establishing and implementing ways of making things
5
work
6
Producing: Concluding and delivering outputs
7 Inspecting: Controlling and auditing the working of systems
8 Maintaining: Upholding and safeguarding standards and processes
911
111 supervisor and later (if used in supervision) the supervisee to

2 understand both what they are happiest focusing on, and where
3 that preference fits on a cycle of project management. Such an
4 approach might be useful if working with someone who may be
5 having difficulties discharging their professional duties in a team,
6 where their competence is not in doubt.
7 The process of co-ordinating and integrating individual work
8 within the team is termed “‘ll’inking” (see Figure 3.1). For example,
9 there is a role called the Controller–Inspector. As this kind of super-
10 visor, you might focus on checking recordings, enforcing regula-
1 tions and being careful and meticulous in your in-depth reflective
2 work with your supervisees. You might expect careful preparation
3 before each supervision session, and regular listening to tapes with
4 typed transcripts. On the other hand, another role, known as the
5 Reporter–Adviser, is more likely to be patient, “beliefs orientated”,
6 and flexible, a collector of information, giving space to gather
711 conscious or sub-conscious knowledge. Ultimately, however, they
8 will want to see the work well done, correctly and with the right
9 information.
20 These are clearly different styles that are reflected in the team
1 roles shown in Table 3.2:
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911 Figure 3.1. The Margerison–McCann team management wheel.©
111 Table 3.2. Team roles in the Margerison–McCann types of work model.
2 Team roles
3
Reporter–Adviser: enjoys giving and gathering information
4
Creator–Innovator: likes to come up with ideas and different ways
5
of approaching tasks
6
Explorer–Promoter: enjoys exploring possibilities and looking for
711 new opportunities
8 Assessor–Developer: prefers working where alternatives can be
9 analysed and ideas developed to meet the
10 practical constraints of the organization
1 Thruster–Organizer: likes to thrust forward and get results
2 Concluder–Producer: prefers working in a systematic way to produce
3 outputs
4 Controller–Inspector: enjoys focusing on the detailed and controlling
5 aspects of work
Upholder–Maintainer: likes to uphold standards and values and
6
maintain team excellence
7
8
9
211 Each of these roles places a different emphasis on the job in
1 hand and parallels the work areas mentioned. This model is not
2 usually used as a backdrop for supervision, but it illustrates that
3 work with different professional “tribes” enables borrowing of
4 some useful ways of looking, hearing, feeling, and thinking about
5 what is in the field.
6 Finally, the issues of assessment are central to safe practice. Once
7 again the methods used for assessing safe practice will vary accord-
8 ing to the culture and the profession concerned, but the very notion
9 of damage limitation or risk assessment seems central to all profes-
30 sions hitherto represented on our trainings, and when this is
1 emphasized as part of the supervisory contract, interdisciplinary
2 supervision is still as rich and effective at the level of master prac-
3 titioners who know the meat and the bones of their work.
4
5
6 Concluding comments
7
8 The narratives at the beginning of this chapter show not only
911 the need for supervision to enable the exploration of potentially
111 shaming lack of knowledge in a safe environment, but also the

2 necessity to understand the wider historical, political, and organi-
3 zational context in which supervision and its issues are addressed.
4 Through training a range of professionals, it is clear that effective
5 supervision across disciplines can take place at master practitioner
6 level, because the role of the supervisor, at that stage, is facilitative
7 rather than educative. It also demonstrates the need for effective
8 and structured models of supervision to enable a meta-perspective
9 to have some shape, or container, in which creative interventions
10 can take place.
1 To summarize, the key aspects of working with professionals
2 from different backgrounds are listed below.
3
4 1. Understand the vision of their profession.
5 2. Understand their operational strategies: how they do things,
6 why they do them, what is their thinking, what are the under-
711 lying values.
8 3. Understand the roles, formal, informal, and team, that affect
9 the way a problem is seen. How people operate in a team,
20 whether that is the supervisor trainer, the trainee supervisor,
1 the counsellor or the client.
2 4. Consider interpersonal factors: these include preferences in
3 communication, such as thinking, feeling, and then changing
4 behaviour, or feeling their way in, then thinking, then chang-
511 ing behaviour, or, alternatively, enacting, then feeling, and
6 finally thinking about a situation, or quietly linking action with
7 thought and finally feeling.
8 5. Consider personal preferences in learning styles, and ways of
9 conceptualizing, such as being able to see what a person
311 means, or attend to accurate and elegant language, or take time
1 to embody a notion before fully being able to analyse it intel-
2 lectually.
3
4 To run courses for people as supervisors from different profes-
5 sional backgrounds is like travelling. So many things one takes
6 for granted at home are subtly different, and thus evermore fas-
7 cinating. Having offered courses to people from the legal profes-
8 sions, the military, drugs and alcohol specialists, teachers, social
911 workers, counsellors, psychotherapists, the health professions, and
111 specialists in complementary medicine, the view of the same land-

2 scape is marvellous and different, some noticing the geology, some
3 the flora, some the colours, some the fauna. Some focus on the outer
4 world, some contemplate their internal response to it, some focus
5 on detail, others take in the whole expanse. These are aspects we
6 need to attend to in working with different professionals in a mixed
711 training group.
8 When different professional tribes get together there is a meet-
9 ing of minds, hearts, and perspectives and we can all be the richer
10 for this.
1
2
3 References
4
5 Belbin, R. M. (2004). Management Teams: Why They Succeed or Fail (2nd
6 edn). Oxford: Butterworth-Heineman.
7 Berne, E. (1964). The Games People Play: The Psychology of Human
8 Relationships. New York: Ballantine/Grove Press.
9 Carroll, M. (1996). Counselling Supervision, Theory Skills and Practice.
211 London: Cassell.
1 Clarkson, P. (1992). Transactional Analysis––An Integrated Approach.
2 London: Tavistock Routledge.
3 Clarkson, P., & Gilbert, M. (1991). The training of counselling trainers
and supervisors. In: W. Dryden & B. Thorne (Eds.), Training and
4
Supervision for Counselling in Action (pp. 143–169). London: Sage.
5
Fielden, K. (2008). From novice to expert therapist: the role of clinical
6
supervision in transition. PhD Dissertation, Roehampton Univer-
7
sity.
8
Hawkins, P., & Smith, N. (2006). Coaching, Mentoring and Organisational
9 Consultancy Supervision and Development. Maidenhead: Open
30 University Press.
1 Heron, J. (1990). Helping the Client. London: Sage.
2 Hewson, J. (1999). Training supervisors to contract in supervision. In:
3 E. Holloway & M. Carroll (Eds.), Training Counselling Supervisors
4 (pp. 67–92). London: Sage.
5 Hewson, J. (2002). The Locus of Focus: An Integrative Transactional Model
6 of Supervision. Exeter: IRON MILL PAPERS [delivered to Czech
7 Institute of Supervision].
8 Hewson, J. (2007). A wider landscape. In: R. Shohet (Ed.), Passionate
911 Supervision (pp. 34–49). London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.
111 Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical Supervision: A Systems Approach.

2 Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
3 Margerison, C. J., & McCann, D. (1990). Team Management; Practical New
4 Approaches. Aldershot: Gower Publications.
5 Page, S., & Wosket, V. (1994). Clinical Supervision: A Cyclical Model.
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER FOUR

2
3
4
5
6
711 Recruitment and access
8
9
10 Caro Bailey
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
A
211 n Internet trawl of counselling supervision courses in
1 February 2008 yielded as extensive a range of entry
2 requirements as there are qualifications. These extend from
3 none at all on both counts, to very specific entry criteria leading to
4 Certificate, Diploma, or post-graduate degrees. Some courses are
5 validated by an external body like ABC or CPCAB, or a university,
6 and others not. At the time of writing, there are no courses vali-
7 dated by BACP. This is a curious state of affairs, since supervision
8 has been and is heavily promoted to be integral to best practice de
9 facto since the then BAC Code of Ethics and Practice for Supervisors
30 appeared in 1992, and de jure ever since therapy evolved in its own
1 right (Page & Wosket, 2001). Some courses are clear about their
2 course philosophy and modality, others appear not to have either
3 and certainly do not consider it relevant information to provide for
4 applicants. Some courses are as short as ten weeks, others up to two
5 years. The structures are a mix of residential, non-residential,
6 modular, weekly, or weekend. Some clearly state that their level is
7 under- or post-graduate, others float in academic limbo. There
8 appears to be no consistency that the same qualification expects the
911 same, or even similar, entry requirements; for example, I am aware
43
111 that it is possible to pursue a supervision course more or less imme-

2 diately after having qualified as a counsellor, whereas other courses
3 require a minimum of four years between the two trainings. This
4 infinite variety could be cause for celebration, but it might also be
5 something of a dog’s dinner. If the sole purpose is to train in super-
6 vision so that a practitioner can claim completion, regardless of
7 qualification, entry requirements, value or worth, it can be
8 achieved. Applicants may choose a training by recommendation,
9 word-of-mouth, reputation, grapevine, knowledge of trainers, or
10 particular modality. In other words, they can choose a professional
1 training on a highly subjective basis. Should this be the only way?
2 Clearer baseline criteria are needed, given the centrality and
3 importance of supervisors as monitors of good counselling and
4 therapy practice. The current state of training on offer suggests that
5 clarity about “essential requirements” would alert those thinking of
6 training to the complexities of the role. This is necessary, on the one
711 hand, to endorse the importance the profession places on super-
8 vision, and, on the other, to provide some guidance to those seek-
9 ing training.
20
1
2 Baseline criteria for recruitment
3
4 Readiness
511
6 Within the profession, being a supervisor is seen as “career progres-
7 sion”. Traditionally, counsellors who had practised for a while and
8 who had notched up experience were often invited by colleagues to
9 be supervisors. There is evidence for this in some ongoing research
311 on the career paths of experienced practitioners (Henderson and
1 Bailey, in progress). This still appears to be the pattern among some
2 applicants for training now (CASCADE Supervision Training). This
3 suggests an assumption that being an effective and experienced
4 counsellor equips one to be a supervisor, thus conflating the two
5 activities. This assumption acquires further endorsement from the
6 practice of generally seeking supervision from an individual who
7 has been practising as a therapist with more experience than
8 oneself. This has some validity, I believe. The situation now in the
911 therapy world appears similar to that in the teaching profession
RECRUITMENT AND ACCESS 45
111 before training became an essential requirement. Individuals who

2 had qualifications in a particular subject were deemed qualified to
3 teach those who had either none or fewer. However, in relation to
4 therapy, knowing one’s subject and having experience of it does not
5 mean one can necessarily monitor or support the work of others.
6 Therapy and supervision are two distinct, though linked, and sepa-
711 rate activities.
8 In the early years of the profession, there were no training
9 courses in supervision. The two activities were less defined, so indi-
10 viduals who had been practising for a while as counsellors or
1 psychotherapists “slid” from one activity to the other, what Carroll
2 (1996) calls an “inherited role”. I did myself. The combination of
3 status and career progression within the profession made this both
4 attractive and flattering. The notion of readiness, that is, “can I do
5 this?” erred perhaps more on the side of the estimation of others
6 than in a thorough examination of one’s own abilities. However, as
7 supervision has become more of a discipline in its own right, is seen
8 to be an activity separate from therapy and training, and is now
9 readily available, there is less excuse and more need for those
211 embarking on the supervisory career path to examine what they
1 plan to do and why.
2 What, though, determines readiness? Certainly the estimation of
3 respected colleagues contributes to the notion. Supervisors them-
4 selves often seem to be instrumental in encouraging their super-
5 visees to move into this role. Having practised for a while, some
6 individuals want greater variety in their work and supervision
7 offers this; boredom and waning passion with doing “just” therapy
8 is a related reason. The experience as a supervisee of poor, as well
9 as effective, supervision has spurred others to seek training. Some
30 see supervision training as a way of broadening and deepen-
1 ing their knowledge, skills, and practice of therapy; a means of
2 personal and professional development (CASCADE applicants).
3 It would seem, therefore, that a combination of personal reflective-
4 ness and endorsement by others contributes to the notion of
5 readiness.
6 A fundamental entry requirement thus includes a capacity for reflec-
7 tiveness and a thorough examination of why supervision training is being
8 considered at this time, and, specifically, why a particular training is being
911 considered.
111 Relevant training

2
3 At present, the jury has not even been sent out to consider the ques-
4 tion of whether an individual not trained as a counsellor,
5 psychotherapist, or in a “related profession” (of which more below)
6 can be an effective counselling supervisor. In theory, this seems
7 possible. Respected drama critics, for example, are not necessarily
8 either failed or practising playwrights; they know their subject inti-
9 mately and can comment with a breadth and width of knowledge
10 and experience, which can guide others. The roles and skills of a
1 therapy supervisor traditionally build on those, broadly speaking,
2 of a psychological and emotional “helper”. The notion of “help”,
3 though, is, in part, circumstantial. I can, for instance, feel psycho-
4 logically and emotionally helped when a plumber does what the
5 job requires and water flows where it should. As a practising thera-
6 pist, what I need to help me do my job is to be able to consult with
711 someone who shares the same or a similar professional culture, with
8 an understanding and knowledge of what my job involves. In this
9 instance, a plumber would not do, however advanced his empathic
20 skills might be.
1 A similar culture, then, might include complementary therapists
2 (homoeopaths, acupuncturists, reflexologists, and so on), as, in
3 order to administer their therapies, they are likely to have had some
4 training in counselling skills or, if not, have developed good people
511 skills. As Hewson indicates in Chapter Three, members of the
6 medical profession, social workers, spiritual directors, or teachers
7 also can take the role. Yet, they might be in the minority of most
8 training courses, and their individual circumstances would have to
9 be weighed against their being able to share and contribute enough
311 to the prevailing culture to make the experience worth while for all
1 concerned. There could be great benefits, as well as possible difficul-
2 ties in having a more expansive and varied supervision training
3 community from which to pool resources. Clearly, to enlarge the
4 training community in this way would be less possible for super-
5 vision courses that arise from specific modalities. However, I am
6 aware of at least one supervisor training course in a specific modal-
7 ity which offers an introductory training course plus reading list for
8 those applicants who apply from other disciplines or different
911 modalities (Temenos).
111 This does not, however, address the level of previous training
2 required to undertake a supervision course. Currently, the range is
3 wide. Generally speaking, a “professional qualification” or a Dip-
4 loma in Counselling appears to be sufficient to take a Diploma in
5 Supervision or a post-graduate Diploma to match one in Super-
6 vision. This assumes a counselling or therapy training that contains
711 knowledge, skills, and theory within an explicit ethical framework,
8 though the amount of practice it might include can vary immensely.
9 Quite how the picture will change as Foundation Degrees in
10 Counselling become the norm is hard to imagine.
1 Thus, accountability is relevant for assessing prior training. A super-
2 visor has to be able to account for what she is teaching, advising, assess-
3 ing, and so on, primarily to her supervisees, and to the wider community
4 as well. Therefore, the level and relevance of previous training has to be
5 sufficient in order to carry this out.
6
7
8 Experience
9
211 Generally speaking, this refers to the minimum amount of coun-
1 selling experience an individual has acquired before embarking on
2 supervision training. Currently, this varies from none at all to
3 anything between two–four years post counsellor qualification.
4 Some training establishments expect a minimum of four hundred
5 supervised hours, which is slightly less than the requirement to
6 seek BACP Counsellor Accreditation of four hundred and fifty
7 hours that have been accrued in not less than three years post coun-
8 sellor training. The issue here is what constitutes sufficient practice
9 and experience.
30 In theory, it would be possible to clock up four hundred super-
1 vised counselling hours at the rate of nine clients per week over a
2 forty-five week therapy year. While I suspect this is unlikely for
3 many in this overcrowded market of ours, I am also dubious about
4 the wisdom of basing experience on counselling hours alone. I am
5 reminded here of students wishing to undertake counselling train-
6 ing where one of the course requirements is having a Certificate
7 whose training lasts a full year. One rationale underlying this is that
8 students have some experience of being in a large group and con-
911 fronting aspects of self in relation to others over a period of time that
111 they would not otherwise have. I believe counselling experience

2 also cannot be telescoped. As Brian Thorne stated in relation to
3 person-centred counselling, it is “an invitation to live life to the full”
4 (Mearns & Thorne, 1988). Supervision is no less important an activ-
5 ity. Ideally, it would be wonderful if counsellors could acquire a
6 broad range of experience, in a variety of organizations, in counsel-
7 ling consortia or private practice, with individuals and with groups.
8 With increasing specialization and ever greater calls on placements,
9 this becomes increasingly hard to obtain. I also believe that living life
10 outside of being a practitioner contributes greatly to being a roun-
1 ded and thriving human being with much to bring as a supervisor.
2 A third criterion comprises experience as a counselling (or allied
3 professional) practitioner acquired over not less, say, than four years post
4 initial training together with a substantial number of supervised coun-
5 selling hours. A guide here perhaps lies in the professional body to which
6 the individual belongs and its accreditation guidelines, e.g., BACP, UKCP,
711 probably around four–five hundred hours of supervised practice.
8
9
20 Accreditation
1
2 With the imminence of regulation, we are perhaps moving rapidly
3 towards a situation where counsellors will have to be accredited if
4 they want to work in organizations. Until we reach that point, is
511 professional accreditation either necessary or desirable as an entry
6 requirement for supervisor training? That it is not suggests courses
7 might not as yet recruit enough candidates to make them feasible.
8 Increasingly, many advertised jobs for counsellors require accredi-
9 tation or a “working towards it”. To those in the know, accredita-
311 tion, or membership of a professional register, confers a kind of
1 Good Housekeeping Stamp of Approval or a Kite Mark of Safety. In
2 relation to entry requirements, I would see it as shorthand for the
3 trainers on all the points made above.
4
5
6 To have or not have supervisees on entry to the training
7
8 Again there is variation between none required on entry to the
911 course to having at least one or two supervisees or groups at the
111 outset. I have come across at least one student who stated she felt
2 it was unethical to start supervising without having had training,
3 and others who find it difficult to find supervisees. The parallel
4 between therapy and supervision training seems closest at this
5 point; both activities require practice. I have some sympathy with
6 the viewpoint of the student taking an ethical stand, but her posi-
711 tion seems to ignore all the experience she herself will have gained
8 as a supervisee. Our initial and ongoing experience as supervisees
9 is similar to the process of “sitting by Nellie”, Nellie being the
10 master craftsman from whom we as apprentices learn our craft. The
1 course is likely to have more meaning and make more sense in
2 having practical applicability if the student is able to take her ongo-
3 ing learning into her work with supervisees.
4 By the onset of training, a student needs to be encouraged to have at
5 least two supervisees, of whom one may be a group (if the training includes
6 group supervision) or to begin work with these shortly after the course
7 begins.
8
9
211 Selection
1
2 One issue here is the extent to which trainers do the selecting. By
3 deciding to undertake training, the applicant has already selected
4 herself and feels ready; she has “self selected”, and will have
5 considered why she wants to train at this particular time. The
6 course application form will reflect the course philosophy, both in
7 terms of its criteria and the way in which it is presented.
8 Completing a form invites further reflection by the applicant. If the
9 course criteria are met, the applicant could then theoretically join
30 the next training cohort.
1 If the course philosophy rests firmly on the belief that students
2 need to base their supervisory practice on use of their own auton-
3 omy and exercise of their own authority as well as having satisfied
4 course criteria, the selection process is complete. The consequence
5 of this is that the composition of the training group will be ran-
6 dom and left to chance. There will not necessarily be a balance of
7 experience vs. inexperience, gender, age, ethnicity, and all the
8 other differences that exist between us. This, I suggest, reflects life
911 itself. Quite apart from posing the question of what a balanced
111 supervision training group might look like and if it is achievable, is

2 it, in any case, desirable?
3 I am inclined to believe that mix and variety in the training
4 group is itself an essential, providing innate challenge within the
5 training process. In addition, as practising supervisors we will, if
6 we are fortunate, also have a variety and mix of supervisees that
7 will challenge, delight, and appal us. Where better to test our skills
8 and abilities than in our training? It seems to me that, providing the
9 course is absolutely clear about its philosophy and methodology
10 and constantly reviews this, there is no issue of student selection.
1 The issue instead is about how adept and skilled the trainers are in
2 delivering a course that attends to the content of the training on the
3 one hand, while being constantly mindful of the needs of individ-
4 uals and the group dynamics on the other. This largely mirrors the
5 process of group supervision.
6 This seems wonderfully straightforward. I believe selection can
711 be, for, if the course represents itself accurately in its promotional
8 literature and trainers are available to answer questions prior to
9 application, the selection process takes place outside the course and
20 among potential applicants. There is, I believe, a further parallel
1 here between the practice of supervision and the decision to under-
2 take supervision training. Both activities demand the use of auton-
3 omy and inner authority. A group that is formed to undertake a
4 specific training has an immediate commonality. Groups, whether
511 hand-picked or formed at random, are in any case inherently chal-
6 lenging, which is one of the reasons they are so fundamental to both
7 therapy and supervision training.
8 I do wonder, therefore, whether issues about selecting students
9 for training reside partly in the course itself not being clear and
311 firm enough about its entry criteria in the first place and, de facto,
1 not trusting in this process. And, in the second place, whether
2 there are some trainers who, by virtue of their status and experi-
3 ence, feel they know better than the students about who is fit to
4 train.
5 Working on this basis, the constraints that operate will probably
6 be those of ratio between students and trainers, though this is a
7 moveable feast, and also the size of venue. Courses can be clear
8 about optimum numbers so they might operate on a “first come,
911 first served” basis, with a waiting list if necessary.
111 Equality and access issues

2
3 If we believe that applicants take responsibility for their own learn-
4 ing and, therefore, fitness to train, at the very least it behoves train-
5 ers to do the same. It follows that training courses need to be
6 mindful of issues around access in the widest sense of the word and
711 any issue that could be construed as discriminatory. Courses need
8 to comply with The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and, in
9 particular, to Part 4, Special Education Needs (2001), which relates
10 to how a course is delivered.
1
2 Access
3
4 Nowadays, this often appears to refer to physical access to the
5 building and only to this: i.e., statements about disability access to
6 buildings. Surely, access must mean that which might obstruct
7 potential students from being able to take up and benefit from
8 training. The sub-headings that follow all fall within the umbrella
9 of access, and, if they are addressed, issues of equality will have
211 been at least partially considered, too.
1
2
Advertising
3
4 The course has to represent itself accurately in its advertising. One
5 way of ensuring this is to have it validated by a reputable author-
6 ity: that is, ensure it can stand up to external scrutiny. Once estab-
7 lished, a course will acquire a reputation and then a network of
8 “graduands” who will attest to its value and worth, as well as
9 recommend it to potential students. Internet access has also made
30 knowledge of courses far more available and, in its fashion, equal
1 than in the days before most of us had access to computers and we
2 had to rely on newspapers, journals, and training directories.
3
4
Disability
5
6 Here, I believe, we have to take as our base point the reality that
7 human beings are not equal and life is not fair. Attending to this as
8 an ethical practicality, therefore, it would seem essential for all of us
911 who are trainers to do our best not to disbar those who might wish
111 to take up a training by being mindful of issues around equal

2 opportunities, venues, and fees, all of which could be construed as
3 coming under the general heading of equality and access.
4
5
Equal opportunities
6
7 The “easier” part of this seems to me to be on the course itself, when
8 trainers need to be mindful and aware of discrimination in the
9 training community that might mirror the society in which it takes
10 place. Unpicking this a little, I am thinking here of how groups
1 that suffer discrimination in society at large might feel similarly
2 oppressed on a training course. For example, we need to be mind-
3 ful of how it might feel to be in a minority of one and check this out
4 sensitively. Trainers should also be prepared to deal with what
5 might well be difficult group dynamics when they become aware
6 of, or their attention is drawn to, discriminatory behaviour, and not
711 shy away from doing so.
8 The harder part seems to me to lie in the reality that any isolated
9 aspect of society as a whole, such as a supervision training course,
20 cannot redress the balance of its ills as such. I do believe, though,
1 that we must do all within our individual and collective power (in
2 this instance, as trainers of supervisors) to offer as much opportu-
3 nity as we can to those who are inherently disadvantaged by virtue
4 of culture, class, creed, and so on. Issues around payment can be
511 one fundamental way of addressing this (as follows below), but it
6 is a drop in the ocean compared with other forms of discrimination.
7
8
Fees
9
311 Most courses, whether in the public or private sector, have to make
1 ends meet: we live in a “bums on seats” culture in which a course
2 has to pay for itself. Once upon a time, we had scholarships or
3 awards that provided direct help for the less financially well off.
4 More indirectly, there was once heavy state subsidy of education.
5 What courses can do today is be willing to offer staggered pay-
6 ments (monthly, termly, and so on) and be as imaginative as they
7 can be in terms of balancing costs while not incurring extra expense
8 when catering for the needs of differently impoverished students.
911 Suggesting taking out insurance against accidents or life events that
111 might prevent the course being completed once started also demon-
2 strates that the course is mindful of its students.
3
4
Venue
5
6 Problems could occur if courses have been traditionally held in old
711 buildings that might also be listed ones. This is of little worth,
8 however, to someone who cannot access a lavatory in a wheelchair.
9 Accessibility must be made clear on course literature, so that
10 students who have particular difficulties with physical access can
1 decide whether they can cope with the venue before applying to the
2 course. If students have a physical disability, the course venue has
3 to be equipped to cope with this: there has to be wheelchair access
4 to teaching areas, as well as bedrooms if the course is residential. I
5 feel strongly that everyone, “abled” as well as “disabled”, should
6 be able to use the same main entrance, the latter not being relegated
7 to the outer reaches of the kitchens and service deliveries entrance,
8 as used to happen once upon a time. Ideally, venues should also be
9 accessible by public transport. Finally, attention needs to be paid to
211 hidden disabilities: provision of induction loops to help those with
1 hearing loss, and meeting particular dietary requirements, encour-
2 aging the venue to try to provide much the same food for everyone
3 so that discrimination is neither observed nor felt at every meal-
4 time.
5
6
Course delivery
7
8 Part 4 of the The Disability Discrimination Act 1995 specifically
9 concerns service delivery, which could be issues with communica-
30 tion, such as dyslexia, for example, that can exist in many forms.
1 Trainers need to ensure that their training methods encompass a
2 variety of ways of learning; they might need to accommodate the
3 needs of some dyslexic students who take a very long time indeed
4 to read and find it easier to be read to. If essays are a course require-
5 ment, it might be possible for them to be recorded rather than put
6 on paper. Photocopying can be done on coloured paper rather than
7 white, because that is usually easier for some dyslexic individuals
8 to read. Trainers need to be similarly mindful about any games or
911 exercises they use that might unwittingly exclude a student who
111 has communication difficulties (e.g., conceptualizes in a different

2 way) or, indeed, those of mobility. Students who have particular
3 learning requirements should, in the first place, be able to state this
4 on the application form, and, in the second place, have them
5 attended to by the trainers. It might mean access to more frequent
6 tutorials, and this should be stated as a norm on the course so that
7 no one might justifiably feel discriminated against.
8
9
10 In conclusion
1
2 At present, there is a market free-for-all in relation to supervision
3 training. There is, as yet, no requirement (or, it might be said,
4 inducement) for supervisors to be trained. As the quality of train-
5 ing is so variable, those who employ supervisors have few means
6 other than word of mouth and reputation to guide them about the
711 value of a specified training. Statutory regulation by the Health
8 Professions Council is not expected to include supervisors.
9 More worryingly, the enthusiasm to undertake supervision
20 training might run out. We no longer live in a culture where educa-
1 tion is primarily undertaken through courses for its own sake. It is
2 more often driven by employment needs linked with career paths.
3 There is little professional incentive for therapy practitioners to
4 undertake a time-consuming and costly training that appears to
511 make little difference to the availability of work. This does seem
6 strange, given the increasing acceptance and integration of coun-
7 selling in the UK at large, and the general belief that supervision is
8 an integral element of good practice.
9
311
1 References
2
3 Carroll, M. (1996). Counselling Supervision Theory, Skills and Practice.
4 London: Cassell.
5 Mearns, D., & Thorne, B. (1988). Person-Centred Counselling in Action.
6 London: Sage.
8 Model. Hove: Routledge.
911
111 CHAPTER FIVE

2
3
4
5
6
711 Assessment design and
8
9
implementation
10
1
2
Caro Bailey
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
O
211 ne of the fundamental problems about assessing compe-
1 tency in a supervisor is that we are weighing up a signifi-
2 cant contribution to a relationship, whether it be as one half
3 of a couple or the facilitator of a group. How can we achieve this?
4 Countless pieces of research and studies on effectiveness in therapy
5 have shown time and again that it is the relationship, not the thera-
6 pist alone, that brings about therapeutic change (Orlinsky, Ronne-
7 stad, & Willutski, 2004). There is altogether less research about
8 supervision in the UK, so there is little evidence other than the anec-
9 dotal to suppose that supervisory effectiveness might also spring
30 out of the relationship (but see Weaks, 2002).
1 Relationships as such cannot be measured. Sheer subjectivity
2 defies this. Yet, while it is essentially non-quantifiable, as a profes-
3 sion we have to be able to account for what we are doing.
4 Any training involves acquiring and being able to demonstrate
5 the necessary skills and abilities to do the job, be it for carpentry or
6 supervising. Evaluation is also integral to training. So, while highly
7 subjective processes like therapy and supervision do not lend them-
8 selves easily to more standardized methods of evaluation, it has
911 been important to evolve a way of assessing a supervisor who is
55
111 going to be an ethical, competent, and humane practitioner. To use

2 scales and numerical means of assessment substitutes one form of
3 assessment for another, and still involves subjectivity (Wheeler,
4 2001). Hence, the notion of ethical subjectivity as a measurement
5 tool to be used. I mean by this that we aim as assessors to use a felt
6 sense of what seems to be right in relation to the competencies and
7 abilities of the participant.
8
9
10 What is involved in being a supervisor?
1 We need to go back to basics for a moment in order to clarify exactly
2 what is being assessed. An effective therapist does not necessarily
3 make a similarly effective supervisor. The latter involves a multi-
4 plicity of roles that assume therapeutic effectiveness as a base upon
5 which others have to be acquired. At any one time, I would suggest
6 that these include being a teacher, mentor, supporter, guide, chal-
711 lenger, restorer, assessor, adjudicator (perhaps weighing up the
8 demands of an organization against those of a client, which appear
9 to be contrary), and even judge. Broadly speaking, we expect super-
20 visors to monitor the practice of their supervisees and to help them
1 continue to develop themselves and their practice. In addition, at
2 one end of the spectrum, a supervisor may also be required to
3 assess whether a trainee counsellor is fit enough to qualify. At the
4 other, a supervisor might now more frequently be required to attest
511 whether a counsellor is fit enough to be accredited. And, in
6 between, there is always the possibility that a supervisor might well
7 have to assess whether a supervisee is competent to continue work
8 or whether she should advise time out. All these are weighty and
9 responsible tasks. Woven into the warp and weft of their activities,
311 supervisors are required to assess themselves and their supervisees as
1 an integral part of their activities, while at the same time carrying
2 out all the other tasks of supervision to ensure the best possible
3 service to the clients. Bearing all this in mind, it seems necessary
4 and logical to integrate practice at assessing into the training itself.
5
6
The problem of supervisory assessment
7
8 What we are confronting in any therapy and supervision
911 assessment is the sheer subjectivity of the activity as well as the
ASSESSMENT DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 57
111 potential feelings that are evoked in all the parties concerned.
2 We know, for example, that a summative skills session towards the
3 end of a course is as likely to be a test of nerve as ability, and
4 might also encourage performance with an eye on assessment
5 criteria more than much else. Formal examination processes like
6 these tend to focus on one event alone that then appears to bear
711 the weight of assessing all the learning, knowledge, and experi-
8 ence gained through the training. Such events do not embrace
9 the whole person; they are fundamentally partial, and cannot
10 truly reflect the student’s growth and development during the
1 course.
2 The practice of therapy and supervision is not a discrete activ-
3 ity that bears little relation to how we live the rest of our lives. It is
4 an integral part of it. We need, therefore, to address more than the
5 supervision practice itself when we are assessing competence, and
6 find a way of accounting for the whole person. Brear, Dorrian, and
7 Luscri (2008) noted that when therapy courses consider students
8 unsuitable for professional practice, it is primarily for interpersonal
9 or intrapersonal reasons. These continue to be relevant for super-
211 vision training, too.
1 How, then, to devise an assessment process that is both rigorous
2 and fair, which maintains standards and accountability and
3 embraces the rich diversity on offer? We need to be able to tap all
4 the resources in the supervision community and arrive at an ethical
5 and creative assessment process that not only embraces the whole
6 person, but also respects his or her differences. One of the funda-
7 mental differences about which we need to be mindful is that each
8 person starts at a different place, has different ways of learning, and
9 variable speeds in doing this. Regardless of how we learn, I do
30 believe we hold the length of a course of training in mind, either
1 consciously or otherwise, as a safe container in which we learn. I
2 have witnessed time and again, on counsellors’ and supervisors’
3 trainings, late developers reaching the “winning post” at the
4 eleventh hour. One challenge, then, is accurately to identify the
5 non-developers, who might be counselled off the training or
6 advised well before the finishing line that they will not make the
7 grade. With this in mind, I suggest that assessment of progress and
8 development is as important to a fair outcome as assessment
911 against a desired standard.
111 The qualities and skills of assessment

2
3 I believe there are two main considerations that need to be nurtured
4 in training the supervisor, in addition to the personal moral quali-
5 ties, and values and principles of counselling and psychotherapy, as
6 detailed in the Ethical Framework of BACP. The first is authority,
7 but not that vested in us by virtue of status or hierarchy. I refer to
8 inner authority, as derived from a mix of competence, experience,
9 congruence, boundary-keeping, respect of difference, ability to
10 learn from experience, humility, ethical practice, skill, ability, and
1 internal locus of evaluation. In sum, we need to develop the ability
2 to distil the essence of all our accumulated knowledge, learning,
3 and experience to enable supervisees to develop themselves to the
4 best of their abilities in order to offer the best possible service to
5 their clients. We need to be able to offer our services with presence,
6 that is conviction, without at the same time being authoritarian.
711 The second is personal autonomy that arises out of the exercise
8 of authority; the ability to be self-determining without being either
9 dogmatic or prescriptive. This involves learning and practising
20 being accountable to self and others through a core sense of self, a
1 knowing and compassionate familiarity with oneself. It can be
2 encouraged by developing a reflexive way of being that carries
3 profound moral dimensions, particularly in relation to our engage-
4 ment with others. This, in turn, will enhance the possibility of more
511 fully knowing ourselves. The extent to which we have acquired a
6 sense of autonomy through living our lives will already have been
7 honed during therapy training, and might need to be taken a stage
8 further during supervision training.
9 The supervisory student begins to engage with these issues at
311 the very moment she decides to undertake training, and they form
1 the initial piece of self-assessment.
2
3
4 The portfolio approach
5
6 Continuous assessment has long existed as an alternative to final
7 examinations, which can be seen to be an inexact and often inept
8 way of testing ability, particularly when there is a high level of sub-
911 jectivity involved. It would seem to embrace all the considerations
111 raised above as well as crucially mirroring life’s realities. It encour-

2 ages diversity and difference and is more true to the spirit of the
3 practice of supervision and of the training itself. It is collaborative,
4 ongoing, and cumulative, as well as encouraging reflexivity. It is
5 also immensely time-consuming.
6
711
8 The development of the CASCADE model
9
10 To illustrate one way of putting this method of assessment design
1 and implementation into practice, I will use our experience on the
2 CASCADE Diploma in Individual and Group Supervision Training,
3 which is validated by ABC. This is a process model, and is funda-
4 mentally humanistic while embracing other major counselling and
5 psychotherapeutic approaches. It has always been self, peer, and
6 tutor assessed and takes place over six long weekends bi-monthly
7 over eleven months, or two intensive weeks also separated by
8 months. It can accommodate a maximum of twenty-four students
9 and four tutors. From the very beginning, we require students to
211 assess their readiness to embark on the training and, having joined,
1 to continue to monitor and appraise their progress and that of their
2 peers. Tutors enter into this process alongside students.
3
4
Course philosophy
5
6 Over time, we have developed our criteria for being an ethical
7 supervisor. This enshrines the course philosophy, to which we work
8 throughout the course and which forms the bedrock from which the
9 assessment process is assessed. Fundamental to the course is the
30 ongoing engagement of each member with the training and assess-
1 ment process. We believe it is essential to try to parallel the realities
2 of practice, so that we engage in ongoing dialogue with each other
3 and are in constant relationship, with all the responsibilities this
4 entails. In this way, we evolve and maintain a community that cele-
5 brates and learns from the differences between us.
6 It is a hoary old truism that one of the ways of finding out
7 whether we know about a subject is to teach it. Arguably, another
8 way is to assess, which is perhaps a different but comparable way
911 of pursuing understanding. On both counts, we have to know
111 something about the subject and offer our own reasoned argument
2 about why we hold that opinion. Arising out of our course philos-
3 ophy, it then follows that, while each member is responsible for his
4 or her own learning, she is also responsible to others in their learn-
5 ing. This positions assessment as an ongoing, collaborative, integral
6 part of the course that provides crucial practice in an activity that is
7 demanded of us when we practise in the world at large.
8 Feedback is crucial to the entire course; without good enough
9 skills to deliver this well by each member of the community, both
10 the design and the implementation of the training fails. Therefore,
1 we spend time early on in the course clarifying what we mean by
2 this, we offer guidelines, give practice time, and, every so often,
3 offer refresher sessions throughout the training. This acclimatizes
4 the students to the process. They generally improve both their
5 verbal and their written feedback skills over the life of the course,
6 often to a highly sophisticated degree.
711
8
Method of learning
9
20 Previously, the importance of developing autonomy and using
1 one’s inner authority were mentioned as key factors in the devel-
2 opment of skilled and ethical supervisors. We believe the most
3 effective way of nurturing this is through experiential learning. We
4 might visualize this as being at the opposite end of the spectrum
511 from pedagogy. Experiential learning demands that we integrate and
6 process our experience for ourselves and with all parts of our being.
7 This seems most closely to accord with the section on Supervising
8 and Managing in the BACP Ethical Framework for Good Practice in
9 Counselling and Psychotherapy. Statement 27 states, “Supervisors and
311 Managers have a responsibility . . . to acquire the attitudes, skills
1 and knowledge required by their role”.
2 Being a supervisee offers some understanding of this. It seems
3 likely that new attitudes and skills will be more meaningful if they
4 are practised rather than received. The challenge is to balance
5 received wisdom (the learning of others) with finding out for
6 oneself, while at the same time not reinventing the wheel. One way
7 of looking at this in relation to the experiential learning cycle is to
8 see tutor input, for example, as the experience that the student then
911 actively engages in through exercises which follow and link the
111 other parts of the process. Experiential learning is tiring, emotion-

2 ally draining, and without specified end points. Mindful of this,
3 and the demands that being in a large or smaller group can make,
4 we set up peer support partnerships at the beginning of the course.
5 These are chosen at random and comprise three people, none of
6 whom is in the same supervision practice groups. Initially, they
711 help to clarify and refine individual personal learning contracts.
8 They meet at the end of each of the three days, and are intended to
9 provide ongoing support as well as a different forum in which to
10 discuss and share the contents of the day. Students are required
1 here to complete an appraisal sheet to monitor their learning. We
2 are drawing students’ attention to how they have participated in
3 their learning about theory, the link between theory and practice,
4 their supervisory skills, their participation in facilitated teaching
5 sessions, their personal awareness, and any developmental issues
6 arising.
7 Without processing, experience per se has little or no meaning or
8 value to the recipient of that experience. In this method of learning,
9 reflexivity becomes integral to learning, as it calls on students to
211 assess and evaluate their own experience as it occurs. However,
1 providing supervisory experience in training exists within the very
2 real constraints of time and money. Reflexive experience has to be
3 offered in a variety of ways in order to cater for differences in ways
4 of learning, varied speeds, and aptitudes.
5 Supervision, like therapy, is practical and requires practice.
6 Crucial to the course, therefore, are supervision practice groups that
7 are formed randomly during the first weekend and thereafter take
8 place at least eight times during the ensuing meetings. These are
9 closed groups of not more than six people, with a visiting tutor at
30 each session. Each group draws up its own timetable to ensure that
1 everyone has practice as both supervisor and supervisee. They meet
2 for an hour, within which two practice sessions are expected to take
3 place, and each session is assessed by the self and the rest of the
4 group. This is a norm on both therapy and supervision trainings.
5 What we expect now, and have put into practice more recently, is
6 written feedback, so that the assessment process becomes more
7 overt and evidence based. This, too, lies closer to the realities of
8 increasingly evidence-based practice in the world at large. Given
911 the time factor, we provide the feedback sheets and each student is
111 expected to gather them together to be included within the portfo-

2 lio. Both supervision practice groups and the peer support partner-
3 ships encourage students to hone their assessment skills by giving
4 feedback to one another.
5
6
The learning environment
7
8 Course design and assessment implementation are inseparable. To
9 make assessment a genuine and active constituent part of the train-
10 ing, there has to be safety as well as challenge, containment with-
1 out constriction, and rigour that is transparent in its expectations.
2 What we endeavour to create from the very beginning is a
3 supervisory learning community in which each member is willing
4 to enter into a state of enquiry and collaboration that includes open-
5 ness and playful qualities. This is immensely challenging, particu-
6 larly when working with adults, many of whom might well have
711 been working for many years as therapists and have acquired an
8 assurance and standing in that role. It is a lot to ask them to go back
9 to feeling unsure, uncertain, nervous, and lost in a new learning
20 situation, and quite probably feeling that everyone else knows far
1 more. In addition the group will be diverse in terms of supervisory
2 experience, age and stage, culture, gender, biological age, disability,
3 social class, sexual orientation, and so on. At the same time, we do
4 believe that it is a useful reminder for all as supervisors to be thrust
511 back into those feelings of uncertainty and doubt which parallel all
6 those anxieties we can feel when we first experience supervision as
7 trainee counsellors (Turner, Gibson, Bennett, & Hunt, 2008). It also
8 becomes evident for us as trainers early on that by no means every-
9 one on the course has much experience of working in groups, let
311 alone a group that some consider to be a large one. What the large
1 group does provide is the arena on the course in which every single
2 member has a sense and an experience of everyone else as a person,
3 if not necessarily within a supervisory role. It could be seen as the
4 base link in which all other parts of the course come together. Time
5 is spent at the start of the course involving everyone in becoming
6 more familiar with one another, with what the course entails, and
7 the method and means of learning.
8 As trainers we need to provide containment that has room for
911 challenge within a climate of trust. We need to be prepared to make
111 and acknowledge mistakes, feel foolish as well as joyful, and model
2 what we would like and, in due course, expect of students. It is
3 about us, and not them vs. us. We are encouraging and working
4 towards every student on the course becoming more able to be
5 genuinely and authentically themselves. Tutors may have more
6 experience, perhaps wisdom and learning, too, but that does not
711 make them automatically better supervisors. It is humbling to
8 discover that students we know are, or are likely to become, more
9 able practitioners than ourselves.
10
1 Further development of assessment process
2
3 It became apparent to us through our own tutor training super-
4 vision and development days that the method of assessment we
5 were using did not fully reflect the spirit of the training, and nor did
6 it seem to be entirely effective. Previously, we used to have a self,
7 peer, and tutor assessed live skills assessment on the fourth week-
end. By the end of the course, each student had to produce four
8
items of written work, each two thousand words long. This work
9
was self and peer assessed prior to being handed over to the tutor
211
for final evaluation. Essays had to be marked when the course itself
1
had finished. The course was not contained within its actual lifes-
2
pan, with the result that we would start the next course while we
3
were completing assessment on the previous one. While all these
4
considerations were important, we felt the most significant were as
5
given below.
6
7 ● Self and peer written contributions in the usual supervision
8 practice group sessions were often not systematically kept by
9 all except in relation to the live skills session. They tended to
30 look to this significant focal event, which, in turn, discounted
1 the crucial role of the observers on the one hand and the very
2 real value of having an ongoing record of one’s development
3 on the other.
4 ● We realized that by focusing on a summative skills assessment
5 and on written work as the method of assessment, this
6 excluded any evidence of the person as a whole. This went
7 deeply against the grain of our course philosophy.
8 ● The supervisory assessment process was too similar to assess-
911 ments used in therapy training and did not embrace the many
111 differences between the two activities, particularly that of the

2 authority and autonomy of the supervisor.
3 ● As a whole, the assessment process did not truly reflect the
4 spirit of the course itself, which, above all, concerns continu-
5 ous process and ongoing development.
6
7 The shift we needed to make was less about content and more
8 about making what was being learnt in whatever format, part of
9 continuous, ongoing, and transparent assessment. Accountability had
10 to be woven into the heart of the process and be more evident.
1 We have used a portfolio approach for continuous assessment
2 since 2007. Course requirements demand that each student, by the
3 start of the training, has a minimum of two supervisees, either indi-
4 vidual or group.
5 We state some essential requirements for the completion of the
6 portfolio, as detailed below. In addition, we suggest students might
711 also want to include anything else they consider has contributed to
8 their becoming trained supervisors, such as:
9
20 ● journal entries they might have made over the life of the
1 course;
2 ● workshops attended that might have informed their thinking
3 and practice as supervisors;
4 ● notes on formative books, articles, plays, films, etc.;
511 ● art, or any other work that may have arisen during the train-
6 ing and that can be included within the physical body of the
7 portfolio.
8
9
The assessment process
311
1 This starts with completion of the application form. Then, on the
2 first weekend, each student draws up a personal learning con-
3 tract. This forms the baseline from which each student clarifies her
4 focus for learning as both supervisor and supervisee. Many
5 students continue to amend this document throughout the course.
6 The original and subsequent amendments are all included in the
7 portfolio.
8 Throughout the course, students can request an individual
911 tutorial if they feel they want additional support or guidance.
111 At each weekend, two students will have practice as supervisor,

2 either of an individual or a group, which is followed by feedback.
3 Self, peers, and a tutor complete evaluation forms, usually after the
4 session. These, too, go into the portfolio.
5 Either in the third or fourth weekend, according to readiness,
6 each student draws up a self-assessment statement to clarify her
711 process and progress towards becoming an effective supervisor. (By
8 this point, students will have normally have had at least two prac-
9 tice sessions as supervisor.) She will speak to this statement at a
10 learning seminar with peers and a tutor. The self assessment grows
1 out of her personal learning contract, through the feedback evalua-
2 tion forms and the appraisal sheets drawn up at the end of each
3 day. Each member of the supervision practice group will have a
4 copy of this, so, too, each tutor. We invite students to be creative as
5 well as be mindful that there is limited time for input and there
6 must be room for group discussion. Out of this group discussion
7 will emerge a decision as to whether the student in question is on
8 the way to becoming an ethical, competent, and humane supervisor
9 or not. If there is doubt or dispute, the assessed individual will be
211 responsible, with the help of the group, for setting up a new learn-
1 ing contract that addresses what she needs to attend to. There is
2 then an opportunity to repeat the process over the fifth weekend, if
3 necessary.
4 While we have deliberately chosen not to continue with a live
5 skills session, there seems no way of avoiding a build-up of tension
6 around what is still envisaged as a summative exercise. We endeav-
7 our to emphasize that learning continues after the seminar, but
8 acknowledge that some form of rite of passage has been experi-
9 enced. We specifically ask for a new learning contract to be drawn
30 up at this stage, and suggest that students who have passed their
1 learning seminar could now draw up their own assessment forms
2 rather than use the ones provided by the course, if they so wish.
3 Alongside skills assessment, we now ask for a five-thousand-
4 word essay to form part of the learning process. This must include
5 the student’s theory of supervision, theory in practice, ethical
6 issues, personal and professional development, and reflective
7 awareness. We do not set topics, but invite students to select an area
8 of interest they would like to pursue, which might be an extended
911 case study or a short piece of original research. We suggest students
111 check their chosen topic with their tutors to ensure relevance and
2 possibility within the word count. The essay must also include
3 reference to other works to show evidence of wider reading. It has
4 to demonstrate that the writer has satisfied the criteria of being an
5 ethical and humane supervisor, and this requires attestation by two
6 peers.
7 The essay has to be sent to the marking tutor, not the student’s
8 personal tutor, about six weeks before the fifth weekend. Included
9 with the essay is a self assessment and assessment by two peers
10 (usually, though not essentially, those in the peer supervision part-
1 nerships). By the time the essay reaches the tutor, it will be assumed
2 by the tutor that all aspects of the given criteria will have been
3 reached. If there is dispute or doubt about having met the criteria,
4 it is the responsibility of the relevant student to arrange a meeting
5 of assessors (including the marking tutor) for further discussion.
6 The external verifier talks with the students during the fifth week-
711 end, and reads a sample of their work.
8 We believe this programme is a rigorous and thorough basis to
9 train ethical, competent, and humane supervisors. Without doubt,
20 it allows for individuality and creativity. We are left with some
1 concerns about whether a less able student might slip through the
2 net, as this approach relies so very heavily on the integrity and
3 professionalism of all concerned. It is hard to fail a peer.
4 We expect students to be responsible for their own learning, and
511 we spend time clarifying what is meant by that. This is one of the
6 most crucial aspects of the course, and many do not fully appreci-
7 ate what this means until near the end of the training. We mirror
8 what exists in the “real” world by expecting students to use their
9 authority as assessors of themselves, their peers, their tutors, and of
311 the course itself. They build on the authority they use in living their
1 everyday lives with the help of teaching input and considerable
2 practice.
3
4
5 General concluding comments
6
7 I am inclined to believe that the design and implementation of
8 supervisory assessment must include the following to qualify as
911 rigorous:
111 ● a course philosophy that enshrines models and theories of

2 supervision;
3 ● ethical subjectivity;
4 ● ongoing assessment of practice by self, peers, and tutor(s) in
5 order to benefit from three different perspectives in terms of
6 age and stage;
711 ● an awareness of, and attention to, difference in all its variety,
8 as well as specifically as it is manifest in learning
9 ● the courage to tell a colleague that her practice is not good
10 enough and perhaps not competent enough to qualify as a
1 supervisor.
2
3
4 References and bibliography
5
6 Brear, P., Dorrian, J., & Luscri, G. (2008). Preparing our future profes-
7 sionals: gatekeeping and implications for research. Counselling and
8 Psychotherapy Research, 8(2): 93–101.
9 Gabriel, L. (2001). Ethical dilemmas: problems in the supervisory
211 relationship. Counselling and Psychotherapy Journal, 12(1): 11–12.
1 Orlinsky, D. E., Ronnestad, M. H., & Willutski, U. (2004). Fifty years of
2 psychotherapy process-outcome research: continuity and change.
3 In: M. J. Lambert (Ed.), Bergin and Garfield’s Handbook of Psycho-
4 therapy and Behaviour Change (5th edn) (pp. 307–390). New York:
Wiley.
5
Turner, S., Gibson, N., Bennetts, C., & Hunt, C. (2008). Learning from
6
experience: examining the impact of client work upon two trainee
7
therapists. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 8(3): 174–181.
8
Weaks, D. (2002). Unlocking the secrets of good supervision: a pheno-
9
menological exploration of experienced counsellors' perceptions
30 of good supervision. Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 2(1):
1 33–39.
2 Wheeler, S. (2001). Assessing Competence. London: Cassell.
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER SIX

2
3
4
5
6
711 Developing trans-culturally
8
9
sensitive theory and practice
10
1
2
Valerie Batts
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction
1
A
2 white female therapist reflects after her first supervision
3 session with a male Indian psychologist, “How do I know
4 what the impact of my vastly different life experiences are
5 on this prospective relationship? Does it matter?”
6 A white male supervisor completes a third supervisory session
7 with a black South African supervisee, appearing to have no
8 concerns. The supervisee asks himself, “How do I handle the frus-
9 tration—and scare—that comes up in me as I realize I am not being
30 seen for who I really am? I wonder if I should ask for another super-
1 visor.”
2 Since the early 1960s in the USA, organizations that support
3 clinicians of colour in a variety of clinical disciplines have been
4 suggesting and demonstrating that “culture” matters (Pinder-
5 hughes, 2004). Most clinician supervisors trained in traditional
6 academic settings in the USA and in the UK in the pre-1960s era
7 were taught the accepted western-based psychological frame that
8 neutrality is possible and desirable in supervisory relationships.
911 Although it was generally expected that psychotherapists would
69
111 engage in their own therapy, typically this action was considered to
2 aid in the development of such neutrality. Further, personal therapy
3 typically did not address cultural issues. Thus, when discomfort
4 across lines of differences occurred, the situation involved risk
5 taking. Examining our responses and behaviour in this situation
6 through the lens of world view enhances our ability to function
7 effectively.
8 The supervisors mentioned above are facing situations where
9 ignoring difference could needlessly impede their effectiveness.
10 This paper will offer an introduction to options for supervisors to
1 engage trainees and their clients, accounting for cultural differences
2 at four levels: the personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cul-
3 tural. This model is offered as an important beginning “toolkit” for
4 effective supervisory training and clinical service delivery.
5
6
711 Context
8
9 Working with people from different cultural and ethnic groups can
20 be an exciting journey. It can also be a frustrating and puzzling
1 experience for well-meaning supervisors who find that they begin
2 to have repeated “problems” or concerns in such relationships.
3 Early termination or lack of success on other variables is often
4 reported. Supervisors of colour often notice that whites do not typi-
511 cally seek them out for supervision and training or, if white trainees
6 do, they question or express discomfort with, or confusion about,
7 some of the different approaches they might experience. Alter-
8 natively, the supervisor of colour becomes a “guru” of sorts, a
9 reflection of an idealization of exoticism that also can have negative
311 consequences on the relationship over time.
1 Supervisors interested in developing a trans-culturally sensitive
2 practice will need to examine both process and content information.
3 Process is how we engage in teaching, training, and other super-
4 visory activities. Many supervisors trained in systems approaches
5 to clinical intervention have been taught to attend to aspects of
6 process: that is, what is going on between clients in the room.
7 Psychoanalytically trained clinicians will attend to issues of “trans-
8 ference”: what the supervisee might project on to the supervisor.
911 Less frequently in this model there is also attention paid to how
DEVELOPING TRANS-CULTURALLY SENSITIVE THEORY AND PRACTICE 71
111 the supervisor might be responding, i.e., countertransference

2 dynamics.
3 Taking a multi-cultural lens as normative in supervisory rela-
4 tionships, however, means much more. It starts from the assump-
5 tion that cultural differences inform all aspects of the
6 supervisor–supervisee relationship and that exploration of this
711 dimension can provide vital information for effective clinical
8 change. Exploring these dimensions can deepen and enhance the
9 supervisory relationship, and the supervisee’s relationship to the
10 clients she serves.
1 Attending to cultural differences also means taking time to learn
2 about the world views, perspectives, and “life chances” of different
3 groups in one’s community (Knoff, 1986, p. 106). It means recog-
4 nizing one’s own cultural assumptions, values, filters, and judge-
5 ments. This leads to an increased awareness of the limits of one’s
6 own cultural learning and the developing of a cultural humility that
7 allows ongoing learning about self and other to occur (Tervalon &
8 Murray-Garcia, 1998). The supervisory relationship can become a
9 place to unpack this learning, both about self and other. Such a
211 process between supervisor and supervisee involves openness to
1 acknowledging lack of knowledge on both parts, which for many
2 supervisors might reflect a new approach to such work. The power
3 dynamic in the supervisor–supervisee shifts from supervisor as
4 content expert to supervisor and supervisee as learners together in
5 the understanding of how cultural influences are affecting their
6 relationship and/or the supervisee’s relationship to a given client
7 of a different cultural background.
8 It should be noted that this approach to supervision could also
9 have implications for supervisory relationships and client–clinician
30 relationships between people of the same ethnic or cultural group.
1 The approach invites exploring how each person is similar and
2 different from each other person, even within the same social group
3 (Batts, 2002). Social groups are defined, broadly, in terms of those
4 social variables that inhibit and/or enhance the likelihood (i.e.,
5 statistical possibility) that a given individual will have equal access
6 to life’s chances (Table 6.1).
7 Thus, a white female clinician from an owning class background
8 may enhance her ability to work with a white female supervisee
911 from a working-class background by exploring both how they are
111 Table 6.1. Types of oppression.

2 Types of Variable Non target Target groups
3 oppression groups
4
5 Racism Race/colour/ White Racial ethnic minorities
ethnicity European (African, Asian,
6
Caucasian Caribbean, Arab,
7 Latina/o, Persian/
8 Iranian
9
10 Sexism Gender Men Women
1 Classism Socio-economic Middle-, Poor, working-class
2 class upper-class
3
Elitism Education level Formally Informally educated
4
educated
5 Place in Managers, Clerical, non-exempt,
6 hierarchy exempt, students
711 faculty
8
Religious Religion Christians, Muslims, Catholics,
9
oppression Protestants atheists, Jews, others
20
Anti-Semitism
1
2 Militarism Military status First and Falklands War
3 Second World Gurkhas
4 Wars Gulf War
511 Ageism Age Young adults/ Elders (40+ by law)/
6 workers older worker +lower
7 level
8 Adultism Adults Children
9 Heterosexism Sexual orientation Heterosexuals Gay, lesbian, bisexual,
311 transgender
1
2 Ableism Physical or mental Temporarily Physically or mentally
ability able-bodied challenged
3
4 Xenophobia Immigrant status/ UK born Immigrant
5 Passport status UK passport Non-UK passport
6
Linguistic Language English English as a second
7 oppression language
8 Non-English
911
111 similar and how they are different, given their respective class back-
2 grounds.
3 The goal of learning to apply a multi-cultural lens is to allow the
4 supervisory and the clinical relationship to use the lens to explore
5 and deepen the variety of angles from which to address the given
6 presenting issue of the supervisee and/or the client.
711
8
9 Personal level tools
10
1 Emotional literacy
2
Many supervisors trained in traditional therapeutic models will
3
need to learn to demonstrate “emotional literacy” (Gardner, 1993)
4
in the therapeutic and the supervisory context. Cognitions and
5
behaviours are much more often the focus of intervention (Figure
6
6.1).
7
In the psychotherapy context specifically, it might be all right for
8
clients to express feelings as part of “getting cured”, yet it can be
9
viewed as a sign of weakness or ineffective countertransference if
211
the clinician is affected emotionally in the client–therapist relation-
1
ship. Similarly, if a supervisee needs to work through feelings, this
2
is seen as part of their training, but not something that the super-
3
visor should usually be doing as well.
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911 Figure 6.1. Three dimensions of change.
111 In many relational cultures, the expression of emotions is a

2 normative part of the discourse. Absence of such expression can be
3 viewed as a sign that this person is not real, transparent, or trust-
4 worthy. If a supervisor shares nothing about his/her self in the
5 affective domain, for example, in the early stages of a super-
6 visor–supervisee relationship, this can hamper trust building and
7 lead to a less than authentic relationship.
8 The first task then is to examine how comfortable the supervisor
9 is with expressing affect and to practise affective expression, first
10 with self and then in the relationship.
1
2
3 Increasing knowledge about different world views
4 and cultures and how things are done within them
5 This knowledge begins with self-awareness. Culturally skilled
6
supervisors have explored their own cultural backgrounds and
711
assumptions and are in a learning journey regarding how these
8
“cultural scripts” (Steiner, 2003) affect their comfort with people
9
who are different. They are also open to noticing how they affect
20
others, irrespective of intent. A white male supervisor who has been
1
trained in private school and university to “speak with authority
2
even if you are not sure” will become aware that his training in
3
taking up space with speculative ideas, and might be ineffective in
4
making contact with a young woman of colour from a family in
511
which she was trained to “speak only when you are sure of what
6
you are saying”. Noticing how much he speaks vs. how much she
7
speaks in their supervisory sessions can be a clue to such unspoken
8
9 differences operating.
311 It is important, further, to acknowledge that learning about
1 cultural differences is a lifelong journey and it is not only all right
2 but desirable to become aware of what we do not know in this area
3 as well.
4
5 Becoming aware of barriers to effective cross-cultural interactions
6
7 Modern oppression theory (Batts, 1983) suggests that there are five
8 behaviours that can occur among supervisors that inhibit effective
911 supervisor–supervisee relationships, and these are as follows.
111 ● Dysfunctional rescuing: help that does not help and/or that is
2 disempowering, often as a way to handle feelings of guilt or
3 shame from our places of privilege.
4 ● Blaming the victim: putting 100% of the responsibility for lack
5 of success on the part of the “target” person and not seeing
6 systemic barriers.
711 ● Avoidance of contact: no genuine, authentic, equitable contact
8 across lines of difference.
9 ● Denial of difference: the myth of colour blindness.
10 ● Denial of the significance of difference: a belief that all have
1 equal life chances and therefore differences do not matter to
2 the likelihood that a person from a given group will succeed.
3
It is also important to note that these behaviours can also set up
4
and/or reinforce survival behaviours on the part of the supervisee
5
that can also be problematic. These behaviours are given below.
6
7 ● System beating: figuring out how to get over or around “the
8 system”.
9 ● Blaming the system: putting 100% of the responsibility for lack
211 of success on the system and not taking personal responsibility.
1 ● Antagonistic avoidance: avoidance of individuals from social
2 groups because of a blanket mistrust that is hurtful to the
3 person carrying the affect.
4 ● Denial of cultural heritage: denying aspects of self to fit into
5 the larger culture or group.
6 ● Lack of understanding of the significance of difference: mini-
7 mizing systemic, cultural, historical, and/or social barriers that
8 might inhibit individual success.
9 The “dance” that can occur in supervisory relationships that do not
30 challenge these barriers keeps both parties stuck in terms of maxi-
1 mal learning and problem solving. The alternatives are noted in
2 Figures 6.2 and 6.3.
3
4
5
Interpersonal level tools
6
7 Supervisors who practise the following skills are most likely to
8 develop empowering, transparent, and effective multi-cultural rela-
911 tionships.
111 Alternative behaviours for modern “ism” and internalized oppression

2 behaviours
3 ● Functional helping ● Confrontation/standing up
4 (instead of rescuing) (instead of system beating)
5 ● Problem solving/responsibility ● Take responsibility
6 (instead of blaming) (instead of blaming)
7 ● Make mutual contact ● Share information/make contact
8 (instead of avoiding) (instead of antagonistic avoiding)
9 ● Notice differences ● Notice and share information
10 (instead of denying differences) about one’s own differences,
culture
1 (instead of denying target group)
2
● Learn, ask about, and notice ● Notice, ask, and share infor-
3 the impact mation about the impact of the
4 (instead of denying the impact) “ism on me and on my target
5 group”
6 (instead of denying the impact)
711 For all behaviours, personal and organizational problem-solving at the
8 personal, interpersonal, institutional, and cultural levels to generate ongoing
9 multicultural structures and processes.
20
Figure 6.2. Alternative behaviours.
1
2 Modern “ism” behaviours Internalized oppression behaviours
3
● Dysfunctional rescuing ● System beating
4
● Blaming the victim ● Blaming the system
511
6 ● Avoidance of contact ● Antagonistic avoidance of contact
7 ● Denial of differences ● Denial of differences
8 ● Denial of the political significance ● Lack of understanding of the
9 of differences political significance of differences
311
Figure 6.3. Modern “ism” and internalized oppression theory.
1
2 ● Listening that is active, reflective and empathetic. This typi-
3 cally takes learning to talk less when appropriate and to allow
4 for all perspectives. It takes patience, as well as willingness to
5 make mistakes.
6 ● Developing a non-judgemental attitude and learning how to
7 understand and express “judgements” when indicated, in
8 ways that do not communicate that the supervisor’s view is
911 more “right”.
111 ● Keen observation skills: ability to notice what is happening

2 both within oneself and in others at several levels.
3 ● Knowing how to interpret implicit or covert as well as explicit
4 or overt communication.
5 ● Contracting and negotiation skills: knowing how to clarify
6 who is responsible for what and how accountability will be
711 enhanced. This includes clarifying assumptions about what is
8 needed from the supervisor, which may be different for differ-
9 ent cultural groups.
10 ● Being able to see beyond one’s own world view.
1 ● Noticing the intent and impact of what we say and how we say
2 it. (See Figure 6.4.)
3 ● Learning how and when to set boundaries, including teaching
4 self and supervisees how to manage how much time is allowed
5 for more talkative, entitled, and/or expressive persons to
6 speak, in the context of group therapy, for instance.
7
8
9 Institutional level tools
211
1 A traditionally trained supervisor might tend to think of the super-
2 visory relationship primarily in terms of individual change models.
3 Many supervisees and/or clients coming from cultural groups
4 that have been historically excluded have personal, interpersonal,
and systemic barriers to face. They might also have different cul-
5
tural frames of reference about the sense of self as “I”-based vs.
6
“We”-based. Effective supervisors will want to understand when a
7
8
9 ● “Try on”
30 ● It is okay to disagree
1 ● It is not okay to blame, shame, or attack, self or others
2
● Confidentiality
3
4 ● Practise “self-focus”
5 ● Practise “both/and” thinking
6 ● Notice both process and content
7
● Be aware of intent and impact
8
911 Figure 6.4. Guidelines.
111 relational world view will enhance effectiveness. Such an under-

2 standing supports trainers to teach supervisees how to achieve the
3 following.
4
● Offer to their organizations the option of team-based decision
5
making that accounts for difference as well as similarity. This
6
might mean faculty examining the institutional “unwritten”
7
rules about what is expected of students in a pass/fail course,
8
for instance. If the course culture assumes that students will
9
be present for all or most classes, even if there is no grade
10
attached, how does the organization communicate these expec-
1
tations to members of cultural groups for whom this is not
2
normative practice? Assumptions that students are not show-
3
ing up because of lack of investment or overwhelming cir-
4
cumstances, vs. lack of understanding of the institutional
5 expectations, can lead to avoidable cross-cultural misses.
6 ● Examine how decisions regarding client treatment are made
711 through a multi-cultural lens. The supervisee will begin to ask
8 questions such as, “Who is told what and when? Why? What
9 are the assumptions about who can handle what information?
20 How do we anticipate differences when possible and manage
1 the different meanings of such decisions to different indivi-
2 duals within their cultural contexts?”
3 ● Address issues of cultural differences in timing, information
4 sharing, and handling issues such as grief and loss in clinical
511 decisions regarding serious illness or end of life care.
6 Culturally sensitive institutions ask themselves, “How do this
7 client and her/his family handle information regarding this
8 issue? How do we respect their needs in the context of the indi-
9 cated treatment? How do we support cultural differences in
311 the grieving process as an institution, as a provider?”
1
2
3 Cultural level tools
4
Supervisory training from a multi-cultural perspective creates and
5
supports the understanding and practising of
6
7 ● relational cultures where it is all right to talk about differences;
8 ● use of affective as well as cognitive processes for effective
911 problem analysis and resolution;
111 ● a shift in world view so that it is permissible to make mistakes,

2 acknowledge lessons learnt, and continue to enhance super-
3 visee skill and effectiveness.
4
5
6 Summary
711
8 Effective supervisory relationships allow supervisor and supervisee
9 to explore the impact of similarities and differences in the client–
10 clinician relationship. They use cultural differences between super-
1 visee and supervisor as one point of reference. Process and content
2 are addressed as they come up, in ways that respect the history and
3 traditions of each group. Understanding and applying the tools
4 described in this chapter allow such encounters/experiences to
5 unfold, and the supervisee’s learning from them to be enhanced.
6
7
8 References
9
211 Batts, V. B. (1983). Knowing and changing the cultural script compo-
1 nent of racism. Transactional Analysis Journal, 13(4): 255–257.
2 Batts, V. B. (2002). Is reconciliation possible? In: I. T. Douglas (Ed.),
3 Waging Reconciliation: God’s Mission in a Time of Globalization and
Crisis (pp. 35–75). New York: Church Publishing, www.church
4
publishing.org
5
Gardner, H. (l993). Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
6
Knoff, H. M. (1986). Characteristics of the culturally skilled counseling
7
psychologist. In: The Assessment of Child and Adolescent Personality
8 (p. 106). New York: Guilford.
9 Pinderhughes, E. (2004). My struggle to understand racism and injus-
30 tice. Reflections: Narratives of Professional Helping, 10(1): 26–38.
1 Steiner, C. (2003). Emotional Literacy: Intelligence With a Heart. Fawnskin,
2 CA: Personhood Books.
3 Tervalon, M., & Murray-Garcia, J. (1998). Cultural humility versus
4 cultural competence: a critical distinction in defining physician
5 training outcomes in multicultural education. Journal of Health Care
6 for the Poor and Underserved, 9(2): 117–125.
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER SEVEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Online learning and teaching of
8
9
supervision of counselling and
10 psychotherapy
1
2
3 Michael Townend and Wendy Wood
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction
1
I
2 n this chapter we consider how supervision training can use
3 technology-enhanced learning strategies and be delivered
4 through online learning. We draw both upon literature and our
5 experiences through the development of postgraduate online learn-
6 ing courses in supervision for counsellors and psychotherapists at
7 the University of Derby in the UK.
8 Online learning (also called e-learning) can be defined as the use
9 of a computer network over an intranet or internet to deliver educa-
30 tion and training to individuals or groups. “Technology-enhanced
1 teaching and learning” is a term used when technologies such as
2 the internet, streamed video, podcasts, blogs, or wiki are used to
3 supplement traditional lecture room based teaching and learning.
4 Important technological advances already influence professional
5 training in health and social care, including the training of psycho-
6 therapists and counsellors. Students have access to electronic
7 resources, for example, online databases such as Medline, PsycInfo,
8 ASSIA, access to electronic journals, DVDs, and a multitude of pro-
911 fessional organization websites with associated discussion groups.
81
111 Thus, the concept of online learning would appear to be a natural

2 progression.
3 However, developing online learning brings with it some
4 important questions and challenges for professional education. We
5 discuss the challenges that we experienced and how we addressed
6 them below.
7
8
9 The effectiveness of online learning
10
1 From reviewing some of the literature in regard to effectiveness,
2 we noted the following points. There is a marked lack of evaluation
3 of claims of the benefits of online learning (Bach, Haynes, & Lewis-
4 Smith, 2007). The literature seems to indicate that in non healthcare
5 contexts, deep learning can take place (Bach, Haynes, & Lewis-
6 Smith, 2007; Gibbs, 1999; Russell, 1999; Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, &
711 Simmering, 2003). Online learning is generally at least as effective
8 as, or slightly better than, classroom-based learning (Allen et al.,
9 2004; Kekkonen-Moneta & Moneta, 2002; Welsh, Wanberg, Brown,
20 & Simmering, 2003). There is also evidence that students who are
1 less confident about computing achieve less (Gist, Schwoerer, &
2 Rosen, 1989). It has also been suggested, contrary to initial pre-
3 dictions, that learning style and gender do not seem to determine
4 the effectiveness or otherwise of online learning (Kass, Ahlers, &
511 Dugger, 1998; Larsen, 1992). There is a trend towards online learn-
6 ing being more effective for short and focused courses that have a
7 less technical content and also emphasize cognitive learning
8 outcomes (Welsh, Wanberg, Brown, & Simmering, 2003). We took
9 these issues into account in the design, development, and teaching
311 of the course.
1
2
3 Some reflections on the design and delivery
4 of supervision e-learning
5
6 We have found it essential to create a communication-focused
7 approach to the course. We considered this important due to the
8 nature of psychotherapy and counselling as a relation-based profes-
911 sion (Grant, Townend, Mills, & Cockx, 2008) and also because the
ONLINE LEARNING AND TEACHING OF SUPERVISION 83
111 literature emphasizes this (Heinze & Proctor, 2004) in order to add
2 value to the student learning experience (Bach, Haynes, & Lewis-
3 Smith, 2007).
4 Our course at the University of Derby includes problem-based
5 learning in order to facilitate deep learning through individual and
6 group learning activities (Boud & Feletti, 1991; Savin-Baden, 2000).
711 Problem-based learning in an online context is discussed further
8 below.
9 Educational as well as supervision theories, and counselling and
10 psychotherapy literature indicated a need to demonstrate key
1 supervision competencies and then link the practice of these
2 competencies to the student’s own practice by specific learning
3 activities in the work place (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Fawbert,
4 2003; Grant, Townend, Mills, & Cockx, 2008; Hillier, 2005; Watkins,
5 1997). This was achieved through the production of video-based
6 learning materials with further learning through linked activities of
7 academic and professional debates and discussions in order to facil-
8 itate critical and reflective thinking. Video material enhanced
9 students’ learning experiences to bring the course to life in a visual
211 and auditory sense (Bach, Haynes, & Lewis-Smith, 2007; Jollifee,
1 Ritter, & Stevens, 2001).
2 A number of approaches can be useful to stimulate and chal-
3 lenge students within a supportive environment (Uschi, 2002).
4 Writing text-based materials that the learner has to work through in
5 isolation simply will not achieve this, nor will it meet learning
6 outcomes that relate to the development of appropriate profes-
7 sional attitudes or values. Neither will it lead to the development of
8 enhanced skills. Therefore, a successful online learning supervision
9 course needs to be designed to:
30
1 ● maximize the opportunities for students to engage in interac-
2 tive activities with their fellow learners and the staff;
3 ● ensure that learning strategies appeal to learners with diverse
4 learning styles and professional background;
5 ● ensure that the four aspects in Figure 7.1 are identified.
6
7 Many areas of professional practice emphasize the need for
8 practitioners to become reflective practitioners (Grant, Townend,
911 Mills, & Cockx, 2008; Schon, 1983). Thus, reflective learning was
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
Figure 7.1. The four-aspects model for the teaching and learning of
4
supervision.
5
6
711 also a key feature of the design of the course in order to facilitate
8 the students’ abilities to think in an analytical, creative, and “real
9 life” way both on and within their supervisory practice
20 (Kyriakidou, 1999; Schon, 1983; Sutton, Townend, & Wright, 2007).
1 Having lecturers who were visible to students and interacted
2 with them (Heinze & Proctor, 2004) was important. This included
3 regular contributions to discussion boards, and regular supportive
4 and encouraging e-mails from the teaching team to the group as a
511 whole and to individuals. Telephone or e-mail tutorials were
6 arranged to maintain communication and interactive links (Bach,
7 Haynes, & Lewis-Smith, 2007; Heinze & Proctor, 2004; Hillier, 2005).
8 This aids the early recognition of any problems or anxieties
9 students might have, in order to provide the necessary support.
311 The design stage of the course also led us to conclude that assess-
1 ment would need to include students recording their own super-
2 visory practice and submitting this for formal assessment and
3 feedback. This, essentially, would provide direct evidence of the
4 competencies achieved in practice, which we regarded as a necessary
5 behavioural criterion for the demonstration an effective course. This
6 was supported by other assessment activities to measure and evalu-
7 ate student performance in relation to theoretical knowledge, critical
8 and reflective critical evaluation, and values (Grant, Townend, Mills,
911 & Cockx, 2008; Hillier, 2005; Murphy, Walker, & Webb 2001).
111 Some reflections on the curriculum model

2
3 A curriculum model is, in effect, a strategy that seeks to ensure that
4 the aims of the course and its learning outcomes can be realized by
5 the learner. Curriculum typically consists of learning outcomes,
6 statement of indicative content of the course, how learning will be
711 achieved, teaching methods, and methods and content of assess-
8 ment.
9 Academic models of teaching and learning can range from pure
10 lecture room based teaching and workshops to pure online learn-
1 ing. This range is shown in Figure 7.2. Within our course, we have
2 tended to adopt an approach that incorporates a number of meth-
3 ods of teaching and learning, but with no face-to-face contact with
4 the student. There are other education approaches, referred to as
5 blended learning, which is learning that is facilitated by the inte-
6 gration of a combination of different modes of education delivery,
7 models of teaching, and styles of learning (Heinze & Procter, 2004).
8 The Department of Education and Training offers a slightly differ-
9 ent definition of blended learning as “learning that combines online
211 and face to face approaches (DET, 2003). Other terms and defini-
1 tions can also be found in the literature, such as hybrid learning or
2 mixed learning. Thus, there is some dispute in the literature regard-
3 ing definition and terminology. However, all of these definitions
4 and conceptualizations refer, in the main, to the integration of
5 e-learning tools and teaching strategies and techniques.
6 In this chapter, we refer to our approach to learning as pure
7 e-learning, which uses a range of teaching and learning approaches.
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911 Figure 7.2. Teaching strategies in academic education.
111 The overall curriculum model is shown in the model illustrated in

2 Figure 7.3.
3
4
5 Assessment strategies
6
7 There are two broad categories of assessment methods that are rele-
8 vant to the assessment of supervision taught through online learn-
9 ing: those that assess knowledge and understanding of supervision
10 theory, and those that assess application in the form of supervisory
1 skills (Hillier, 2005). A list of assessment strategies that can be
utilized is shown in Table 7.1.
2
3
4
5 Reflections on our experiences
6 Skills development
711
8 The development of competency in the skills required for effective
9 supervision is the real challenge for supervision courses that are
20 delivered by e-learning. Such micro skills are traditionally taught
1 through workshops that use a combination of role play, feedback
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 Figure 7.3. University of Derby E-learning Supervision Course Blended
911 Curriculum Model.
111 Table 7.1. Supervision assessment strategies and online course issues.
2
Assessment strategies Assessment issues in the context
3 relevant to supervision of an online learning supervision course
4
5 Self analysis of practice Allows the students to record observe and
6 critique their own performance within a
supervision session. The advantage of this
711
method of assessment is that it can clearly help
8
students to demonstrate how theory and skills
9
informs practice as well as giving the team a
10 good example of the student’s actual practice.
1
2 Portfolios A popular and important form of assessment
within professional programmes of learning
3
and, in this respect, supervision is no different.
4
Portfolios can be used for students to articulate
5
values and provide evidence of both
6 knowledge and skills. They have the
7 disadvantage, within an e-learning context, that
8 electronic submission is not practical and they
9 can be both bulky and time-consuming to
211 mark.
1
Written assignments This is the standard approach for assessing
2 theoretical knowledge and the students’
3 cognitive abilities with the critical evaluation of
4 theory. Written assignments can easily be
5 administered through electronic submission
6 systems.
7
Case studies Allow the student the opportunity to apply and
8 critically consider theory, values, and
9 application of supervision skills within the
30 context of their own practice. Case studies can
1 easily be administered through electronic
2 submission systems. Confidentiality and
3 anonymity of the subject of the case study
4 needs to be ensured and procedures need to be
5 in place to assure this.
6 Presentations These can be carried out live over video links
7 or webcams, or through a presentation being
8 made, recorded, and submitted by the student.
911
111 that might use video, and practical demonstrations that model key
2 skills and techniques that are either performed live by lecturers or
3 from video (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Fawbert, 2003; Grant,
4 Townend, Mills, & Cockx, 2008; Hillier, 2005; Watkins 1997). The
5 challenge is to reproduce this approach to teaching micro skills
6 through online learning. This is possible to achieve with broadband
7 access that enables the streaming of video materials to demonstrate
8 the skills required of supervisors; these are then linked to specific
9 problem-based or prescribed practice-based activities. Students can
10 video and receive feedback and coaching from the lecturing team
1 on the performance of these activities.
2 In our experience to date, students have found the video mate-
3 rials produced by the team to be very helpful in that they did
4 provide a way of relating to people rather than just words.
5 The videos produced by the students certainly clearly demon-
6 strated the development of competency. This included those stu-
711 dents who were initially reluctant to produce a video of their
8 practice. As a result of having the facility of a discussion board, we
9 were able to explore the concerns that students had in relation to
20 recording their practice and offer guidance on how to make the best
1 of this learning opportunity, as well as examining the ethical prin-
2 ciples surrounding the recording of practice.
3
4 Engagement
511 One of the concerns that we had prior to the development of the
6 course was the possibility that students would find it difficult to
7 engage with the programme as a result of the lack of face-to-face
8 contact. However, our experience has suggested (similar to findings
9 from Tantum, Blackmore, & van Deurzen, 2006) that this is not so,
311 and our students have commented on how much they valued the
1 input of tutors, and that this helped them to engage with the mate-
2 rials. Also, it would appear that the use of problem-based learning
3 also facilitated engagement, which again supports the findings of
4 Tantum and colleagues (ibid.).
5
6
Concluding comments
7
8 In this chapter, we discussed online learning as a process that can
911 enhance the students learning experience. In our work with the
111 training of counselling and psychotherapy supervisors, we have

2 found it to be an effective approach and process for learning the
3 theory, practice, and values to become an effective supervisor,
4 despite our initial reservations and scepticism.
5 Online learning can enable students who are unable to travel to
6 a university to study for a variety of professional, practical, or
711 personal reasons. Thus, it can support widening access to higher
8 education. Also in terms of widening access, online modules are
9 currently cheaper than traditional university-based diplomas in
10 supervision. It can also add value to the learning process for many
1 students, through supporting the autonomy of the student. This is
2 a particularly important feature for counsellors and psychothera-
3 pists who wish to update and develop themselves for continued
4 professional development, many of whom have studied in the HE
5 sector previously. The evidence base for online learning, and our
6 experiences, indicate that it is no more or less effective than tradi-
7 tional forms of learning and teaching. The online learning experi-
8 ence can also lead to the development of high quality learning
9 materials and experiential and other learning activities. These mate-
211 rials are frequently all available to the learner at the beginning of
1 their course. Thus, they are very transparent, and can be accessed
2 in a way that suits the learner as many times as required. Online
3 learning also offers the opportunity for innovative forms of assess-
4 ment and evaluation, with real-time feedback to the student. Online
5 learning not only enables the counselling or psychotherapy learn-
6 ers to learn about technology as they learn, but also places the
7 learner and the academic at the forefront of the “new world of
8 using information to construct knowledge” (Bach, Haynes, &
9 Lewis-Smith, 2007, p. 188). Finally, as we have argued, the role of
30 online learning is not to replace traditional university approaches
1 in professional training, but offers the academic the opportunity to
2 develop high quality and systemic learning materials and activities
3 that are creative and coherent, and a variety of ways of engaging
4 with learners that can potentially improve the flow of communica-
5 tion and knowledge over traditional ways of learning and teaching.
6
7 References
8 Allen, M., Mabry, E., Mattrey, M., Bourhuis, J., Titsworth, S., & Burrell,
911 N. (2004). Evaluating the effectiveness of distance learning: a
111 comparison using meta-analysis. Journal of Communication, 54(3):

2 402–420.
3 Bach, S., Haynes, P., & Lewis-Smith, J. (2007). Online Learning and
4 Teaching in Higher Education. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
5 Boud, D., & Feletti, G. (Eds.) (1997). The Challenge of Problem Based
6 Learning (2nd edn). London: Kogan Press.
7 Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of Clinical
Supervision (3rd edn). New York: Pearson.
8
Department for Education and Skills (2003). Towards a unified e-learn-
9
ing strategy, http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations (accessed on
10
6 May 2009).
1
Fawbert, F. (Ed.) (2003). Teaching in Post Compulsory Education. London:
2 Continuum.
3 Gibbs, G. R. (1999). Learning how to learn using a virtual learning
4 environment for philosophy. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning,
5 15: 221–231.
6 Gist, M. E., Schwoerer, C., & Rosen, B. (1989). Effects of alternative
711 training methods on self efficacy and performance in computer soft-
8 ware training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74: 884–891.
9 Grant, A., Townend, M., Mills, J., & Cockx, A. (2008). Assessment and
20 Case Formulation in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy. London: Sage.
1 Heinze, A., & Proctor, C. (2004). Reflections on the use of blended
2 learning, www.ece.salford.ac.uk/proceedings/papers/ah_04.rtf
3 (accessed on 8 March 2008).
4 Hillier, Y. (2005). Reflective Teaching in Further and Adult Education (2nd
511 edn). London: Continuum.
6 Jollifee, A., Ritter, J., & Stevens, D. (2001). The Online Learning Handbook:
Developing and Using Web Based Learning. London: Kogan Page.
7
Kass, S. J., Ahlers, R. H., & Dugger, M. (1998). Eliminating gender
8
differences through practice in an applied visual spatial task.
9
Human Performance, 11: 337–349.
311
Kekkonen-Moneta, S., & Moneta, G. (2002). E-learning in Hong Kong:
1 comparing learning outcomes in online multimedia and lecture
2 versions of an introductory computing course. British Journal of
3 Educational Technology, 33(4): 423–433.
4 Kyriakidou, M. (1999). Electronic-conferencing: promoting a collab-
5 orative community with learning opportunities for developing
6 teachers. Paper presented at the British Educational Research
7 Association Annual Conference, University of Sussex at Brighton,
8 2–5 September 1999, www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/0000
911 1374.htm (accessed 29 March 2008).
111 Larsen, R. E. (1992). Relationship of learning style to the effectiveness

2 and acceptance of interactive video instruction. Journal of Computer
3 Based Instruction, 19: 17–21.
4 Murphy, D., Walker, R., & Webb, G. (Eds.) (2001). Online Learning and
5 Teaching With Technology, Case Studies, Experience and Practice.
6 London: Kogan Press.
711 Russell, T. (1999). The No Significant Difference Phenomena. Montgomery,
8 AL: International Distance Learning Certification Centre.
9 Savin-Baden, M. (2000). Problem Based Learning in Higher Education:
Untold Stories. Buckingham: Open University Press.
10
Schon, D. A. (1983). The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in
1
Action. New York: Basic Books.
2
Sutton, L., Townend, M., & Wright, J. (2007). The use of reflective learn-
3
ing logs in the training of post graduate cognitive behavioural
4
psychotherapy students. Reflective Practice, 8(3): 387–404.
5 Tantum, D., Blackmore, C., & van Deurzen, E. (2006). Elearning and
6 traditional “face-to-face” teaching: a comparative evaluation of
7 methods in a psychotherapy training programme. International
8 Journal of Psychotherapy, 10(2): 7–14.
9 Uschi, F. (2002). The web as a vehicle for constructivist approaches in
211 language teaching. ReCall - Journal of Eurocall, 14(1): 2–15.
1 Watkins, E. (1997). Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision. New York:
2 Wiley.
3 Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. (2003).
4 E-learning emerging uses, empirical results and future directions.
5 International Journal of Training and Development, 7(4): 245–258.
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER EIGHT

2
3
4
5
6
711 The internal supervisor:
8
9
developing the witness within
10
1
2
Penny Henderson and Caro Bailey
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
S
elf-awareness provides an underpinning for the element of
1 reflective practice in supervision. The “internal supervisor”
2 tunes in during a session to how the relationship is going,
3 what might be conveyed unconsciously by the supervisee, and
4 the impact of what they are doing together. In Schon’s useful
5 summary (1987), there are two different processes that the internal
6 supervisor uses to support the work. “Reflection-in-action” occurs
7 during a counselling or supervision session. This is the moment
8
when the practitioner takes note of something happening and deci-
9
des to change tack. Immediacy and, in supervision, self-disclosure,
30
are relevant skills used to support this process. “Reflection-on-
1
action”, the other process, takes place after a session, when the
2
practitioner reflects on the work, maybe writes notes, muses, con-
3
siders the shape of a session, or what, on reflection, was missing;
4
what went well or turned out badly. Preparation for a supervision
5
session also calls on the internal supervisor of the supervisee, to
6
decide what to bring. Learning from reviewing recorded super-
7
visions supports “reflection-on-action”. Listening to the record,
8
transcribing it, and mulling it over encourages private digestion of
911
93
111 a case (Bramley, 1996, p. 42). Being outside the session provides
2 some distance; having been in it provides connection.
3 Supervisors need to develop the capacity to see themselves and
4 their work dispassionately, yet with compassion. The ability to
5 stand back and view oneself and oneself-in-relation-to-others
6 occurs developmentally with age and experience. It also needs to be
7 addressed in supervisor training. Some of us might be more
8 inclined towards this more reflective way of being than others.
9 However we have developed our reflectiveness, we need to move
10 towards observant and mindful monitoring and away from self-
1 critical judging. This entails releasing the self from internalized
2 “shoulds” derived from significant others in early life and from
3 inappropriate standards harshly applied by the self to the self. One
4 way of looking at what self-supervision involves is to see this as a
5 “play space”; an internal space in which to reflect, explore, and
6 hypothesize as well as to develop a research way of thinking that
711 evaluates the effectiveness of interventions. Increased awareness of
8 covert processes, thoughts, and feelings distinguish the internal
9 supervisor of a supervisor from that of a less experienced coun-
20 sellor (Page & Wosket, 2001, p. 266). Habits that support effective
1 practice are built by such practices.
2 A core aim of supervision must be to help supervisees develop
3 an internal compass for their work. Developing the internal super-
4 visor as an inner companion who is always there is a little like
511 having an Everyman within who “will go with thee, and be thy
6 guide / In thy most need to go by thy side”. Reflecting on poten-
7 tial and actual courses of action helps the supervisee expand her
8 vision as well as to feel more resourceful with a client. Ideally, the
9 internal supervisor comes habitually to provide this, so the coun-
311 sellor-at-work can attend to the process and relationship reflectively
1 while also engaging with the client. Thus behaving as a witness to
2 the working self, this “observing ego” has many components, as
3 this chapter suggests.
4 By embarking on training, a supervisor might be seeking some
5 knowledge input as well as commentary on her supervisory prac-
6 tice. She will already have been reflecting on self as practitioner,
7 and is likely to have discussed this with her own supervisor.
8 Most participants will be accustomed to self-supervision. The
911 course itself will hopefully invite further self-supervision through
THE INTERNAL SUPERVISOR 95
111 developing new frames of thought, building up skills, and explor-

2 ing attitudes. Any course that offers multiple perspectives might
3 also enlarge vision and create more flexible habits of, and tools for,
4 reflection. The skill of supervision (McLeod, 2007) requires the
5 supervisor both to sustain connection with the supervisee and to
6 hold an evaluative distance in which to reflect on how the work and
711 the relationship are going. At the same time, choices are being made
8 about which focus might be the most useful to offer. Development
9 of critical faculties and frames of mind, and increased awareness of,
10 and a felt connection with, the supervisee are fundamental to the
1 activity of supervision. This is an essential faculty to develop where
2 unspoken issues in the client–counsellor relationship may be
3 mirrored within that of the supervisor–supervisee. (This is known
4 as parallel process.)
5
6
7 The internalized supervisor
8
9 In our initial counselling training practice, we observed that we
211 often unconsciously imitated a supervisor, parroting them as we
1 learned how to relate in this new, intimately connected but bound-
2 aried way. Thus, some of the initial layers of our internal super-
3 visors were actually something different: an internalized supervisor.
4 A literal parallel here is watching a small boy imitate the way his
5 father behaves, as if he is taking on wholesale the attributes of
6 someone he wishes to emulate without filtering this through his
7 own ego. This might be especially likely if a trainee idealizes the
8 supervisor. Taking interventions that have been useful in super-
9 vision and applying them appropriately to work with clients is part
30 of learning that assists socialization into the role of counsellor. Yet,
1 it is essential for a supervisor to have moved well beyond this stage
2 of rather unreflective regurgitation. There is little thinking for
3 oneself that is involved in this method of practice; above all, it is
4 likely to be incongruent. To have confidence enough to practise as
5 a supervisor demands also that we have the courage to be ever
6 more genuinely ourselves.
7 Most people who apply for supervision training will have
8 enough experience to have developed a critical questioning ele-
911 ment: “Is this what I would do? Should I do it like this?” Thus, the
111 different internalized supervisors the person has experienced

2 become filtered and incorporated into their internal world. Their
3 practice will also rely on personal experience and thoughts, and
4 spontaneous original and creative responses. Remaining open to
5 vulnerability in relationship is also a priority for this developmen-
6 tal process to be sustained.
7 As Gilbert and Evans say, “The ability to sustain vulnerability is
8 an essential part of relating, and a measure of personal and profes-
9 sional maturity, because it opens the counsellor to resonate with the
10 client” (2000, p. 41).
1 We see one crucial aspect of being vulnerable as being open to
2 the moment while maintaining an ability to acknowledge not-
3 knowingness when it occurs.
4
5
6 Being ‘in’ and ‘out’ at the same time
711
8 We are reminded of those little weather-vane houses: when it was
9 dry, a little woman came out of her door, and, when wet, a little
20 man came out of his while she went inside. Here, the picture is of
1 both of them standing in their respective doorways. Metaphorically
2 speaking, and not unlike the weather, we need to develop the abil-
3 ity to be in two places at once: for it to rain with the sun shining,
4 simultaneously.
511 Like the “participant observer” of sociological research, the
6 internal supervisor has to be “in” the relationship sufficiently to
7 understand the experience of the person she is in relationship with
8 and “out” enough to think, understand, and evaluate the process of
9 the work. Gilbert and Evans (ibid.) describe this as combining
311 “inclusion” and “critical subjectivity”. For them, “inclusion” is
1 awareness of your own experience and that of the client, together
2 with a capacity to stand back and reflect on the dynamic interaction
3 between the two. They quote Wright (1991), adapting his ideas
4 about child development to supervisor development as follows:
5 enlarging our vision depends on being able to move to a broader
6 variety of positions to obtain new and different perspectives on
7 ourselves. This may achieve a multi-perspectival view of the world
8 with an appreciation of “difference” that arises from a systems
911 competence. A third person perspective provides us with a view of
111 ourselves outside of our own immediately lived experience, so that

2 it becomes a “means of scanning both the perceptual field and the
3 inner field of the mind” (ibid.).
4 Gilbert and Evans provide four phases to the process of educat-
5 ing the internal supervisor. They are:
6
711 1. Learning to “be inclusive” without losing oneself in the client.
8 2. Learning to be fully present without losing sight of the other.
9 3. Holding the polarities, albeit tentatively and sporadically.
10 4. Being able to move smoothly and consistently between the self
1 and the other while simultaneously reflecting on self in rela-
2 tion to other and the process between.
3
They encourage supervisors to help their supervisees to deal with
4
any fear of being caught up in transference phenomena by thinking
5
of it as a treasury of information and their countertransferential
6
responses as “emotional barometers”. Thus, the supervisee can
7 come to value those strong feelings or responses they experience
8 with the client, and seek meaning in them for the therapy relation-
9 ship.
211
1
2
Self-awareness
3
4 The metaphor of a filter is an apposite one for the internal super-
5 visor. As the supervisor hears, observes, and is with a supervisee,
6 she notices what is going on with the supervisee, with herself, and
7 in the space between. As she is observing, she is filtering the infor-
8 mation she is receiving in many different ways: personally, profes-
9 sionally, theoretically, imaginatively, to name a few. Thinking of a
30 particular example, as the water of reflection pours through her
1 filters, she notices what trickles through into clearer awareness.
2 With practice and experience, she will also try to note what might
3 be missing that she would normally expect to find. Just as filters
4 need cleaning, so, too, do counsellors and supervisors need
5 personal and professional input in much the same way. We suggest
6 that staying with an issue or problem, rather than giving up, can
7 also help unblock the system.
8 Group supervision is particularly useful precisely because these
911 personal filters become more obvious in contrast with those of
111 others. It is easier for the supervisor to perceive how her super-
2 visees construe the world in all its differences and diversities as it
3 is presented within the group. She can also become aware of where
4 an individual’s empathy is ready and easy and where it is difficult
5 or absent, as well as what is taken for granted as “good enough
6 practice” by them. The supervisor can also note if their practice
7 becomes more flexible and responsive to different styles of learning
8 and views of the world.
9 Another methodology lies in interpersonal process recall (IPR)
10 (Allen, 2004; Inskipp, 1999). This is best carried out in groups, but
1 it can also be developed as a method of reflecting on recorded prac-
2 tice, either after a session or with one’s own supervisor. Reflecting
3 on practice after the event within this framework helps extend
4 awareness of the variety of elements that inform every thought and
5 utterance. While this is a post hoc activity, it aims to develop habits
6 of awareness during sessions themselves.
711 Arguably, too, the more we know ourselves in general, the more
8 we are developing particular and specialized awareness at the same
9 time. We are thinking here about the notion of ethical subjectivity
20 that is expanded upon at more length in Chapter Five, on
1 Assessment. This makes heavy demands on us, and rests on the
2 notion that we have an awareness as supervisors of what is appar-
3 ently going on in a session, what might not be, of undercurrents, of
4 the wider context, and so on, in order for us continuously to assess
511 the ethical probity of our own and our supervisees’ practice. And
6 how do we know we can rely on a felt sense of what our internal
7 supervisor is adjudging right and proper behaviour? The short
8 answer is that we cannot know. The longer answer is that the sum
9 total of awareness that is organismic is one that, over time, we learn
311 to trust and be guided by, as we also check out our reactions in rela-
1 tion to theory or a supervisor’s alternative perspectives, and
2 consider outcomes.
3 In addition to the above, we would add the importance of
4 retaining a sense of humility coupled with openness. While it is
5 important, and a central requirement of being an autonomous
6 professional practitioner, to be able to acknowledge mistakes and
7 learn from them, it is also humbling when we fall from our own
8 grace. Becoming aware of internalized attitudes to shame, guilt, and
911 humiliation might eventually reduce the need for self-justification
111 and any tendency to denial of responsibility for difficulties in the

2 client–counsellor or counsellor–supervisor relationship. The novice
3 supervisor needs to be able to name uncomfortable issues and to
4 offer assessments of the supervisee’s practice, while at the same
5 time encouraging work at a developmental edge. To do this, the
6 supervisor can usefully notice the interventions she most com-
711 monly uses and the skills she has, as well as those she has yet to
8 develop (see Hawkins & Shohet, 2006). Thus, increased commit-
9 ment to work from strengths and also to repair gaps or to extend
10 ways of being can arise from increased self-awareness and habits of
1 reflection that build the muscles of the internal supervisor.
2
3
4
Frames of thought
5
6 Frames of thought provide options about focus and choice. They
7 direct the attention of the practitioner to matters to think about. A
8 number of supervisory frames are now commonly taught: the
9 Hawkins and Shohet (2006) seven-“eyed” model provides choices
211 to focus on process within the client–counsellor loop or the super-
1 visor–supervisee one. The Inskipp and Proctor (2000, 2001) model
2 of supervisory tasks draws attention to responsibilities and norma-
3
tive functions, to educative or developmental ones, and to restora-
4
tive support and the enablement of creativity. Carroll (1996)
5
describes the different roles of a supervisor and proposes training
6
foci for each role. Page and Wosket’s (2001) cyclical model draws
7
attention to different phases of a supervisory session. Other frames
8
of thought can be noted in the other chapters of this book, as
9
authors from different perspectives describe key ideas they use.
30
Bramley (1996, pp. 50–53) describes five elements from her
1
psychodynamic perspective that the process of self-supervision
2
could use for focus, as follows.
3
4
5 ● Reflection about the client from the history. Questions to the
6 self of the counsellor might include “what does it feel like to
7 be him?” as well as questions about defences, unconscious
8 strategies, attachments, and so on.
911 ● Reflection about the relationship and working alliance.
111 ● Reflection about the transference. Using trial identification

2 about the client now and at earlier stages of his personal dev-
3 elopment.
4 ● Reflection about, and examination of, the counsellor’s own
5 feelings and reactions to the client.
6 ● Reflecting on an assessment of the client’s motivation and
7 readiness to change.
8
9 She encourages the internal supervisor to “think the unthinkable,
10 ponder the imponderable, and consider the impossible response”.
1 All these very usefully free thinking and encourage the internal
2 supervisor to play with possibilities and connect with intuitive
3 reactions.
4 A confident grasp of an ethical framework fundamentally
5 supports supervision. It seems to us that supervision training must
6 provide opportunities to work with an ethical framework to under-
711 pin good practice. In this way, ethical principles are understood in
8 practice as living, everyday realities, and become a familiar frame
9 for thought, reflection, and choices.
20 Before leaving the idea of “frames”, we note there may well be
1 some “unlearning” that it is equally necessary to do. We are aware
2 that some practitioners can develop what might amount, in other
3 contexts, to be almost a co-dependency on a particular model as
4 holding “the truth”. Developing the idea of there being many truths
511 encourages the possibility that supervisees become more open to
6 difference and diversity, and is essential for supervisors who work
7 with people trained in other therapy modalities or allied professions.
8
9
311 Skills
1
2 Casement (1985), who created the term “internal supervisor”,
3 writes of “islands of intellectual contemplation”. He describes these
4 as a “mental space needed even when with a patient for the inter-
5 nal supervisor to begin to operate” (p. 31).
6 The skills of the internal supervisor are largely those that capi-
7 talize on observation and “inclusion”, as described above, as well
8 as reflection on the intersubjective experience of supervision. It is
911 particularly important for the identification of parallel process that
111 the supervisor has sufficient analytical capacity to identify and

2 summarize themes and map them on to any expectations within the
3 supervisory relationship. Allied to this, the supervisor needs
4 enough awareness of her own normal responses and those of the
5 supervisee in order to notice and be curious about different or
6 unusual interactions worthy of exploration or comment.
711 Novice counsellors might need help with the process of distilla-
8 tion that is needed to bring their work to supervision in a focused
9 way. The processes of supervision, and the interventions the super-
10 visor prefers, become tools the supervisee can use for him or her
1 self in future preparation or, alternatively, for self-supervision.
2 Bramley (1996, p. 44) describes supervision as “two people learning
3 how to think together”. Within an enabling relationship, the super-
4 visee gradually learns to do it for herself. The supervisee who expe-
5 riences the supervisor’s process over and over, learns to
6 self-supervise as she develops her own internal witness, critic, and
7 commentator. When the supervisor muses aloud about content or
8 process, and offers educated guesses, or, in some contexts, fantasies,
9 generates ideas, and shows how she tests for evidence to back a
211 hunch, the supervisee finds a variety of modes for reflection and
1 can choose those that most suit when doing it for his or her self.
2
3
4 Attitudes and values
5
6 It is the attitude to the self that probably makes the most difference
7 to the work of the internal supervisor. When the practitioner devel-
8 ops as much generosity to self as she offers to others, she will have
9 an even-handed sort of attitude to noticing, accepting, and explor-
30 ing mistakes. A supervisor will aim to encourage this in a super-
1 visee so that this practitioner, too, can hold a reflective attitude,
2 rather than one that avoids responsibility for practice difficulties.
3 However, the other crucial developmental step is to become
4 aware of personal attitudes to difference, which brings with it the
5 challenges of engaging respectfully with supervisees who differ in
6 class, gender, race, culture, religion, sexual orientation, learning
7 styles, or in other salient ways. A simple example occurred to one
8 of us while reflecting on her mix of current supervisees. One of us
911 (CB) would admit to being very ordered and organized. She has a
111 supervisee who is experienced and a near contemporary (therefore

2 mature), who would come to supervision with a portfolio of papers
3 which would fall and scatter and, in the early days, it seemed as if
4 she had difficulty in keeping a handle on who was whom or why
5 they were working with her. In due course, as CB adjusted to her
6 very different way of operating and developed a fondness for her,
7 she could truly appreciate what a warm and loving individual she
8 was, doing sound work with a variety of challenging individuals.
9 The irritation she felt early on melted away as she acknowledged,
10 and came to value, a different way of working that nevertheless had
1 good results.
2
3
4 Flexibility and style
5
The more flexible the supervisor and the greater the range of inter-
6
ventions and foci she routinely makes use of, the wider the range
711
of options the supervisee becomes used to. Early on, reflection
8
using one model might be comforting, providing options, or might
9
be rejected if it does not meet the needs or fit with the perspectives
20
or learning style of the supervisee. The less confident and perhaps
1
less experienced practitioner can also find too much choice on offer
2
confusing and muddling, so the supervisor needs to be ever mind-
3
ful of what she is there for (the supervisee and her clients) and not
4
give in to showing off or performing.
511
As the internal supervisor develops, so the supervisor-in-train-
6
ing is likely to become more self-reliant and less dependent on the
7
views of others or their approval. Expanding on this, we could
8
surmise that, as we become more assured in ourselves, we are more
9
able to embrace, rather than be scared by, difference. Even very
311
experienced practitioners can seek other views because of the bene-
1
fit of other perspectives, but they can hold on to their own frames
2
of thought as they add in new angles, valuing the unique insights
3 that arise from the overlay of different perspectives.
4
5
6
Course contributions to internal supervisor development
7
8 However we look at the roles and functions of supervision, super-
911 visors are expected to act as the guardians or monitors of good
111 practice in the profession. As we have endeavoured to suggest

2 throughout this chapter, the development of the internal supervisor
3 is vital to maintain this rigour. It would follow, therefore, that
4 supervision training must contain various elements that support
5 and stimulate this growth. The process of observed practice with
6 feedback lies at its heart.
711 Giving and receiving feedback is at the heart of supervisor train-
8 ing (see chapters on Assessment and Feedback). For the internal
9 supervisor, however, its function is specifically to develop the capa-
10 city to evaluate the self and others, and to enhance awareness of the
1 impact of our behaviour. Thus, it commonly expands a view of a
2 shared experience by including others’ perspectives on it. Doing
3 this builds awareness of “self-in-relation-to-others”. Inevitably, in
4 an assessed course, there will be some comparative and competitive
5 feelings and anxiety about assessment, whether expressed or not.
6 Empathy exercises, those designed to increase mindfulness of
7 difference, and invitations to reflect individually on responses to
8 self-awareness, prompts participants to increase attunement to self
9 and others. The more subtle and familiar this process of fine-tuning
211 becomes, the more information the internal supervisor has to work
1 with.
2 Moving outside the supervisory “box” and into creative ways of
3 working stimulates those parts of self not reached by words alone.
4 Sessions during training that use different creative materials, as
5 well as inspiring participants to use what might just be there in a
6 therapy room, encourage flexibility in ways of being. Creative ways
7 of working can take us closer to the edges of examining our lives
8 and, in so doing, keep the internal witness on its toes.
9 Taking up supervision training often provides the opportunity
30 for participants to become more aware of just how out of kilter their
1 own sense of well being may be. Most are engaged at some level in
2 the triple pressures of work, family, and training, and, as a result,
3 have restricted time for reflection and reverie about their work.
4 Being mindful of energy levels throughout the course, trainers can
5 encourage good practice by abandoning, for instance, what might
6 have been tutor input, for participants to talk among themselves
7 and recoup. This would seem to offer by example the interface
8 between supervision and therapy that can be explored for healthy
911 well being. Planned explorations about resilience, fitness to practise,
111 and the work–life balance expand on this. Becoming more aware
2 about the vital necessity to protect time and develop habits of reflec-
3 tion, the novice supervisors might more readily explore resilience
4 with their supervisees. Almost all will commit to this in principle. It
5 is often the assessment period of the course that reveals the real life
6 pressures that make it challenging in practice. Juggling ongoing and
7 crisis needs of family members, the demands of professional or
8 voluntary work, and the requirements to reflect, think, read, learn,
9 and develop, reveals drivers to perfectionism, effort to please others,
10 hurry up, and be strong.
1
2
3 Comments
4 The “hawk in your mind” (Bolton, 2001, p. 151) that takes an
5 overview is held aloft by the updrafts of respect for intuitive and
6 sensory awareness as well as critical evaluation. Many participants
711 completing their training on both our training courses comment on
8 the impact it has had on their attitude to their existing supervision
9 and also on their capacity to engage with self-supervision. Most
20 who start their training, complete it. It might be argued that those
1 few who have dropped out over the years are those who are less
2 able to take the wider view that is demanded by the internal super-
3 visor. A few others take longer to finish, often because they are
4 more hesitant to let go of existing certainties in terms of model and
511 practice. These few need more help and more encouragement to
6 expand into the wide-open fields beyond their own self constructed
7 fences (Encke, 2008). Most participants feel free enough to develop
8 their unique styles and yet benefit from observation of the practice
9 of others in an atmosphere of encouragement. If the internal super-
311 visor holds a core value about psychological connection and
1 supports the empowerment of the practitioner and thus the client,
2 a balance between gentle connection and robust review can then be
3 held comfortably.
4
5
6 References
7 Allen, P. (2004). The use of interpersonal process recall (IPR) in person-
8 centred supervision. In: K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to
911 Practise. Ross-on-Wye: PCCs Books.
111 Bolton, G. (2001). Reflective Practice. London: Paul Chapman.

2 Bramley, W. (1996). The Supervisory Couple in Broad-Spectrum Psycho-
3 therapy. London: Free Association.
5 London: Cassells.
6 Casement, P. (1985). On Learning From the Patient. London: Tavistock.
711 Encke, J. (2008). Breaking the box: a challenge to free ourselves. In:
8 R. Shohet (Ed.), Passionate Supervision (pp. 16–32). London: Jessica
9 Kingsley.
Gilbert, M. C., & Evans, K. (2000). Psychotherapy Supervision: An
10
Integrative Relational Approach to Psychotherapy Supervision. Bucking-
1
ham: Open University Press.
2
Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the Helping Professions.
3
Buckingham: Open University Press.
4
Inskipp, F. (1999). Training supervisees to use supervision In: E. Hollo-
5 way & M. Carroll (Eds.), Training Counsellor Supervisors (pp. 184–
6 210). London: Sage.
7 Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2000). The Art, Craft and Tasks of Counselling
8 Supervision, Part 1: Making the Most of Supervision. Twickenham:
9 Cascade.
211 Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2001). Becoming a Supervisor (2nd edn).
2 McLeod, J. (2007). Counselling Skill. McGraw Hill: Open University
3 Press.
6 Schon, D. (1987). Educating the Reflective Practitioner. San Francisco, CA:
7 Jossey-Bass.
8 Wright, K. (1991). Vision and Separation: Between Mother and Baby.
9 London: Free Association.
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER NINE

2
3
4
5
6
711 Developing skills: practice,
8
9
observation, and feedback
10
1
2
Anthea Millar
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 “Not everything that is faced can be changed, but nothing
1 can be changed until it is faced”
2 (James Baldwin)
3
4 Neela is doing her first observed practice session on a supervision
5 training. As her peers and tutor observe her work she’s nervous
6 and uncertain, as if her years of experience as a counsellor are turn-
7 ing to dust. She fears being judged as incompetent and a fraud. She
8 reproaches herself: surely as a counsellor of some professional
standing she should already know what to do.
9
30
N
1 eela’s experience may resonate for you. Certainly I can
2 relate to it. Enrolling on a supervision training could be
3 seen as a statement that we have achieved a certain level
4 of practitioner competence. So, when practice is exposed to obser-
5 vation and feedback, we might feel there is much more to lose than
6 on our core practitioner trainings, and be startled to revisit old feel-
7 ings of inferiority, shame, and confusion. Yet, there is no running
8 away from it: being observed in practice, and experiencing feed-
911 back is a fundamental part of effective supervision education.
107
111 Openness to challenge and feedback as essential ingredients to

2 good practice has been well confirmed by Miller, Hubble, and
3 Duncan’s (2008) extensive research into aspects of therapeutic
4 change and practitioner excellence. After tracking the outcomes of
5 tens of thousands of clients and therapists, it would seem that
6 success is not determined simply by a practitioner’s talent or by
7 gaining years of experience. These alone can actually create a false
8 sense of confidence, with mistakes no longer noticed, and, as a
9 result, learning opportunities are lost or stagnation occurs.
10 Their findings identify that excellence involves two key aspects
1 that challenge the idea of “natural talent” or “technical prowess”.
2 Success involves simply working harder than most at improving
3 performance, and “spending time specifically devoted to reaching
4 for objectives just beyond one’s level of proficiency”.
5 In addition, Miller and his colleagues state, “to reach the top
6 level, attentiveness to feedback is essential . . . this extra step lets the
711 person understand how and when she is improving” (ibid., p. 6).
8 Keeping engaged, even in the face of challenge, is the crucial
9 skill here.
20
1
2 Facing fears and building courage
3
4 Miller, Hubble, and Duncan’s research underlines what I believe
511 needs to be at the heart of effective supervision education: plenty of
6 opportunity for observed practice that challenges the participants
7 to stretch themselves to engage in new processes, accompanied by
8 very regular and clearly structured feedback to enable mistakes to
9 be made without shame and blame.
311 Central to these processes (and, ultimately, for all effective
1 supervision) is feedback that provides encouragement. “En-courage-
2 ment”, with the building of “courage” at its heart, involves having
3 our strengths acknowledged, alongside appropriate rigorous chal-
4 lenge. This provides a potent combination that helps us to face our
5 fears and have “the courage to be imperfect” (Dreikurs, 1970). It is
6 different from the use of praise or rewards, which create extrinsi-
7 cally motivated behaviour and a pattern of winners and losers.
8 Encouragement enables people to develop an inner sense of satis-
911 faction and motivation. For this to happen, a climate of equality and
DEVELOPING SKILLS 109
111 collegiality needs to be created from the outset of the supervision

2 training.
3 Chris, reflecting on a supervision practice writes,
4
5 The session has been a very useful if painful learning experience. It
6 has helped me to appreciate the consequences of not sharing my
711 thoughts and feelings in the session and given me the impetus and
8 deep motivation to rectify the situation. The key is encourage-
ment—both to myself and in how I appreciate the other. Encour-
9
agement becomes the container within which everything else
10
occurs.
1
2
3
4 Equality: creating a climate of imperfection
5
“To be human means to have inferiority feelings” (Adler, 1933
6
[1964], p. 54). Adler suggested that the development of inferiority
7
feelings result in large part from subjective childhood comparisons
8
9 with other family members. As these feelings are so uncomfortable,
211 we compensate by striving to overcome them through such
1 patterns as superiority and perfectionism. Experiencing inferiority
2 feelings and then compensating for them through some form of
3 “acting out” response happens to most of us when under some
4 stress. The challenge for us all is that if this dynamic is not appro-
5 priately identified and addressed, a power imbalance is perpetu-
6 ated. This, in turn, is likely to create problems in both the training
7 and supervisory relationship.
8 As an educator, I need to face my own fears and limitations, be
9 ready to share my imperfections and capabilities, and also be open
30 to the skills that participants on the supervision training bring with
1 them. As Caro Bailey has identified in this book, by enabling this
2 mix of competence, humility, ability to learn from experience, and
3 congruence, we are also aiding the development of an inner author-
4 ity, essential for effective supervision.
5 The way we observe others, and give and receive feedback,
6 commonly reflects our early experiences. Our interpretation and
7 response to the guidance, discipline, and feedback given at home
8 and school is very likely to be echoed in the here and now, particu-
911 larly when being observed.
111 Openly sharing fears and fantasies about receiving and giving
2 feedback at the beginning of a supervision training course can help
3 to dispel the fiction that everyone else feels confident, capable, and
4 in control. It also models a process that can be used in a modified
5 form at the start of a new supervision contract. This can prevent
6 misunderstandings and be particularly helpful in the relationship
7 with participants who might otherwise seem lacking in insight and
8 resistant and defensive around receiving feedback.
9 The following exercise aims to enable this exploration:
10
1. What does observed practice and receiving feedback mean to me?
1
2 Share responses in pairs and then in the whole group.
3 How do I feel about being observed in practice sessions?
4 What are my hopes and fears about being observed and receiving
5 feedback from a) peers b) trainers?
6 What makes it easier for me to receive feedback?
711 What is particularly difficult for me, when receiving, feedback?
8 What are my developmental aims for receiving feedback?
9 2. What does giving feedback and observing practice mean to me?
20
1 What are my hopes and fears about observing and giving feedback
2 to (a) peers (b) trainers?
3 What makes it easier for me to give feedback?
4 What is particularly difficult for me, when giving feedback?
511 What are my developmental aims about giving feedback?
6
7
8 Observed skills practice
9
When observed practice is carried out with peers, it provides
311
opportunities for the group to come together with a common goal.
1 Offering a clear statement at the outset of the training that making
2 mistakes is inevitable and valuable frees participants to take risks,
3 fall down, pick themselves up, and discover their own strengths
4 and those of others. This can create a real sense of community
5 rather than competition. Donna illustrates this development in a
6 reflection made early on in the supervision training:
7
8 I did initially feel some angst around returning to “student” mode
911 and working alongside some others who, unlike me, have been
111 working in supervisory capacities for some time. However, I felt

2 the playing field quickly level and while our existing experiences
3 may have differed, our desire to learn and personally grow and
4 develop was very similar. This realization enabled me to have
confidence to participate more fully than on the first day, where I
5
had felt a little overwhelmed.
6
711
On our courses, tutors work to equalize a potential power
8
imbalance by also offering live supervision demonstrations in front
9
of the group. We face our own fears, expose both our skills and
10
imperfections, and aim to provide a base for participants to move
1
on to their own observed practice sessions by critiquing and
2
commenting on the demonstration.
3
4 In my experience, when this kind of encouraging environment
5 is created, despite participants’ initial fears, the observed skills
6 practice is most consistently identified as being the most beneficial
7 part of the course. Some common forms of this are as follows.
8
9 1. Groups of 3–4 participants plus (or minus) a tutor. Each partici-
211 pant takes a turn being: (a) supervisor, (b) supervisee (bringing
1 a real issue), and (c) observer. The tutor (if present) and
2 observer provide more detailed verbal and written feedback to
3 the supervisor. The supervisor and supervisee offer immediate
4 verbal feedback.
5 The “supervisor” shares their experience, first identifying
6 what went well, and only then identifying what areas they
7 wish to develop further. This is followed by feedback from the
8 supervisee, then the observer(s), then finally the tutor, if
9 present. All are encouraged to give descriptive feedback using
30 specific examples first of what went well, followed by sugges-
1 tions for learning edges there could be for the future.
2 Whenever possible, recording the sessions will offer addi-
3 tional learning opportunities for the participant in the ‘hot’
4 seat of supervisor.
5 2. Interpersonal process recall (Kagan, 1980). This method is most
6 effective for processing and evaluating very recent video or
7 audio recordings of supervision. The participant and a facilita-
8 tor (tutor or peer), jointly review the recording, stopping it as
911 it prompts experiences that could otherwise be forgotten. The
111 facilitator explores further by asking focused lead questions

2 (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004, p. 221).
3 3. The participant provides a recording (and possibly a written
4 transcript) of a supervision session held outside the course,
5 with an accompanying written reflective analysis. Tutor and/
6 or peers look/listen to it and offer their own feedback.
7 4. The Goldfish bowl: two participants work together as super-
8 visor and supervisee in front of whole training group. The
9 tutor facilitates feedback from the “supervisor”, “supervisee”,
10 and group members regarding the supervisor’s work.
1
2 Each course will have their unique emphases for practice.
3 However, there are core skills and processes generic to most super-
4 vision. Wheeler (1999) has created a guide for reflecting on super-
5 vision practice that we have found helpful on our courses (Figure
6 9.1). Although it is unlikely that the whole range of skills described
711 below will be needed in each session, it offers a useful focus for
8 reflection and feedback.
9
20
1 Observation through differing lenses
2
3 Having guidelines about what we want to observe is all very well.
4 The real challenge comes in dealing with the many and varied
511 lenses through which each of us sees the world. From my Adlerian
6 base, I draw on the concept of “private logic” (Ansbacher &
7 Ansbacher, 1956). This refers to our uniquely created and biased
8 perception of self, people, and the world that we created during
9 our early relationships. Most of us continue to use aspects of this
311 “private”, rather than “common”, logic, even if outdated, to guide
1 our movement in our present day life.
2 Despite the inevitability of our biased perceptions, the more
3 encouraged or secure we feel in the relationship with others,
4 whether as an educator or course participant, the less distorted our
5 vision of the world and others will be. Here, there are parallels with
6 Bowlby’s (1988) attachment ideas and “internal working models”,
7 where he suggests that those who have experienced more secure
8 attachments are likely to be more flexible and open in their
911 responses.
111 Creating the relationship

2 1. Is there a contract between the supervisor and supervisee that creates
3 a working alliance?
4 2. Does the supervisee feel comfortable to share vulnerability?
5 3. Is the relationship appropriate to the stage of development of the
6 supervisee?
711 Extending the supervisee’s learning
8 1. Does the supervisor offer a framework for understanding the client?
9 2. Are appropriate suggestions/information given in the session?
3. Does the supervisor offer the supervisee an opportunity to reflect on
10
suggestions––and also the safety to reject them explicitly if they
1 appear inappropriate to the supervisee?
2
Working with personal issues
3
1. Does the supervisor help the supervisee become aware of personal
4 issues emerging in relation to their counselling work?
5 2. Does the supervisor respond to the supervisee’s personal issues
6 appropriately?
7 3. Does the supervisor keep the client in focus for the appropriate
8 proportion of the session?
9 Consultation
211 1. To what extent does the session focus on each of the 7 eyes (Hawkins
1 & Shohet, 2006)?
2. Does the supervisor take account of issues of difference and diver-
2
sity?
3
4 Monitoring professional and ethical issues
1. Does the supervisor recognize the ethical/professional issues in the
5
supervisee’s presentation?
6 2. Does the supervisor respond to the ethical issues appropriately?
7
8 Evaluation
1. Does the supervisor offer the supervisee appropriate feedback? (Use
9
of encouragement and authority.)
30 2. Does the supervisor provide the opportunity for the supervisee to
1 offer feedback about the usefulness of the supervision to him or her?
2 (i.e., is the relationship equal enough?)
3 Administration
4 1. Does the supervisor pick up and work with institutional issues raised,
5 and understand the context in which the counselling takes place?
6 2. Are appropriate boundaries kept in the session?
7
8 Figure 9.1. Guidelines for reflecting on supervisory practice. Adapted from
911 Wheeler (1999).
111 Another essential aspect to address when preparing for the skills
2 practice and feedback process is building more conscious awareness
3 around issues of individual, developmental, and cultural differ-
4 ences between the observed participant, peer observers, and tutor.
5 Where possible, these need to be addressed openly early on. This
6 involves clear and transparent contracting about the process of feed-
7 back and assessment prior to the observed practice that includes
8 clarifying meanings and needs around feedback.
9 This contracting will be further supported by open adherence to
10 a set of ethical values, principles, personal moral qualities, and guid-
1 ance of good practice, such as described in the BACP Ethical
2 Framework (British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy,
3 2002). This can then create a safe meeting point for direct and clear
4 educative feedback.
5
6
711
Feedback as a meeting point
8
9 Feedback is a central activity of supervision. It supports therapeutic
20 competence and safeguards client welfare. As this is such an essen-
1 tial skill, modelling good practice during supervision training is
2 vital. Taught modules related to “giving feedback” are useful; prac-
3 tice, however, is essential. The feedback structures offered as part of
4 the ongoing formative assessment, have, in my experience, made
511
the most impact on participants’ learning.
6
I believe that most of our actions are socially embedded. As such,
7
feedback can be seen as an interaction, or a meeting point between
8
individuals, rather than something that one person gives another.
9
Claiborn and Lichtenberg (1989) have identified feedback in super-
311
vision as an ongoing process between supervisor and supervisee,
1
the quality of the relationship between the two parties being central
2
to the way feedback is received. One-sided feedback in supervision
3
invariably creates a power imbalance. Page and Wosket (2001) have
4
described how, even when the supervisor shares positive comments,
5
if it is only one-sided, this can still become a misuse of power.
6
Equally, if the supervisee or course participant is the only one shar-
7
8 ing their experience, they are left wondering what the other is actu-
911 ally thinking or feeling.
111 Communication of feedback

2
Creating structures for regular feedback between all the course
3
participants as well as the tutors from the very start of the course
4
builds a learning culture. The feedback process then becomes a
5
norm that is not attached to the individual’s whole personhood, but
6
can become a valuable, rather than dreaded, part of their ongoing
711
development.
8
For the observed practices on our training, one tutor stays with
9
a group of four participants throughout the sessions in each
10
module. We aim, as tutors, to demonstrate clear, direct, encourag-
1
ing, and challenging feedback from the outset. We have found the
2
3 participants themselves soon also offer each other feedback that is
4 specific, balanced, and encouraging, including useful challenge. So,
5 as well as offering valuable input to their peers, they are develop-
6 ing the skills of offering encouraging feedback that will be essential
7 to them as supervisors. Hawkins and Shohet’s (2006, p. 134)
8 acronym “CORBS” offers a helpful reminder to the participants of
9 the key principles for giving feedback: it needs to be Clear, Owned,
211 Regular, Balanced, and Specific.
1 Encouragement is a complex process that is much more than
2 simply expressing positives (Millar, 2007), and for this discussion I
3 will touch on one key aspect. Different from praise, encouragement
4 is largely non-evaluative, focusing on what the person is doing,
5 rather than how the person compares with others. Encouragement
6 can be achieved by avoiding the use of adjectival labels such as
7 “good”, “unethical”, “clever”, “non empathic”, and also by keeping
8 in mind the assets and positive intentions of the supervisee.
9 Instead, by using descriptive language and paying particular
30 attention to verbs, feedback offered is very specific, identifying what
1 the course participant has actually been doing, without needing to
2 evaluate it. From this base, the tutor can invite the participant’s
3 thoughts, add their own view, or provide educative information as
4 appropriate. Here respectful use of “signposting: is helpful: e.g.,
5 “I’d like to discuss the ethical issues that may be involved in this
6 situation . . . can we look at this now?” Further space can then be
7 given for two-way discussion with the participant.
8 As an example, here’s a tutor’s feedback to Alan, following a
911 skills practice:
111 Near the end of the session with B, you opened up some valuable
2 exploration about her client’s sexuality that helped identify some
3 issues she hadn’t previously addressed. What seemed harder to
4 work with was B’s feeling of stuckness in the counselling, which
resulted in you also feeling very stuck. I have some thoughts about
5
the dynamics that might be going on here, and possibly how this
6
might be worked with in your future sessions. Would you be inter-
7 ested to explore this further? . . . What do you think about what I’ve
8 said?
9
10 The use of Socratic questions as a form of guided discovery can
1 also help participants focus more deeply on their work, this also
2 keeping a two-way flow of communication.
3 For example: “What do you appreciate about the way you
4 handled that?”
5 “How might you do things differently in future?”
6 “What do you plan to take away from our discussion?”
711 “What has been useful from this feedback?”
8 “What has been less helpful from this feedback?”
9
20
1 Written feedback
2
3 Some education establishments may require the use of grades,
4 ratings, and tick boxes, and these modes of written feedback can
511 lose touch with an interactive feedback process. However, two-way
6 feedback can still take place in written work, particularly when the
7 course participant has also been invited to evaluate their own work
8 and when the feedback principles described above continue to be
9 addressed.
311 The following is an extract taken from a much longer piece of
1 written feedback I shared with Suzanne after listening to a tape of
2 her supervision work and reading her own reflections on the
3 session.
4
Your written reflection demonstrates mature evaluation of the areas
5 that went well and those you want to develop further.
6
7 In the session itself I particularly noted the following:
8 You provided a free space for your supervisee, X, to share her own
911 reflections and feelings on the client.
111 You raised an important point when you asked X about the possi-
2 bility of contacting the psychiatrist.
3 You helped X make a useful link between her early experiences and
4 her experience now with the client.
5
You put forward some key insights about the client that proved
6
very helpful to X, e.g., “being anxious is part of her identity”.
711
8 You drew attention to the need to address the boundary difficulties
9 at the next session.
10 Learning edge: As you suggest, further focused questioning and
1 clarification of X’s experience and inner processes could have
2 enabled greater movement at an earlier stage. There was also a
3 need to explore more openly with X a number of key ethical issues
4 that you had noted, but didn’t feel able to address in the session
itself. It seems that it was hard in this instance to allow your own
5
considerable experience to be expressed here (maybe a parallel with
6
X’s process?). Trusting in your own authority as a supervisor,
7 and voicing it confidently will be an important area of ongoing
8 development.
9
211 Wheeler’s guide was given to students beforehand, and I used
1 it to structure my own observations and reflections on Suzanne’s
2 practice (this extract focuses on the section “extending the super-
3 visee’s learning”). I kept in mind the question “What is happen-
4 ing?”, describing the interventions and intentions I observed.
5 Although I used some evaluative adjectives within the flow, the
6 main focus is on verbs.
7 This process kept me focused on the specifics of her work and
8 process, rather than falling into the trap of evaluating the person. I
9 then noted and shared my thoughts on areas that I believed would
30 be important for her to develop further. Engaging with Suzanne’s
1 written reflections also helped to create a meeting point between us,
2 so that even in written feedback, a two-way process was main-
3 tained.
4
5
6 Receiving feedback
7
8 Being able to receive feedback in a constructive way is a skill in
911 itself. Whether in the role of educator or a course participant, we are
111 likely to experience some form of defensiveness in the face of feed-

2 back, but we can choose what we do with this discomfort. Maybe
3 we experience old feelings of shame and defend ourselves by
4 shrinking and losing our sense of capability, or perhaps we
5 compensate for our feelings of inferiority and become aggressive.
6 Either way, this destroys potential learning and growth. The chal-
7 lenge for us all is to be able to listen openly to the feedback, and
8 identify how, if at all, this might support our future practice.
9 Receiving feedback is far from a passive process. Hawkins and
10 Shohet emphasize that we also have considerable responsibility as
1 “receivers” and offer the following guidelines linked with their
2 acronym “CORBS”:
3
4 ● If necessary ask for the feedback to be more Clear, Owned,
5 Regular, Balanced, or Specific
● Listen to the feedback all the way through without judging it or
6
jumping to a defensive response, both of which can mean that
711
the feedback is misunderstood.
8
● Try not to explain compulsively why you did something or
9 even explain away positive feedback. Try and hear others’ feed-
20 back as their experiences of you. Often it is enough to hear the
1 feedback and say “thank you”.
2 ● Ask for feedback you are not given but would like to hear.
3 [2006, p. 134]
4
511
6
Challenges with giving and receiving feedback
7
8 A bottom line for supervisors is to ensure the well being of the
9 client. When feedback is given ineffectively or the course partici-
311 pant/supervisee is not able to receive it, there is a real danger
1 of poor practice continuing, and this having an impact on the
2 client.
3 When course participants seem unable to learn from feedback,
4 and there is real concern about their readiness to become super-
5 visors, it is often much harder to be direct and clear. This is partic-
6 ularly relevant when the relationship is not well established, or we
7 fear the extremes of our own judgements. To compensate for this,
8 we might push down our deeper concerns, resulting in feedback
911 that comes over as vague, general, or inconsistent. Even more
111 serious is when we give only positive feedback, despite having seri-
2 ous concerns. It is always important to identify course participants’
3 strengths, but, as discussed previously, encouragement is also about
4 enabling personal growth through challenge and confronting the
5 areas for further development.
6 Scaife (2009, p. 325) defines challenge as an invitation to test
711 one’s capabilities to the full, which can then generate new perspec-
8 tives at a cognitive level, and create new options for action. She
9 reminds supervisors that challenging does require them to own
10 their own authority in the role by making requirements clear, using
1 skills of direct communication. Usefully, she invites supervisors to
2 take responsibility for their part of a difficulty in a working alliance:
3 “Since the difficulty is being identified by the supervisor, it is the
4 supervisor who is experiencing the problem and inviting the assis-
5 tance of the supervisee in its solution”.
6 Similarly, in relation to unsatisfactory performance, Scaife (ibid.,
7 p. 328) distinguishes between problematic performance, incompe-
8 tence, and unethical practice by trainees and qualified counsellors.
9 She recommends preference and purpose statements that make the
211 supervisor’s opinions and requirements clear. She is more explicit
1 than most about when and how to fail a supervisee, reminding
2 readers of the importance of record-keeping to ensure fairness.
3 When offering more challenging feedback in supervision, some
4 of Munson’s (2002) suggestions also provide a helpful frame, as
5 follows.
6
7 ● Challenge only in ways that promote personal growth, and
8 that enables the course participant to use the feedback to their
9 own advantage and benefit.
30 ● Focus only on behaviours that you sense can be changed and
1 be specific in the challenge given.
2 ● Offer the challenge as your opinion not a fact.
3 ● Separate your personal feelings about the course participant
4 from the need to challenge.
5 ● Avoid accusatory comments.
6
7 In the following hypothetical example, Daniel has consistently
8 moved into a teaching mode on the supervision practices. His tutor
911 wishes to acknowledge his strengths while also clearly underlining
111 major concerns about his practice that could ultimately result in
2 him not meeting the assessment criteria. Keeping in mind Mun-
3 son’s frame, and using description rather than labelling, she shares
4 the following feedback.
5
6 You have consistently shown well-developed skills in analytic and
7 abstract thinking. These were used to good effect today when you
8 identified possible organizational issues faced by your supervisee,
9 and also in your understanding of psychopathology in terms of the
client’s mental health. Your sincere wish to offer educative support
10
to your supervisee comes over strongly.
1
2 These very skills are also creating difficulties for the supervisory
3 process. During this last practice, you interrupted your supervisee
4 to put forward an explanation of Bowlby’s attachment theory when
5 she was expressing her concern about the client’s suicidal feelings
6 and her non-attendance that week. Your supervisee responded by
711 stopping talking about her concerns, and the discussion moved to
a theoretical exploration of Bowlby’s ideas.
8
9 For your growth as a supervisor, and to meet the criteria to enable
20 completion of this course, it will be essential for you to show
1 further evidence of working with the supervisee’s process. My
2 thoughts are that as a starting point it could be useful for you to
3 review using core listening skills, such as summarizing and reflect-
4 ing as a means to help you hold back from the teaching role, and so
511 focus on the supervisee’s process.
6 What are your thoughts and feelings about what I have said so far?
7 . . . How do you think you could most usefully build on these
8 skills? . . .
9
311 It might be that, despite all apparent efforts, a course participant
1 is still unable to respond well to the feedback process. In this
2 instance, it would be important first to explore whether there is an
3 organizational or systemic issue present. If this does not appear to
4 be the case, then it is unlikely this person is ready to undertake a
5 supervisory role and this needs to be communicated clearly and
6 respectfully. The challenge might be that those who are not able to
7 hear and use feedback to support their progress and development
8 are often bewildered to discover that they have not met the require-
911 ments to complete the course.
111 Conclusion
2
3 Returning to Miller and colleagues’ research, their findings about
4 practitioner excellence indicate good practice in supervision edu-
5 cation. This includes a willingness to engage in repeated and delib-
6 erate practice, alongside effective regular feedback, where mistakes
711 can be freely made and accepted as a basis for learning.
8 If we find ourselves confronting problems with course parti-
9 cipants during their skills development, before finalizing our evalu-
10 ative judgements of the supervisee, it is important first to reassess
1 the feedback processes to ensure that they are not structured in a
2 way that could be contributing to feelings of inequality and in-
3 feriority. To minimize power misuse (often occurring unwittingly)
4 and model effective feedback skills, all supervision courses that
5 offer observed practice need to ensure positive structures and
6 processes are in place from the very beginning. Within a climate of
7 equality and encouragement, course participants are able to take
8 risks, make mistakes, and, most crucially, learn without fear.
9 Learning is enabled when initial baselines are identified, effective
211 skills are spelled out, practice is deliberate, and feedback is focused.
1 A key issue is maintaining motivation and engagement in learning
2 despite uncomfortable moments. When assessors can offer chal-
3 lenge in this spirit, all participants can also feel confident that the
4 final qualification represents a fair and rigorous assessment that has
5 not avoided difficult issues.
6
7
8
9 References
30
Adler, A. (1933). Social Interest: A Challenge to Mankind. New York:
1 Capricorn, 1964.
2 Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (Eds.) (1956). The Individual
3 Psychology of Alfred Adler. New York: Harper & Row.
4 Baldwin, J. http://quoteworld.org/quotes/907 (accessed 9 May 2009).
5 Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2004). Fundamentals of Clinical
6 Supervision (3rd edn). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
7 Bowlby, J. (1988). A Secure Base: Clinical Applications of Attachment
8 Theory. London: Routledge.
911
111 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2002). Ethical

2 Framework For Good Practice in Counselling and Psychotherapy. Rugby:
3 BACP.
4 Claiborn, C. D., & Lichtenberg, J. W. (1989). Interactional counseling.
5 Counseling Psychologist, 17: 355–453.
6 Dreikurs, R. (1970). The courage to be imperfect. In: Articles of
7 Supplementary Readings. Chicago: Alfred Adler Institute.
9 Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Kagan, N. (1980). Influencing human interaction: eighteen years with
10
IPR. In: A. K. Hess (Ed.), Psychotherapy Supervision: Theory, Research
1
and Practice (pp. 262–286). New York: Wiley.
2
Millar, A. (2007). Encouragement and other Es. Therapy Today, 18(2):
3
40–42.
4
Miller, S., Hubble, M., & Duncan, B. (2008). Supershrinks. Therapy
5 Today, 19(1): 4–9.
6 Munson, C. E. (2002). Handbook of Clinical Social Work Supervision (3rd
711 edn). New York: Haworth.
8 Page, S., & Woskett, V. (2001). Supervising the Counsellor: A Cyclical
9 Model (2nd edn). Hove: Brunner Routledge.
20 Scaife, J. (2009). Supervision in Clinical Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide.
2 Wheeler, S. (1999). Criteria for marking taped supervision (34 compe-
3 tencies). Unpublished paper [reproduced with permission].
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER TEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Developing authority from
8
9
the inside out
10
1
2
Penny Henderson
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 “The longest journey is the journey inwards”
1 (Hammarskjöld, 1964, p. 65)
2
3
A
4 uthority is defined in the online dictionary as “the power
5 to enforce laws, exact obedience, command, determine or
6 judge”. The Shorter Oxford Dictionary adds that to be “in
7 authority” is to be “in a position of power or control”. This might
8 imply a legitimate right to exercise control and power over opinion
9 or behaviour. Associated ideas include responsibility, maturity,
30 consistency, and flexibility, influence and autonomy, obedience and
1 oppression.
2 Authority within a supervisory role may arise from expectations
3 linked to status or role, personal charisma, expertise, or rules and
4 regulations. It has a quality of entitlement as well as responsibility,
5 that is, it may be something we have as well as something we take
6 or use. It might be experienced through the “presence” of the super-
7 visor, and demonstrated through reflexive and autonomous prac-
8 tice that has the confidence of self-determination. Think of the
911 people you know, or who are in the public domain, that have
123
111 authority. How do you recognize this? Often confident assertion of

2 a position is part of the impression.
3 It is important for novice supervisors to develop their clarity
4 about what they are responsible for (or not) and to whom they are
5 responsible. I have seen course participants struggle to become
6 engaged in the issues of authority, responsibility, and boundary
7 setting. Some have to overcome blocks arising from bad experi-
8 ences as supervisees. Exhibiting strong aversion to being, or being
9 seen as, oppressive, they confuse being authoritative with being
10 oppressive or authoritarian. Others do behave oppressively, and
1 this has to be named. An example of my feedback to one trainee
2 who was not tuning in to her supervisee went like this:
3
4 Your extensive knowledge of theory, and your stated intention to
be of use led you to interrupt the supervisee frequently . . . There
5
was little evidence of your “being with” him . . . It could be useful
6
to explore your issues about authority and control with someone,
711 and I’d be happy for us to talk some of this through if you like . . .
8 You acknowledge your tendency to be didactic and this limits shar-
9 ing of your own responses within the supervision.
20
1 Learning to take authority includes many significant develop-
2 mental steps for new supervisors of almost all theoretical orienta-
3 tions (Henderson, 2006). Under everyday circumstances, it entails
4 taking initiatives and setting boundaries. Participants on courses can
511 experience the positives of authority, and grasp the relevance of
6 reflection about their own attitudes to power, authority, influence,
7 and control if they experience transparent, contractual, respectful,
8 and collegial relationships within supervisor training. For those who
9 have had experiences of oppressive or insensitive supervision, the
311 shift is immense from seeing the gaze of the supervisor as akin to a
1 Gorgon’s (that freezes thought and kills self-esteem) to that of a nur-
2 turing, boundary-setting care-giver. A supervisor’s reflections are
3 most useful if they mirror existing strengths and potential, and offer
4 encouragement to risk professional development (Millar, 2007).
5 As our course developed, I came to see increased self-awareness
6 and development of an authentic professional style as highly signif-
7 icant to authority. A supervisor has to be willing to consider think-
8 ing of herself as a mature practitioner, as if she were an elder of a
911 tribe or a grandparent (Banks, 2002). In other words, be someone
DEVELOPING AUTHORITY FROM THE INSIDE OUT 125
111 who can hold in mind the needs both of the client and the super-
2 visee, as a grandparent may do with two generations. For some
3 novice supervisors this shift in self-perception emerges slowly.
4 Learning about authority as a supervisor involves lifelong learn-
5 ing from experiences that are often pervaded with tensions. One
6 tension entails staying connected, holding on to empathy and
711 encouragement, without abandoning thinking and standard set-
8 ting. Thus, the supervisor simultaneously holds in mind both the
9 relationship and thoughts about supervisory issues.
10 Another tension lies in conflicts between values, skills, and
1 emotions. Attitudes to conflict or risk taking, for instance, reveal
2 willingness to disagree with a supervisee. Skills of direct commu-
3 nication are required to do so on more emotive or serious matters
4 without impairing the relationship irreparably.
5 Fear of disapproval by the supervisee can also influence what the
6 supervisor says, and how the message is conveyed. People can
7 become tentative and very anxious when they have to deliver bad
8 news, and trainee supervisors benefit from encouragement to be
9 compassionate but direct.
211
1
2 Attitudes and core values
3
4 Shared exploration of the impact of difference and diversity on
5 supervisory work and relationships underpins this topic during
6 training. Being matter of fact about potentially explosive or uncom-
7 fortable issues is essential for exploring differences, whether these
8 are routinely addressed about obvious differences or emerge at a
9 difficult moment in the course of work. Differences in learning
30 styles, culturally and socially biased assumptions, sensitivity to
1 minority concerns, and institutional oppression are relevant, and
2 might pop up during practice or be introduced specifically. Lago
3 and Thompson’s (1997) ideas about triangles of difference and
4 presentation of proxy (acceptable) selves provide one vehicle for
5 thinking about relationships where difference is an issue. Some
6 grasp of processes of internalized oppression and institutional
7 oppression is essential, as being authoritative and taking authority
8 can be experienced or misconstrued as raw and biased oppression,
911 whether or not this is intended.
111 Writers from many different theoretical approaches agree about

2 the nature of a collegial supervisory relationship that will encour-
3 age a supervisee to take equal responsibility for the efficacy of the
4 working alliance. Where a supervisor is dogmatic, didactic, con-
5 frontational, or authoritarian, the supervisee is most likely to
6 become rebellious or passive (Mander, 2002), or offer “spurious
7 compliance” (Rosenblatt & Mayer, 1975). If the supervisor enables
8 the supervisee to feel safe enough to explore experiences, find
9 meanings, and make decisions about his or her work as an autono-
10 mous professional, this facilitation will invite courageous and
1 resourceful reflective practice. The issue of standards and safe prac-
2 tice are central. Wheeler and King’s research (2000, 2001) explores
3 experienced supervisors’ perceptions of their responsibilities.
4 The relevance of empathy and congruence as a base for what
5 Hawkins and Shohet (2006) call the “fearless compassion” of the
6 supervisor becomes clear. It is an interesting and sensitive process
711 to support the development of fearless compassion in course par-
8 ticipants as relatively less experienced colleagues who are taking up
9 a role demanding maturity and confidence when the very experi-
20 ence of being on a course can re-stimulate feelings of conscious
1 incompetence.
2 A productive working alliance works best when goals are
3 aligned through careful contracting, and the supervisor aims to see
4 the world from the supervisee’s point of view. Thus, skill in co-
511 created meanings, interest in the cognitive style and internal work-
6 ing models of the supervisee, and intersubjectivity are crucial.
7 When a supervisee is afraid, overwhelmed, or unduly uncertain,
8 the supervisor offers containment through attuned regulation of
9 arousal. This occurs through identifying and responding to the
311 actual needs of the supervisee, not the needs the supervisor thinks
1 she ought to have, and it is an essential part of the supervisor’s role
2 to monitor the impact of arousal on the work.
3 Safety in supervision is seen as valuable, because this can create
4 a more secure attachment style, even in adulthood, for people inse-
5 curely attached as infants. Secure attachment styles predict flexibil-
6 ity of thought, resilience, and capacity for psychological contact, all
7 of which form a bedrock for professional practice by the supervisee,
8 and a base for the development of their own inner authority within
911 their internal supervisor. Supervisors can also usefully learn that,
111 though their own needs do not take priority in a supervisory rela-
2 tionship, they must be considered if it is to be mutually enjoyable
3 and engaging.
4
5
6 Self-awareness
711
8 Reflection about individual responses when anxious or feeling
9 under threat, and ideas about consequences of different attachment
10 or cognitive styles can develop through observed practice. Capacity
1 for “thoughtful delays” (Pryor, 1989) and interest in “blind, deaf,
2 and dumb spots” (Ekstein, 1969) become more obvious through
3 observing peers, and through discussion of some contentious ethi-
4 cal dilemmas.
5 Inskipp and Proctor (2003, p. 15) remind us of the importance of
6 self-belief in relation to leadership and authority as a supervisor.
7 This springs from self-knowledge and self-acceptance, and confi-
8 dence in our own judgement. They note the associated need to
9 “exercise systemic power appropriately, elegantly and firmly”, with
211 “the humility to recognise that power is limited by the counsellor’s
1 consent, and the skill of your support and challenge”.
2 They add:
3
Supervisors in training find it quite hard to give themselves permis-
4
sion to:
5
6 ● Own their own professional judgement of others
7 ● Contest values, assumptions and even perceptions
8 ● Invade the established ideas and standards of another, even
9 within the boundaries of an agreed contract.
30 They assert that it is the right and responsibility of the supervisor
1 to develop these permissions and abilities. [ibid., p. 19]
2
3 Discussions can explore the generic personal aims of each par-
4 ticipant’s behavioural style (e.g., belonging, significance, comfort,
5 control) when feeling under threat or anxious. Similarly, styles of
6 conflict that prioritize the relationship or the task are pertinent to the
7 supervisor and authority. The connections between management of
8 supervisor anxiety and clarity about responsibility can be made.
911 Willingness to stand up and be counted or not can be discussed.
111 Style differences may emerge and be composed of the cultural,

2 learning, cognitive, or attachment styles of each person. For the
3 new supervisor, it takes time to develop a personal supervisory
4 style, and to discover how this is affected and influenced by the
5 relationship with each different supervisee. Practice on a course
6 with peers can reveal the impact of a good or a difficult match, and
7 the different demands of bonding with another whose style fits
8 easily with one’s own, as opposed to bridging between styles that
9 form less straightforward working alliances (Henderson, 2009).
10 Learning to repair ruptures and rebuild relationships with peers
1 might become necessary when there are any tensions within the
2 course group, or in supervisory experiences. “It’s not what we do,
3 it is what we do next that is important” is a stance that conveys the
4 inevitability of being imperfect as a supervisor, and a willingness to
5 engage in repair, taking responsibility for any contributions to the
6 difficulty without self-justification. The novice supervisor can
711 become aware of the impact on others of habitual styles of response
8 (e.g., aggressive, assertive, passive, or compliant) and develop
9 motivation to increase appropriate responses and reduce inappro-
20 priate ones. Discussion may identify circumstances when it is
1 necessary to “take a stand” with a supervisee, and, paradoxically,
2 the possibility that a trusting and collegial relationship is already
3 impaired if “taking a stand” is considered the necessary option
4 rather than commenting and “being who you are”.
511 Any supervisor, intentionally or inadvertently, is a model for the
6 supervisee about ways of relating. It is useful to become aware,
7 possibly through recording and reviewing sessions, of the interac-
8 tions the supervisor most typically initiates or avoids, and how far
9 these are facilitative or controlling. Heron’s six-category interven-
311 tion analysis (1975) provides one framework for observation here.
1 Self-awareness exercises have a place in supervision courses to
2 add to participants’ prior experience of personal development
3 groups or therapy. For example, Peluso’s “ethical genogram” (2003)
4 identifies some sources of professional moral values and decision-
5 making styles in experiences of early family life. Luft and Ingham’s
6 (1955) Johari window invites a four-option reflection about self-
7 awareness, others’ feedback, matters considered too private or
8 shameful to share, and elements of the self not yet known to the self
911 or observers. Any such tools can be used privately in advance, and
111 the results of the reflection can be shared in a discussion. Thus,

2 some origins of attitudes to ethical knots or practice difficulties,
3 dependence, or idealization by a supervisee can be brought to
4 consciousness and explored. Creative writing (Sugg, 2008) and
5 reflective practice writing (Bolton, 2001) also have a marked contri-
6 bution to make to professional development.
711
8
9 Emotional learning: the place of emotion
10 in supervisory training
1
2 The introduction of some emotionally charged material is useful as
3 a means to explore issues of authority, given the emotive nature of
4 the topic. Emotional and experiential sessions provide a vehicle for
5 people to identify and address the luggage of difficult prior experi-
6 ences, or attitudinal blocks to engagement with the issues. This
7 provides an integrative experience that adds to cognitive develop-
8 ment about philosophical and moral thinking that a lecture cannot
9 offer so richly. The process might stir some useful discomfort from
211 increased awareness of difficulties in personal style. It could make
1 the potentially dry process of grasping ethical and legal bases more
2 juicy and memorable.
3 The process of doing experiential work respectfully always
4 requires transparent instructions, attention to ground rules, explicit
5 permissions to withdraw if engagement is inappropriate, enough
6 time to process emotions or discuss difference in the course group,
7 and clarity about confidentiality about material disclosed at each
8 stage of the process. This should all be familiar to participants from
9 Diploma training as counsellors, but there may be more to lose and
30 potential feelings of exposure for these experienced practitioners.
1 A number of ethical problem-solving schemas are available and
2 are a useful resource for sessions aiming to provide tools for a
3 working supervisor faced with an ethical dilemma. Carroll’s (1996)
4 four-step process, or the British Association for Counselling and
5 Psychotherapy’s Information Sheet P4 (2004) can be used and
6 applied to discussion of scenarios to assist participants feel more
7 confident about routines for reflection about difficult issues. They
8 might also reveal underlying emotions and values generated by,
911 and influencing responses to, the process.
111 Principles, like lighthouses, give us bearings in stormy seas, and

2 a mature reflective practitioner has to exercise flexibility and caution
3 with awareness of hazards as she negotiates the rocks of conflicting
4 ethical imperatives. Our course has found that even experienced
5 practitioners do not routinely refer to an ethical framework or confi-
6 dently identify relevant ethical principles (see BACP, 2005).
7
8
9 Responding to projections, expectations, and resistance
10 Any asymmetric relationship, particularly one where the “elder”
1 partner has the power to influence future work or qualifications,
2 will be affected by each party’s attitudes to power and authority.
3 Being authoritative, paradoxically, may involve the supervisor not
4 accepting some supervisees’ projections about authority and omni-
5 science in order to contribute to the development of the supervisee
6 as an autonomous practitioner. An exercise to explore projections
711 (Inskipp, 1999, pp. 194–196) distinguishes and shares in exagger-
8 ated form what each party wants from supervision, and what they
9 think ought to happen. Such negotiation of psychological elements
20 of contracts builds trust about expectations, hopes, and fears for a
1 new supervisory relationship.
2 Supervisory styles around issues of authority are highly influ-
3 enced by gender assumptions and styles, as well as cultural gender
4 norms. Each supervisor has to integrate their own inner masculine
511 and feminine strengths, curb the associated weaknesses, and notice
6 their response styles to supervisees of the same and opposite
7 gender. It is useful to talk about previous experiences of super-
8 vision and what went well or badly, because it can reveal assump-
9 tions about what constitutes a safe and productive relationship.
311 Issues of inferiority, shame, guilt, and humiliation create a
1 related topic of significance in relation to authority, and a super-
2 visor has to learn to notice when any of these responses is affecting
3 her approach—or the supervisee’s—to their supervisory relation-
4 ship. Good intentions about being responsible and ethical can be
5 articulated in an anxious way that creates shame and fear in the
6 supervisee. Good intentions need to be supplemented by monitor-
7 ing of outcomes and requests for feedback about process.
8 Projections from the supervisee about wisdom, experience, and
911 expertise may require a degree of acceptance. Yet, the supervisee can
111 also be made aware that the supervisor has to tolerate ambiguity
2 and “not knowing”. Novice supervisors may find both idealization
3 and uncertainty difficult at first, though it is only human to be
4 seduced into narcissistic delight by positive feedback from super-
5 visees. It takes time for each novice supervisor to recognize their
6 unique mix of strengths and weaknesses, and that everyone has a
711 bad day occasionally, and can feel incompetent or inadequate with-
8 out abandoning the role altogether.
9
10
1 Roles, responsibilities, and frameworks for thought
2
3 There may be different expectations of responsibility held by the
4 supervisor, the supervisee, and an employer. Triadic relationships
5 demand many possible foci of supervision, and require the partici-
6 pants to choose between options, each potentially almost equally
7 productive. Exploration of these themes during training normalizes
8 the reality of a supervisor’s influence, for good or ill, on the setting
9 up and sustenance of the working alliance with the supervisee and
211 any organization of which they are a part (Hawkins & Shohet, 2006;
1 Inskipp & Proctor, 2001, 2003).
2 Achieving some coherence in the midst of complexity is essential
3 for supervisors. It takes practice and courage to hold and recall
4 detailed material and multi-layered narratives. Models of super-
5 vision, such as the Hawkins and Shohet “seven-eyed model” (2006),
6 or Page and Wosket’s cyclical model (2001), offer frameworks for
7 thought that new supervisors can use to remind them of options and
8 choice points when they feel stuck or overwhelmed. Hawkins and
9 Shohet, for instance, indicate arenas for authority issues. When the
30 supervisor listens to details about the client’s story she may also
1 consider whether this client is within the experience and compe-
2 tence of the supervisee, especially of a trainee. Interventions and the
3 relationship with the client offer possibilities for encouragement or
4 advice, or for debating appropriateness of behaviour. Shadow issues
5 may arise in relation to the internal response of the counsellor or
6 supervisor to the material being discussed. The supervisory rela-
7 tionship could be tense when assessment of a supervisee who is a
8 trainee is problematic. The supervisor might be a representative of
911 systems or might need to address shadow sides of the organization
111 in which the counselling or supervision takes place. A mistake or

2 ethically inappropriate practice requires discussion.
3 As Tudor and Worrall (2004) remind us, a developmental
4 element of the role is to support the supervisee to create and sustain
5 an internal locus of evaluation and develop the capacity of the
6 internal supervisor. It is a fundamental element of the role to focus
7 on the development of the supervisee as well as the client.
8 Because of unconscious processes, exploration of parallel
9 process helps to explore crucial matters that are out of awareness of
10 the supervisee. Parallel process can feel like “magical” intuition to
1 the supervisee, and increase a sense of being manipulated or out of
2 control if not sensitively managed. In the interests of discovery of
3 parallel process, a supervisor may usefully be more overt in self-
4 disclosure. She will often reveal more detail about her thought
5 processes or responses as she “muses aloud” and wrestles with
6 complex issues than when she is working as a counsellor. Learning
711 to share hypotheses or reactions overtly, rather than just thinking
8 them, is part of taking the role.
9
20
1 Skills
2
3 The skills of contracting for focus, inviting reflection, speaking
4 about uncomfortable matters in the relationship, and explicitly
511 naming concerns about practice or understanding, rely on generic
6 communication skills familiar to most counsellors. Novice super-
7 visors need to learn to use them more often, or in a timely way, and
8 to feel entitled to offer their own perspective or experience. Skills
9 may include a mix of Socratic questioning and making some direct
311 suggestions; offering affirming feedback about successful interven-
1 tions, and suggestions for different approaches. Supervisors need to
2 encourage the supervisee in “thought experiments” to consider
3 alternative approaches that might improve outcomes with a client.
4 Management of the session entails more use of summarizing and
5 signposting than might be normal for most counselling.
6 Novice supervisors might hold back from using these skills for
7 fear of seeming unduly controlling or oppressive. Timing is impor-
8 tant. A new supervisor may hope and intend that the supervisee
911 will come to her own understanding about behaviour she should
111 change. She may avoid making comments for fear of being hurt-
2 ful. She might feel impolite if being too explicit about gaps or
3 misunderstandings in grasping a situation. She could dread the
4 discomforts or potential impact of speaking what it is difficult to
5 speak. Good timing is based on subtle decisions. Generally, it is
6 better for supervisees to discover solutions to developmental or
711 practice dilemmas for themselves. Sometimes, however, it becomes
8 essential, when a supervisee is avoiding an issue, promising to
9 make changes and prevaricating or procrastinating, or engaged in
10 poor practice or malpractice without being willing to change the
1 behaviour or consider the impact on the client, to put this on the
2 agenda, or insist on discussing something uncomfortable. It takes
3 practice to judge how long to bide your time, and when it is desir-
4 able or essential to intervene, and requires trust in the process
5 backed by awareness of patterns of avoidance. Particularly when a
6 supervisee tests the relationship or disputes the authority of the
7 supervisor, skills of direct communication are essential. The super-
8 visor has to be able to withstand attacks, and sustain a compas-
9 sionate acceptance of any of her own unresolved narcissistic needs
211 that are being upset in the process.
1
2
3 Working one-to-one or in groups
4
5 Training for group supervision is more fully discussed in Chapter
6 Thirteen. In this context, however, it is important to note how
7 greatly the complexities increase in relation to understanding and
8 managing authority as a supervisor, and creating and sustaining a
9 working alliance with a number of people simultaneously. The twin
30 tasks of building and maintaining the group and managing the
1 prioritizing of the tasks of supervision work create many choices.
2 The supervisor is likely to have a more active interventionist role to
3 engage with disparate individuals than in one-to-one supervision.
4 There is more competition for time and attention. There are complex
5 group dynamics to work with. The supervisor may need more
6 actively to facilitate process and reflection. With greater activity
7 comes all the risks of being misconstrued as the supervisor engages
8 with implicit or explicit rivalries, or different ways of using the
911 space and responding to others’ work. There are choices: does the
111 supervisor name an issue or hold back, allow diversions, or remind

2 the group about agreements, teach, or invite others to reflect? These
3 all need confidence, a worked out sense of entitlement to occupy
4 the role for the general good, and understanding of group work
5 and models of group process.
6
7
8 Authority and work with trainees
9
10 Supervision must respond to the unique experience, resilience, and
1 level of development of any counsellor, and most particularly of a
2 trainee. More authoritative roles in assessment and feedback
3 pervade this working relationship. Supervisees’ dependence has to
4 be acknowledged and accepted without prolonging it as their expe-
5 rience increases. As Crick notes (1991), her learning was greatly
6 increased as a trainee psychotherapist because she noticed the
711 supervisor’s style change in response to her increasing skilfulness.
8 A training course that emphasizes collegiality and mutual respect
9 within supervisory relationships can invite participants to consider
20 their archaic habits of response when feelings of competition arise
1 about who is right, or whose ideas should count within super-
2 vision. A trusting and egalitarian supervisory relationship has to
3 find the balance of support and challenge that suits both the devel-
4 opmental stage and personality of the supervisee. The supervisor
511 earns the right to challenge by also being supportive, direct, encour-
6 aging, and interested. If such invitations are offered in a matter-of-
7 fact descriptive way, within an agreed contract for development,
8 the discomfort or shame of not knowing or getting it wrong can
9 more easily be borne.
311 Supervisors play a significant role for trainee counsellors. It is in
1 supervision that trainees have a timely opportunity to integrate
2 theory and practice. It is here that the supervisor can help super-
3 visees to take the sting out of difficult initial experiences with
4 clients and feelings of inadequacy, and turn discouragement or
5 shame into learning opportunities. This focus requires the super-
6 visor to be clear about the boundary between restorative or thera-
7 peutic work within supervision, and therapy. If the trainee
8 counsellor brings recordings, or is observed while working, feed-
911 back can be specific and immediate. Practical ethical issues, such as
111 around touch in therapy, sexual attraction, or responding to a client

2 as “special”, can be considered.
3 The regular frame of supervision offers some security, and helps
4 the trainee counsellor to cope with feeling unsure what to do,
5 knowing that there is a predictable space for supported reflection.
6 To this space the supervisee may bring any preoccupation with
711 fears of doing harm, and, if it is safe enough, any concerns about
8 not doing well enough to pass the course. Regular, clear, encourag-
9 ing feedback thus serves to inform the trainee about her progress,
10 stagnation, or development, ideally in relation to explicit and trans-
1 parent standards. Trainees also learn about boundaries here, too:
2 boundaries between therapy and the restorative function of super-
3 vision, boundaries about confidentiality, dual roles, self-disclosure,
4 and other challenges of practice.
5 A supervisor training course that does not address what is unique
6 about work with practitioners at the trainee stage misses crucial
7 opportunities to reflect on related issues of power, authority, feed-
8 back, attention to the context, contracting, and creating a facilitative
9 balance between support and challenge. The supervisor-in-training
211 who works with trainee counsellors has to engage with working
1 within organizational contexts, often voluntary ones, and create con-
2 tracts with all who are involved so that expectations are explicit.
3 Usually, a supervisor relates only to the training course, or only to a
4 placement (but see Herrick, 2007). If there are difficulties, liaison may
5 be necessary with them both, and the supervisor has to learn to hold
6 the needs of client, supervisee, placement, and course in mind.
7 Stewart (2002, pp. 111–114) describes this as like a Rubik’s cube, com-
8 bining many defined roles and fluctuating identifications with each.
9 These processes of liaison entail walking the fine line between not
30 disclosing unnecessary detail from the confidential supervisory rela-
1 tionship while reporting back as required in relation to assessment
2 reports or alerts to the organization about serious concerns about
3 practice or suitability for the work and role. Client welfare is a cen-
4 tral component of trainee supervision (Page & Wosket, 2001, p. 10).
5 “Serving two masters” as a supervisor of a trainee could entail
6 a search for clarity about the curriculum and course expectations,
7 confirmation of expectations for assessment reports, or for liaison
8 from the supervisor, and understanding what is expected of the
911 supervisee to pass the course. Not all courses offer these details,
111 and supervisors need to be clear about the necessity to ask when
2 invited to take on the work.
3 Supervisors who work with trainees have to learn assessment
4 skills. These include observation, use of pro-formas created by col-
5 leagues or course tutors, and how to approach discussion of devel-
6 opmental issues and write reports and references, all calling on skills
7 of direct communication. For some, these skills are easily transferred
8 from other work roles. For others, the responsibility and approach
9 are new. Most particularly, the supervisor has to help the trainee and
10 the course to identify any significant problems in a supervisee’s pro-
1 fessional development, and assess the likelihood that the trainee will
2 meet required practice standards within the period of training. This
3 calls for regular reviews and communication about assessment cri-
4 teria, even though it can be difficult and uncomfortable to raise the
5 issue with someone who is sensitive or defensive. These are the very
6 people who most need this feedback, and need it to be done clearly
711 and respectfully. Most supervisors work at some point with some-
8 one whom it is apparent should not have passed an initial training.
9 They might need more theoretical underpinning, more practice, or
20 simply be unsuitable for the role. Brear, Dorrian, and Luscri (2008)
1 suggest that course gatekeepers most frequently identify intraper-
2 sonal and interpersonal difficulties as reasons for failing students on
3 counsellor training courses. In my view, it is when surprising critical
4 feedback is given about such personal matters that recipients can feel
511 most attacked, and the impact on self-esteem, and even a sense of
6 identity, can be profound. Clarity about what is expected and what
7 constitutes a shortfall is humane and necessary for all parties, and
8 most usefully is offered as a basis for identifying developmental
9 steps where that is considered likely to result in future success.
311 Failing a trainee through supervision can be traumatic for both the
1 supervisor and supervisee (Samec, 1995), but supervisors have to
2 develop a capacity to undertake this difficult task.
3 Here, there is no argument that the supervisor holds some
4 crucial power, and this can be open to misuse by a supervisor
5 who fails to convey difficult messages humanely: supervisors
6 may demonstrate “rating inconsistency”, as some are consistently
7 lenient, others have unrealistically high standards (Robiner,
8 Furman, & Ristvedt, 1993). Supervisees who are trainee counsellors
911 might respond defensively when given a message that their practice
111 or personal development means they may not pass the course. It is
2 only human to prefer a defensive strategy under such circum-
3 stances, and to limit the amount of honesty about mistakes. Game-
4 playing can then characterize the supervision in very unhealthy
5 ways that impede the development of the trainee. Novice super-
6 visors need to learn how to identify and comment on such games.
711 Supervisors, thus, have to develop a supervisory style that is
8 encouraging without eschewing necessary comments about devel-
9 opment, is authoritative without being oppressive, exercises feed-
10 back skills sensitively but clearly, and holds in mind the service to
1 the client. These are core and generic skills, yet are writ large in
2 work with colleagues who are new to a helping role.
3 It is very common for inexperienced supervisors to supervise
4 trainee counsellors. Stoltenberg and Delworth (see Hawkins and
5 Shohet, 2006, p. 75) suggest that it is hard for a novice supervisor to
6 supervise practitioners beyond this level, and they need good super-
7 vision of supervision to do it. Because trainee supervisors some-
8 times offer lower fees while they are in training, this may attract
9 trainees. As they are closer to the experience of training as a coun-
211 sellor by virtue of being on a course, there could be benefits in
1 empathy and understanding about working within a professionally
2 developing practice. There may be more understanding about the
3 life pressures of working while studying and completing assign-
4 ments, and coping with family or other responsibilities. However,
5 there is a lot to think about, and competing interests to juggle. It is
6 an opportunity also to consider the personal needs of the super-
7 visor: few courses pay external supervisors to attend course meet-
8 ings, for example, and some self-employed practitioners find this
9 significantly financially deleterious. Others yearn for any contact,
30 and seek more connection with the course.
1 Novice supervisors benefit from opportunities to begin consid-
2 ering the issues that arise when supervisees are at an “adolescent”
3 stage, such as some trainees when near graduation. The supervisor
4 has to be able to respond generously and yet hold clear boundaries
5 at this time. Granello (1996) found that the bulk of cognitive devel-
6 opment occurs between the mid point and end of training, once a
7 trainee is having supervision. Many opportunities to practise being
8 authoritative can arise in relation to placement or course super-
911 vision, together with ethical challenges about confidentiality.
111 Working with “green L plate” or newly qualified counsellors

2
3 Skovholt and Ronnestad (1992) noted that most development of
4 cognitive complexity in counsellors occurs after formal training.
5 These supervisees may swing between feeling very confident one
6 moment and unsure the next, and still need feedback. The balance
7 of support and challenge shifts too, though sometimes the newly
8 qualified practitioner becomes anxious once more without the
9 support of a course or placement behind them. If the supervisee is
10 in independent practice, the supervisor can usefully encourage
1 explicit clarity about practice pragmatics, such as the supervisee’s
2 access to medical or psychiatric consultation if necessary, and
3 arrangements for care of clients via “therapeutic wills” in case of
4 the supervisee’s sudden illness or death.
5 Priorities within supervision change, although development
6 implies neither inadequacy in less qualified supervisees, nor more
711 perceptivity in the person of the supervisor. Feelings of superiority
8 and inferiority are common, but not always inevitable, despite real
9 power imbalances arising from role difference.
20
1
2 How stages of development can be addressed
3 within a training course
4
511 The course, then, can provide conceptual maps about development,
6 while reminding participants that maps are not the territory, and
7 every supervisee is unique. It can refer participants to ideas and
8 research about cognitive and professional development. Crucially,
9 the course can identify difference in learning styles and sensitivity
311 to equality issues. It can offer empathy exercises that tune partici-
1 pants back into memories of seeing clients for the first time, or
2 going for early supervisions, and, by sharing these, remind the
3 group about the variety there is in development, and the resources
4 practitioners have at every stage. There are choices and choice
5 points to discover, such as when to teach directly and when to wait
6 for the supervisee to discover resources within her own frame of
7 reference. It can aid reflection about participants’ development and
8 use of supervision, and what supported this. It can explore roles,
911 skills, and how to co-create a collegial culture with trainees and
111 how that might differ with more experienced colleagues. It can
2 explore feelings about taking authority, and issues of rivalry or
3 oppression.
4
5
6 Concluding comments
711
8 Being authoritative and exercising supervisory authority is poten-
9 tially enabling, sometimes uncomfortable, and an issue for all
10 supervisors.
1 This chapter indicates that, although ideas and skills are
2 absolutely central to this topic, it is personal awareness and reflec-
3 tion about style and outcomes that underpin these essential devel-
4 opmental steps.
5
6
7
References
8
9
Banks, M. (2002). The transition from therapist to supervisor. In:
211
C. Driver & E. Martin (Eds.), Supervising Psychotherapy (pp. 23–37).
1 London: Sage.
2 Bolton, G. (2001). Reflective Practice: Writing and Professional Development
3 (2nd edn 2005). London: Sage.
4 Brear, P., Dorrian, J., & Luscri, G. (2008). Preparing our future counsel-
5 ing professionals: gatekeeping and the implications for research.
6 Counselling and Psychotherapy Research, 8(2): 93–101.
7 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2004). Inform-
8 ation Sheet P4: Guidance for Ethical Decision making: A Suggested Model
9 for Practitioners. Lutterworth: BACP.
30 British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy (2005). DG10:
1 The Ethical Framework for Good Practice in Counselling and Psycho-
2 therapy within the NHS. Lutterworth: BACP.
4 London: Cassells.
5 Crick, P. (1991). Good supervision: on the experience of being super-
6 vised. Psychoanalytic Psychotherapy, 5(3): 235–245.
7 Ekstein, R. (1969). Concerning the teaching and learning of psycho-
8 analysis. The Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 17(2):
911 312–332.
111 Granello, D. H. (1996). Gender and power in the supervisory dyad.

2 Clinical Supervisor, 14(2): 53–67.
3 Hammarskjöld, D. (1964). Accessed through www.quotationspage.
4 com/quote/31292.html
6 Buckingham: Open University Press.
7 Henderson, P. (2006). Learning to take supervisory authority. In:
8 P. Prina, A. Millar, C. Shelley & K. John (Eds.), UK Adlerian Year
9 Book 2006 (pp. 40–49). London: Adlerian Society and the Institute for
10 Individual Psychology.
1 Henderson, P. (2009) A Different Wisdom: Reflections on Supervision
2 Practice. London: Karnac.
3 Herrick, J. (2007). Placements: support of confusion? Therapy Today,
18(1): 42–44.
4
Heron, J. (1975). Six Category Intervention Analysis. Guildford:
5
University of Surrey.
6
Inskipp, F. (1999). Training supervisees to use supervision. In:
711
E. Holloway & M. Carroll (Eds.), Training Counselling Supervisors
8
(pp. 184–210). London: Sage.
9
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2001). Making the Most of Supervision (2nd
20
edn). Twickenham: Cascade.
1
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (2003). Becoming a Supervisor (2nd edn).
3 Lago, C., & Thompson, J. (1997). The triangle with curved sides: sensi-
4 tivity to issues of race and culture in supervision. In: G. Shipton
511 (Ed.), Supervision of Counselling and Psychotherapy: Making a Space to
6 Think (pp. 119–130). Buckingham: Open University Press.
7 Luft, J., & Ingham, H. (1955). The Johari window, a graphic model of
8 interpersonal awareness. Proceedings of the Western Training Labora-
9 tory in Group Development. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA.
311 Mander, G. (2002). Supervising short-term psychodynamic work. In:
1 C. Driver & E. Martin (Eds.), Supervising Psychotherapy: Psycho-
2 analytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives (pp. 97–105). London: Sage.
3 Millar, A. (2007). The essential Es. Therapy Today, March.
6 Peluso, P. R. (2003). The ethical genogram: a tool for helping therapists
7 understand their ethical decision making styles. The Family Journal,
8 14(3): 286–291.
911
111 Pryor, R. G. L. (1989). Conflicting responsibilities: a case study of an

2 ethical dilemma for psychologists working in organisations.
3 Australian Psychologist, 24: 293–305.
4 Robiner, W. N., Furman, M., & Ristvedt, S. (1993). Evaluation difficul-
5 ties in supervising psychology interns. Clinical Psychologist, 46: 3–13.
6 Rosenblatt, A., & Mayer, J. E. (1975). Objectionable supervisory styles:
711 student’s views. Social Work, May: 184–189.
8 Samec, J. R. (1995). Shame, guilt and trauma: failing the psychotherapy
candidate’s clinical work. The Clinical Supervisor, 13(2): 1–17.
9
Skovholt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (1992). Themes in therapist and
10
counsellor development. Journal of Counselling and Development, 70:
1
505–515.
2
Stewart, J. (2002). The container and the contained: supervision and
3
organisational context. In: C. Driver and E. Martin (Eds.), Super-
4
vising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives
5 (pp. 106–120). London: Sage.
6 Sugg, S. (2008). Creative writing––a tool for developing the reflective/
7 reflexive practitioner? Therapy Today, 19(1): 37–39.
8 Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (Eds.) (2004). Freedom to Practise. Ross-on-Wye:
9 PCCS Books.
211 Wheeler, S., & King, D. (2000). Do counselling supervisors want or need
1 to have their supervision supervised? An exploratory study. British
2 Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 28(2): 279–290.
3 Wheeler, S., & King, D. (Eds.) (2001). Supervising Counsellors: Issues of
4 Responsibility. London: Sage.
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER ELEVEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 The impact of the organization:
8
9
the primary care context
10
1
2
Antonia Murphy
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction
1
I
2 t is generally agreed that clinical supervision is one of the essen-
3 tial bedrocks of counselling training and ongoing work. In this
4 chapter, I consider particularly supervision of counselling prac-
5 tice in an organizational setting.
6 The contention of this chapter is threefold:
7 1. The supervisory relationship is essential to help the counsellor
8 who works in any organisation to manage the complexities of
9 the setting.
30 2. Such a supervisory process is crucial to developing an ability
1 to understand and integrate the context into further and neces-
2 sary illumination of the clinical work. In other words, super-
3 visors of counsellors working in an organization need to attend
4 to organizational as well as clinical aspects.
5 3. Supervisors working with counsellors within organizations
6 themselves need specialist training and/or experience of the
7 organizational setting in order to take an intersubjective
8 approach to the relational dynamics in the setting that then
911 informs the work.
143
111 The specific organizational context I want to consider is that of the

2 National Health Service (NHS) and, in particular, primary care.
3
4
5 The primary care setting
6
7 The talking therapies—counselling and psychotherapy—have
8 become established in NHS primary care over the past ten years,
9 alongside existing psychotherapeutic provision within specialist
10 secondary psychotherapy and psychology departments and generic
1 community mental health teams. There is, of course, continuing
2 debate about the place of the psychological therapies, particularly
3 primary care counselling, in relation to the treatment of mental
4 health difficulties. Questions are raised as to the validity of such
5 approaches and whether such therapies should be standard fare
6 within general practice. Initiatives within the “Improving Access to
711 Psychological Therapies” (IAPT) project have also raised questions
8 concerning the evidence-based paradigm against which health
9 treatment is measured, and have sponsored the use of
20 cognitive–behavioural methods within this setting. At the same
1 time, the government is concerned to give mental health a much
2 greater priority. Its 1999 National Service Framework states that:
3
Most people with mental health problems are cared for by their GP
4
and the primary care team. This is what most patients prefer . . .
511
generally for every one hundred individuals who consult their GP
6 with a mental health problem, nine will be referred to specialist
7 services.
8
9 It is against this highly charged and ever changing background
311 that primary care counsellors undertake their work, and this is the
1 “frame” within which supervision of this work is undertaken. The
2 context and environment of primary care is a complex one. The
3 medical and biophysical culture of the NHS has an impact on the
4 psychotherapeutic practitioners who work in this setting and on
5 how the therapy is undertaken. There is so much that is tantalizing
6 and intrusive in the external environment of general practice. There
7 is also a great deal that is helpful.
8 Psychotherapeutic practice and medical practice sometimes
911 make very strange bedfellows, the former generating self-awareness
THE IMPACT OF THE ORGANIZATION 145
111 and ultimately self-responsibility (“working with” the patient) and

2 the latter often offering expert help and generating dependency
3 (“doing to” the patient). Furthermore, it becomes apparent when
4 working in a primary care team that there are very crucial relation-
5 ships within the team that impinge significantly on the therapeutic
6 work. Counsellors are not working solely within a dyadic therapeu-
711 tic relationship in which all transference interpretations can be
8 understood in terms of the therapeutic pair, but within a complex
9 web of relationships which, at best, is a threesome (GP, patient, and
10 therapist) and at most a group. Lees reminds us (1997) that the
1 patient may have “ubiquitous transference” to the whole primary
2 care setting, which can help or hinder the unique relationship
3 between counsellor and patient, depending on patient feelings
4 about the other practitioners there.
5 For these reasons, the supervisory work must bear in mind the
6 impact and relevance of all the dimensions, unconscious and
7 conscious, in play in this setting. Such a complex set of dynamic
8 relationships and clashing paradigms of necessity affects therapeu-
9 tic work in primary care and it is this multi-layered confection that
211 the primary care counsellor brings to supervision. The supervisor
1 needs to approach the work with an understanding of the organi-
2 zational dynamics, an eye on the multiple transference relation-
3 ships, and the many-layered defences that can be played out within
4 the setting and the team. Each surgery also has its own unique
5 culture and administrative systems.
6
7
8 Complex relationships
9
30 The counsellor and, hence, supervisor in primary care are working
1 within a set of dynamics which concerns itself not just with the
2 counsellor–patient dyad, but with a whole team of medical and
3 administrative colleagues. Within this system lies a network of
4 transference and countertransference possibilities. Thus, taking an
5 intersubjective approach, primary care supervision is potentially
6 concerned with any number of the following dyads:
7
8 ● the client–counsellor;
911 ● the patient (client)–practice;
111 ● the counsellor–practice (organization);

2 ● the supervisee (counsellor)–supervisor;
3 ● the supervisor–client;
4 ● the supervisor–practice (organization).
5
6 From this, there follows the potential for triads. As Stewart states,
7
8 The patient, counsellor and supervisor all develop transferences
9 towards the organisation and its members, which have to be under-
10 stood and worked with. The GP/Counsellor/Patient and the
Patient/Counsellor/Supervisor matrices both form an oedipal
1
triangle—a three person relationship . . . the psychic realities of all
2
those involved in the work with the patient come together in a
3 complex supervisory picture . . . understanding how these dyna-
4 mics are played out in the setting and in supervision facilitates
5 analysis and management of both the setting and the work. [2004,
6 p. 358]
711
8 Thus, the supervisor of the counsellor working in this setting is
9 required to establish and work within the usual supervisory frame,
20 thinking with their supervisees about all aspects of the work, but
1 also to have the capacity to think about the meta-dynamics, too. In
2 the NHS, the transference of the patient is commonly affected by
3 the patient’s prior and ongoing relationship to the GP/surgery.
4 Also, where GP and therapist are both involved with the patient,
511 important mechanisms can be invoked in ways that are often hard
6 to understand, sometimes unexpected and, of course, more often
7 unconscious. The supervisor and counsellor have the task of think-
8 ing about, containing, and managing this. They need to be able to
9 maintain a capacity to think about the organizational dynamics of
311 which they themselves are a part, with reference to the therapeutic
1 work. At the same time, the supervisory relationship itself is subject
2 to the fluxes and challenges of the setting, and unprocessed mater-
3 ial can be acted out within the supervisory dyad.
4 Because the patient referred for therapy in primary care is part
5 of a group process, the supervisor needs to be able to view the team
6 and the counsellor’s place within it in the service of the patient to
7 find out more about the patient and his/her communications.
8 Jones, Murphy, Neaman, Tollemache, and Vasserman (1994) elabo-
911 rate on these points emphasizing how
111 the divergent ways patients see and act towards the GP and the
2 therapist can provide a greater understanding of the patients diffi-
3 culties, but only if the therapist and GP can communicate with each
4 other and avoid the temptation of becoming part of these difficul-
ties and acting them out in their own working relationship. [p. 547]
5
6
711 However, not all primary care teams are able to process this mate-
8 rial together. The setting of general practice is invariably frenetic.
9 The manic defence is in full flow. It is full of impingements and
10 constantly challenges the possibility of reflective thinking necessary
1 to therapeutic work. Jeffrey (2008) describes these pressures and the
2 difficulty of setting time aside for supervision.
3 GPs and other health professionals can easily feel overwhelmed
4 when there is an endless supply of patients needing help for
5 “illnesses” which are frequently of an indeterminate nature and
6 from which recovery is slow or incomplete or not possible. They
7 may well feel frustrated with patients who do not get better, and
8 constantly besieged by a never-ending waiting room. As such, they
9 can feel envious of their counselling colleagues, who appear to
211 cherry-pick those with whom they wish to work, and have all the
1 time in the world to see their patients. This can give rise to uncon-
2 scious attacks on the counselling role or denigration of the process.
3 In contrast, counsellors may well feel lower in the pecking order
4 and envious of the GPs’ power and authority. They may feel under-
5 valued, underpaid, and actually ignored and excluded from plan-
6 ning and teamwork.
7 Hawkins and Shohet (2006) describe how potentially complex
8 can be the enactment of multiple transference within a health
9 setting and how patients can play out their process through the
30 involvement of various health professionals. Describing the experi-
1 ence of a young female client they explain,
2
3 Clearly the client’s process is being played out, not within a
4 contained therapeutic situation, but through multiple transference
5 onto four different professionals. The professionals are not only
6 failing to work together to bring about some integration of the vari-
7 ous fragments of the client’s process, but they are also enacting
8 some of the typical inter professional rivalries endemic within and
911 between each of their roles. [ibid., p. 186]
111 Supervisors of primary care counsellors will be familiar with the

2 various struggles counsellors often have with respect to rooms, lack
3 of time, waiting lists, noise, lack of communication, boundary
4 infringements, etc. This is the culture of primary care, which is in
5 itself a defensive milieu. Individual time for reflection is rarely
6 offered and perhaps not thought of as valuable in the face of illness
7 and death. Aiding the counsellor to think about these matters that
8 arise in the work in primary care, both in terms of the team dynam-
9 ics and the patients’ own internal world, is an essential part of the
10 supervisor’s role. Supervision, when offered with this in mind,
1 helps the counsellor understand and contain the projections they
2 might be holding for the practice. Sometimes, these are powerful,
3 and can result in destructive splits and rifts that are acted out. How-
4 ever, potentially the counsellor is in a good place to aid the collec-
5 tive thinking in the practice. As Stewart again points out, “The
6 counsellor has a unique role within the primary care team, listen-
711 ing in a way that can be very different from the rest of the team”
8 (2004, p. 360).
9 I would echo that, and extend this to the supervisor, who has a
20 unique place in containing the counsellor and restoring his/her
1 reflective mind, which is sometimes under attack. The supervisory
2 space can be an invaluable place for the whole team, even if they
3 do not acknowledge or know about it. In the best possible environ-
4 ments, the members of the team come together in a collaborative
511 process, but this requires a mature awareness and an appreciation
6 of unconscious mechanisms of splitting and projection as well as
7 acceptance of the real limits of help available. In the absence of
8 whole team awareness, the supervisor is a very necessary container
9 of the counsellor and the team’s anxiety. The supervisory process
311 can help to identify where and how and whose damaged parts are
1 being carried.
2
3
4 The supervisory contract
5
6 As has been stressed, the counsellor in primary care is working
7 as part of a team alongside doctors, nurses, and other health
8 professionals. Commonly, the counsellor works only part of the
911 time in the practice, and colleagues may see a patient between
111 appointments with the counsellor. In this context, the counsellor

2 needs to be able to talk to colleagues and to establish mutual respect
3 and trust in the interests of all patients. The encouragement of the
4 supervisor is important to facilitate this. This dimension, which sets
5 primary care apart from private practice, has a significant effect
6 on the nature of the supervisory contract as well as on that of the
711 counselling contract. Clear contractual agreements need to be
8 reached, whatever the context of the supervisory arrangement, and
9 supervisors must understand the legal and contractual base of the
10 counselling work.
1 In today’s NHS, arrangements for supervision and the employ-
2 ment context can be very varied. The relationship between the NHS
3 counselling service or individual counsellor and supervisor can
4 take one of several forms, depending on how the service is struc-
5 tured in relation to the NHS commissioning body.
6
7 ● The supervisor is employed within a counselling scheme and
8 is paid and contracted by the service to provide supervision to
9 all employed counsellors. Clearly, in a large scheme there will
211 be several supervisors, more than likely providing group
1 supervision.
2 ● Individual counsellors choose, contract, and pay for their own
3 supervision, but the supervisors conform to an agreed stan-
4 dard. The supervisor might have a formal link to the counsel-
5 ling service, e.g., through the submission of supervisor reports
6 or regular meetings with the counselling service manager.
7 However, they may well not.
8 ● The service is an out-of-NHS provider. As such, the coun-
9 selling service provides supervision within its own organiza-
30 tional structure. There may or may not be a link into the NHS
1 trust.
2 ● The counsellor is a lone practitioner working in a GP practice
3 and contracts with the supervisor privately.
4
5 We can see from the above list that clarity over lines of commu-
6 nication and matters of accountability with respect to the super-
7 vision is variable. In some cases, this is reasonably clear and
8 distinct, in other cases, less so. Where there is a lack of clarity, or
911 uncertainty over the lines of communication, this can lead to a
111 neglect of the processing of the impact of the setting, as discussed

2 above. It could also result in a muddle and confusion which might
3 be less containing for the counsellor. On the other hand, indepen-
4 dent supervision can give a refreshing opportunity for independent
5 reflection. Whatever the case, it is important that the supervisor of
6 the primary care counsellor establishes at the outset the parameters
7 of accountability and also of confidentiality.
8 In their book Psychological Therapies in Primary Care: Setting Up A
9 Managed Service, Foster and Murphy (2006) make the case for
10 greater accountability and transparency concerning supervision
1 arrangements within NHS counselling services, particularly in rela-
2 tion to any managerial roles within the service.
3
4 It is important that the manager has a formal relationship with
5 supervisors of counsellors working in the service . . . any issues
6 arising in respect of counsellor competency/counsellor/client
711 safety can hopefully be attended to before work breaks down in
8 some way. The NHS counsellor should have nothing but help from
9 her supervisor and her manager and should not fear the loss of
20 control or creativity in her practice by such arrangements being in
1 place. [pp. 136–138]
2
3 In this way, matters of accountability are made clear and
4 distinct. Also, any issues arising in respect of counsellor compe-
511 tency/counsellor/client safety can, one hopes, be attended to
6 before work breaks down in some way. Ideally, the NHS counsellor
7 should have both a supportive and informed manager working
8 together with a clinical supervisor. However, this model presup-
9 poses that the counselling service manager exists and is clinically
311 trained in counselling or psychotherapy. The reality of many work-
1 ing counsellors in the NHS is still far from this model. Many might
2 not be formally managed at all, and some might be managed by
3 health service managers from other professional disciplines work-
4 ing with different understandings of patient–professional inter-
5 vention. This can put greater pressure on the clinical supervisor to
6 act in a managerial role, and also blur the boundaries between
7 supervision and management. The interface between that of super-
8 vision and management is particularly sensitive within the primary
911 care setting, and the supervisor will need to be aware of the
111 management context for the counsellor(s) with whom they are
2 working and the particular lines of accountability and responsibil-
3 ity expected of them as supervisors within the service framework.
4
5
6 Training for NHS supervision: specialist features
711
8 There are some further dimensions that are particularly relevant to
9 the supervision of the primary care counsellor: supervising across
10 modality, supervising time limited work, and awareness of work-
1 ing trans-culturally.
2
3
Supervision across modality
4
5 Counsellors working independently have traditionally, but
6 certainly not exclusively, contracted with supervisors working
7 within their core modality. However, with the expansion of inte-
8 grative trainings, this has become more open. Similarly, to date,
9 most formal supervision trainings have largely been offered within
211 training institutes that follow the modality of a core training.
1 However, with the evolution of the professional primary care coun-
2 sellor and the accompanying need for specialist knowledge comes
3 the concomitant specialist NHS supervisor. In today’s primary care
4 setting, we have growing numbers of counsellors trained in one
5 core model being supervised by a supervisor originally trained in a
6 different core generic model. What has brought them together,
7 ideally, is their additional joint specialist experience of the NHS. So,
8 their core model is often different but their specialism is the same.
9 It is my experience of supervising the primary care counsellor
30 that shared knowledge of the context may override sensitivities to
1 theory and modality. I have found, over the years, that counsellors
2 from all traditions, ranging from person-centred, psychodynamic,
3 integrative, transactional analysis (TA), etc., seek supervisors for
4 their primary care work who have knowledge and experience of the
5 setting and that this is often a positive determinant in the super-
6 visory dyad. Where issues of modality difference may occur, this
7 can often be fertile ground for exploring ideas and understanding
8 and may well reflect better the “it takes all sorts” flavour of primary
911 care. However, this does call for a high degree of flexibility and
111 creativity in the supervisor, and for a very significant degree of clin-
2 ical experience. This is in order that the supervisor has the agility
3 of mind and the confidence to hover attentively over the super-
4 vision work while retaining their own model, as well as thinking in
5 terms of the other. No mean feat!
6
7
8 Supervising time-limited work
9 The position with regard to supervising time-limited work also
10 makes different demands on the supervisor and the supervisory
1 relationship. Most counsellors currently work in primary care work
2 in a time-limited capacity, the most common contracts ranging from
3 6–12 sessions. This puts a very necessary emphasis on assessment
4 skills, and the supervisor will have a role to play in supporting
5 good assessment for brief work. Supervisors may also find that
6
counsellors offer different contractual arrangements: fortnightly
711
sessions, for example, and group work. The supervisory contract
8
needs to take into account the turnover of short-term client work.
9
Will all clients be heard frequently enough, or does the supervisory
20
space offer reflection appropriate to contain clients who may come
1
and go between supervisions?
2
3
4 Trans-cultural sensitivity
511
6 Multi-cultural dimensions of counselling work are often encoun-
7 tered in primary care, since this is a place from where clients from
8 all cultures and countries of origin will find their way into coun-
9 selling. As such, the supervisor in this setting needs to maintain an
311 open attitude to any inquiry and be prepared to relate trans-cultural
1 thinking to all the potential dyads and triads available. This means
2 developing an awareness of one’s own cultural assumptions to be
3 free to reflect across perceived difference. Hawkins and Shohet
4 elaborate on this dimension, “supervision plays its part in ensuring
5 that differences are understood and responded to appropriately”
6 (2006, p. 105), and go on to reflect that “supervisory sessions that
7 accept that prejudiced feelings are inevitable, given our cultural
8 heritage, may open up genuine explorations in which these can be
911 challenged and changed” (ibid., p. 124).
111 The Association of Counsellors and Psychotherapists in

2 Primary Care specialist training course
3
4 As a result of an increasing awareness of these special features of
5 primary care supervision work, the Association of Counsellors and
6 Psychotherapists in Primary Care (CPC) developed a full profes-
711 sional supervision training aimed at the NHS supervisor. The
8 course is intended for practising counsellors, psychotherapists, and
9 counselling psychologists working in an NHS setting. It is a special-
10 ist, non-modality-specific course that assumes a general relational
1 model of therapy and supervision. The course is based on an elab-
2 oration of the concepts and skills necessary to the supervisor work-
3 ing within the dynamics and complexity of the NHS setting. It
4 attends to the particular context of clinical work undertaken in
5 primary care/NHS work and the supervisory requirements of prac-
6 titioners working with counsellors in such settings. In other words,
7 the training moves from the general to the specific.
8 The overall aims of the training are summed up as follows.
9
211 ● Understand and have knowledge of supervisory theory and
1 models. Develop a model or models of supervision in depth
2 and offer an awareness of other approaches including time
3 limited working.
4 ● Understand the nature of the supervisory process, functions
5 and relationship.
6 ● Understand and have knowledge of the functions and
7 processes of NHS supervision over and above generic super-
8 vision, in particular in relation to the statutory requirements of
9 NHS practice, e.g., continuing professional development
30 (CPD), audit, evidence-based practice, appraisal, etc.
1 ● Clarify the interface between therapy, supervision, and
2 management in the NHS setting.
3 ● Examine the interfaces between various psychological and
4 medical paradigms and their impact on clinical psychological
5 work.
6 ● Develop an awareness of organizational, ethical, and legal
7 issues relating to supervision in the NHS context.
8 ● Examine and offer critical analysis of clinical practice in the
911 NHS setting.
111 ● Examine supervisory contracting, and identify the specific

2 components of contracting, communication and accountability
3 in the NHS.
4 ● Examine the constraints, limitations, and advantages of an
5 NHS service and setting with respect to counselling practice.
6 ● Articulate the role of an NHS supervisor. An ability to main-
7 tain lines of communication and establish collaborative styles
8 of working as required.
9 ● Manage, understand, and explore the impact of the frame in
10 NHS counselling settings on the counselling relationship, ther-
1 apeutic alliance, and the team dynamics.
2 ● Understand the requirements on both counsellor and super-
3 visor in terms of effective note keeping and records in accor-
4 dance with NHS and legal requirements.
5 ● Understand the development that takes place throughout
6 supervision
711
The CPC course was established in 2007, and it was over-
8
subscribed in its first year. This may well indicate a growing aware-
9
ness among supervisors and counsellors of the “over and above”
20
required specialist elements needed in supervision training for the
1
NHS counselling setting. Further advances in establishing job speci-
2
fications and employment conditions commensurate with other
3
health professions through Agenda for Change and professional
4
regulation may yet advance the case for specialist supervision train-
511
ing and qualifications together with that of NHS counsellors.
6
The overall course content is detailed in Figure 11.1.
7
8
9
311
Conclusion
1 There are unique features to supervision in the setting of the NHS.
2 The supervision space is, of necessity, a place where the pressures
3 and volume of work can be contained and managed. The super-
4 visors will find themselves containing the counsellor and the team
5 at times. Counsellors working in primary care need to be flexible,
6 robust, and able to make therapeutic alliances with a very wide
7 range of patients, and to forge collegial working relationships with
8 fellow health professionals. As Perren (2004) writes of the primary
911 care setting,
111 ● Generic supervision––definitions and models

2 ● NHS supervision––difference and additional aspects
● Theory and practice of supervision
3 ● Personal attributes of the supervisor
4 ● Modality difference/conflict
5 ● Supervisory interfaces: teaching/managing/therapy
● Training supervision/placement supervision
6 ● Assessment
711 ● Supervision in the context of primary care
● NHS organizational context and structures––knowledge of the NHS
8 ● The supervisory process and the dynamics of the supervisory relationship, dyads,
9 triads and groups
10 ● Parallel process and imminent criticism
● Unconscious processes in supervision
1 ● Supervision and power
2 ● Contracting and the supervision frame in the NHS/managed services and
contracts
3 ● Working with supervisors from other modalities
4 ● Variations of employment and managed models
● Therapeutic wills: supervisory responsibility
5
● The interface between the psychological paradigm and the medical paradigm
6 ● Counselling as counter-culture in the medical profession––diagnosis, assessment
7 and formulation
● Collaboration and sharing of information
8 ● Making use of the setting and its impact on the supervisory dynamic
9 ● The dynamics of teamwork; teams within teams.
● The supervisory fit––type, modality, frequency
211 ● Group or individual supervision––requirements of group work
1 ● Supervising short term work––specialism within a specialism
2 ● Working with difference
● Ethics, statutory requirements, the law with particular reference to the statutory
3 sector
4 ● Accountability, evaluation and standards in counsellor supervision in NHS
● Performance and safety of counsellors
5 ● Performance management of supervisees
6 ● Use of CORE forms in supervision
7 ● Notes and record-keeping by supervisors
● The development of the supervisory relationship––levels of supervision
8 ● Requirements of the supervisee at different stages
9 ● Who supervises the supervisor?
● Endings in supervision
30
1 Figure 11.1. Content of CPC specialist NHS Supervision Course.
2
3
It is a very ordinary space, both satisfactory and unsatisfactory in the
4 way that ordinary things often are. But the very ordinariness of it can
5 mean that patients come for counselling who would not present in
6 other more traditional therapy settings. The real space is often less
7 than ideal but, sufficiently understood, the particular problems
8 posed and opportunities provided by the setting can be used in ways
911 that enable valuable therapeutic work to take place. [p. 351]
111 The supervisor of the primary care counsellor working in this ordi-
2 nary space is required to know this real space and to offer, in
3 contrast, a reflective space wherein all that occurs between all the
4 elements can be considered. As such the supervisor aids the coun-
5 sellor, and the team indirectly, to manage difficult and conflicting
6 feelings that often arise in these tough demanding settings.
7 It is my belief that this model, emphasizing the specialist context
8 of supervisory work, can be extended to other organizational
9 settings, such as commerce, educational organizations, social care,
10 employment assistance programmes, etc. Knowledge of these
1 particular organizational settings and cultures would be crucial,
2 just as it is in the primary care setting. As such, the particular
3 understanding should be gained ideally through specialist super-
4 visory training and/or clinical experience of the setting, as the CPC
5 course outlined above demonstrates. Supervision can then be a
6 place wherein the relationships between the patient, counsellor, and
711 members of any team can be understood symbolically and all the
8 multiple transference relationships considered.
9
20
1 References
2
3 DoH (1999). National Service Framework for Mental Health. London: DoH.
4 Foster, M., & Murphy, A. (2006). Psychological Therapies in Primary Care:
511 Setting Up a Managed Service. London: Karnac.
7 Buckingham: Open University Press.
8 Jeffrey, B. (2008). All at sea. Therapy Today, 19(2): 37–38.
9 Jones, H., Murphy, A., Neaman, G., Tollemache, R., & Vasserman, D.
311 (1994). Psychotherapy and counselling in a GP practice: making use
1 of the setting. British Journal of Psychotherapy, 10(4): 543–551.
Lees, J. (1997). An approach to counselling in GP surgeries. Psycho-
2
dynamic Counselling, 3(1): 33–48.
3
Perren, S. (2004). Psychodynamic practice: working with the patient in
4
primary care. Psychodynamic Practice, 10(3): 332–353.
5
Stewart, N. (2004). Supervising the primary care counsellor within the
6
psychodynamic frame. Psychodynamic Practice, 10(3): 354–372.
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER TWELVE

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training for group supervision
8
9
10 Brigid Proctor and Francesca Inskipp
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction: the group supervisor staircase
1
O
2 n reading the expensive offers in the Observer, we noticed
3 that one can buy a purpose-built staircase with drawers in
4 each stair. We thought this an engaging metaphor for
5 progression as a group supervisor. Each drawer contains skills,
6 knowledge, qualities, and attitudes needed for a stage of develop-
7 ment. We see the steps we describe as leading to a landing
8 surrounded by enticing doors. Individuals might have to retrace
9 steps from time to time before they can finally stand on the land-
30 ing, assured of some competence and confidence as a group super-
1 visor, or an accredited one!
2 Elsewhere (Inskipp & Proctor, 2001, 2003; Proctor, 2008), we
3 have offered a generic model of group supervision. It incorporates
4 the basic values, attitudes, abilities, and knowledge that we believe
5 necessary to set up and develop effective supervision groups across
6 modalities. We will not repeat the content that we have written or
7 talked about there, except if it is inherently necessary. We will
8 concentrate on the process of training for the role of group super-
911 visor. How practitioners can be helped either:
157
111 to climb the staircase systematically, or:

2 to identify where they already are on the staircase.
3
4 In the latter case, can we encourage them to return briefly to the
5 initial steps and rethink their practice in the light of new group
6 experience and reflection?
7
8
9 Collaborative learning
10
1 As we reflect, retrospectively, on our experience of offering training
2 in group supervising to a wide variety of practitioners, we become
3 aware that the ability to engage in collaborative learning is the first
4 step for developing effective group supervision. This is true for
5 supervisees and, particularly, for the supervisor. We think that all
6 group supervisor training will benefit from making this explicit, in
711 theory, and from helping participants develop the necessary skill
8 and attitudes to foster collaborative learning in practice.
9 Practitioners who have consciously engaged in taking responsi-
20 bility for their own and each other’s learning, and have reflected on
1 that process, are familiar with this first step for participating in and
2 leading supervision groups. Participating as a supervisee in an
3 effective supervision group is the next related developmental step.
4 Such participation can counteract the expectation that somehow
511 only “the supervisor” can provide the necessary expertise to lead
6 the group and offer supervision to every participant in it.
7 As practitioners move up the staircase, they need opportunities
8 for developing further contents for the drawers in order to allow
9 them to become increasingly competent and confident as a group
311 supervisor. Practice in supervising a group and receiving support-
1 ive and challenging feedback from trainers and participants is
2 important. This experience and feedback needs to support in-
3 creasing awareness of the value and problems of diversity in
4 groups, and the ability to capitalize on (or recognize limitations of)
5 heterogeneity. The experience of practice with feedback also needs
6 to support sensitivity to the range of contexts and working cultures
7 in which members may be working.
8 So, from collaborative learning through the experience of
911 participating in an effective supervision group to role practice as
TRAINING FOR GROUP SUPERVISION 159
111 supervisor, with feedback: what a clear and easy passage! The exist-
2 ing professional set-up suggests that, even if this were a generally
3 agreed pathway, few people have had, or would have, the oppor-
4 tunity to follow it so neatly.
5 From our experience of the complexity of the group supervision
6 field, we were anxious not to suggest that there could be a definitive
711 programme for training all group supervisors. Rather, we wanted
8 to think of the essential opportunities that would meet the devel-
9 opmental needs of a variety of practitioners working in a shifting
10 professional arena within a range of changeable contexts. Although
1 we focus on a generic approach, the chapters in this book that cover
2 the strengths and special needs of supervising within a particular
3 theoretical orientation and across orientations will be particularly
4 relevant to group supervision. Trainees in differing theoretical
5 frameworks might need to be supported to interweave their own
6 values, theory, and practice from the outset of a generic group
7 supervision training.
8
9
211 Theory, experience, and reflection
1
2 All stages of development need to combine theory, conscious expe-
3 rience, and practice. The tutors may choose:
4
to do formal teaching;
5
to require directed reading or
6
to offer frameworks for thinking about group supervision in a
7
creative or experiential way.
8
9 They have choices as to whether theory is approached before
30 opportunities to experience tasks and roles consciously, or to teach
1 through reflection, after, or during, the experience
2
3
4
Dramatis personae
5
6 We have invented five hypothetical practitioners in different
7 contexts and developmental stages. This structure has helped us to
8 identify the relevant resources that prospective participants may
911 already have and the additional training that they may need.
111 Mary, with five years of practice as a counsellor, is already

2 supervising two individual trainees and has been invited to run a
3 group in a voluntary organization. She participated in group super-
4 vision on her counselling Diploma course and found it a good expe-
5 rience. She decides to go on a supervision course that offers training
6 in individual and group supervision.
7 Paul obtained a Certificate in Individual Supervision two years
8 ago. The course was predominately academic, supplemented by in-
9 course one-to-one supervision with other students. There was no
10 special teaching about groups or group supervision; most practical
1 and reflective work was in pairs or triads. He is a member of a peer
2 supervision group. He feels ready to offer group supervision. His
3 chosen course is a follow-up to his Certificate.
4 Yasmin also has a Diploma in Individual supervision. The course
5 tutors’ talked about group supervision, but offered no chance to
6 practise. She had not found being supervised in a group on her
711 counselling training helpful. She is running two groups in different
8 voluntary organizations, which she enjoys, and she wants to learn
9 more. She chooses a course that offers two days of theory and expe-
20 riential work backed up by specific reading, followed by six half-
1 days fortnightly for group work practice. The course consists of six
2 experienced supervisors, and the format allows each participant to
3 have two opportunities to take the role of group supervisor with
4 feedback from participants and trainer. (We know of no courses
511 targeted and organized like this but think there would be a market!)
6 Damien is a clinical psychologist who works for an addiction
7 unit. The unit offers only group supervision to all its counsellors.
8 Although he has been doing the job for over a year, and is a member
9 of a supervision group for the supervisors, he has had no training
311 in supervision. He does individual supervision with each counsel-
1 lor in the group. After talking with a colleague, he would like to
2 expand this into developing collaborative learning in the group and
3 to encourage the supervisees to take a more active part. He has
4 asked for the next annual training day to focus on participative
5 group supervision.
6 Sheila has a Certificate in Supervision gained on a collaborative
7 learning course. It included doing individual supervision practice in
8 a group and receiving feedback from peers and trainer. She works
911 as a counselling trainer on a Diploma course, and is being pressured
111 to lead a supervision group for the trainees. She has been unable to
2 find a dedicated group supervision course and is attending a two-
3 day workshop in Creative Group Supervision to help her to decide
4 whether she should accept this challenge.
5
6
711 Meeting Mary’s needs
8
9 Step One: becoming a collaborative learner
10
The course that Mary chose to go on offers training in individual
1
and group supervision. Such a course can model collaborative
2
learning and group working from the outset. The initial Working
3
Agreement sent to prospective participants can contain a clear
4
commitment to collaborative learning. That entails:
5
6
7 ● clarity of aims and criteria;
8 ● taking responsibility for your own and each other’s learning;
9 ● clarity of roles: tutors, participants, assessors;
211 ● variety of roles to be taken by participants (peer learner, super-
1 visee, supervisor, feedback giver, group member, evaluator,
2 process reflector and commentator, to name a few!).
3
4 The Agreement needs to be clear about what “may” happen and
5 what “must” in process and outcome, and to be explicit enough
6 about task and process for the applicant to give informed consent
7 What the initial contract spells out parallels the decision as to
8 how much should be spelt out in individual and group supervision
9 from the outset. In both cases, the explicit tasks and role implica-
30 tions help participants focus and prepare for the experience of
1 group supervising. We name all the implications at this point to
2 indicate what we understand by the term “collaborative learning”.
3 The coming together of a new training group is an opportunity
4 to model the setting up of a new supervision group. More compli-
5 cated because of the numbers, members need to be facilitated to get
6 to know each other so that they can estimate how far they can trust
7 each other and the tutors to get down to work. The working agree-
8 ment that they have “bought into” needs to come alive and have
911 meaning: what has been theoretically agreed needs to be tested in
111 practice. The previous experience of collaborative learning will be

2 very variable in the group. The tutors’ management of the group-
3 forming process and of the storming, norming, and performing
4 processes (Tuckman, 1965), which come and go through the life of
5 a course, will provide models for managing the development of a
6 supervision group. The ending experience, too, will give food for
7 thought. Opportunities need to be provided to make these group
8 processes explicit and to allow participants as well as tutors to
9 comment. The manner in which tutors manage power—institu-
10 tional power, role power, personal and attributed power—and
1 participants’ reactions to that will be important in shaping their
2 own individual group management styles.
3 We think it is desirable for all supervision courses—individual
4 or group—to lay the foundation of a conscious understanding of
5 the processes of collaborative learning. In a course set up to include
6 training in group supervision, the making explicit of group facili-
711 tating and development processes through reflection and process
8 comment is fundamental.
9
20
Step Two: becoming a skilled small group participant
1
2 Mary’s course will offer the opportunity for practice as one-to-one
3 supervisor–supervisee taking place with one observer or in a group.
4 Dividing the course into permanent small practice groups that take
511 place regularly throughout the course offers a variety of opportu-
6 nities. Giving responsibility to group members to manage the time
7 and working structure of the practice group collaboratively allows
8 for development of group skills and awareness. It offers practice in
9 co-developing a safe and challenging enough group. It raises
311 awareness of the tensions inherent in this, and different ways that
1 the participants deal with these. Tutors should always be available
2 as, at least, regular visitors and consultants.
3 As group supervisee, one gets the opportunity to become more
4 skilled as public presenter of work: being supervised by one person
5 with one observer is still “in public”. As group supervisor in training,
6 the participant has an opportunity to have access to many different
7 ways of supervising. It also allows time to reflect on the experience
8 of giving and receiving feedback and of becoming more skilled in
911 the art. The ability to give and receive empathic and challenging
111 feedback must be a basic skill for any supervisor. One of the basic
2 tasks is to enable supervisees to receive such feedback openly and
3 reflectively (and, in a supervision group, publicly). Participants
4 need to recognize how this can best happen freely and straightfor-
5 wardly. Overall, a small practice group offers a conscious experi-
6 ence of taking a variety of roles and of valuing a clear working
711 agreement that will need to be reviewed and adjusted from time to
8 time.
9 Tutors could take a variety of roles and tasks:
10
1 ● leader of the practice group;
2 ● group facilitator of the one-to-one practice;
3 ● consultant;
4 ● feeder-back;
5 ● evaluator.
6
7 At this stage, there will already be tension between the tutor’s insti-
8 tutional and attributed power in (probable) role of final assessor—
9 the normative task—and responsibility for formative and
211 restorative tasks. This is a tension that needs to be made explicit. In
1 any group supervision in which the trainees will subsequently be
2 working, such tension will need to be addressed publicly and
3 creatively, even if the supervisor’s assessment role is ethical rather
4 than formal. These are the issues of power, authority, and influence
5 that have special implications in a group, as opposed to individual,
6 setting.
7
8
Step Three: becoming a skilled and aware supervisee in a
9
supervision group
30
1 Mary’s course can move on from concentrating on individual
2 supervision to learning to become a group supervisor. One hopes
3 that she approaches with her second drawer—conscious skill and
4 information about being a small group member—well filled. Much
5 of this learning will stand her in good stead for the next step.
6 A trainee on a group supervision course must have the oppor-
7 tunity to practise supervising in a group with feedback. This neces-
8 sarily means course members being in the roles of group
911 supervisee.
111 As supervisee they have at least three roles:

2
3 ● presenter of supervision work;
4 ● collaborative group participant;
5 ● developing co-supervisor (see Inskipp & Proctor, 2001, Part 1).
6
7 They will, therefore, experience being at the receiving end of a vari-
8 ety of group supervisors who are learning to set up a group that
9 works well. They will get practice in presenting economically and
10 accessibly. They will be reminded how easily they can become
1 shamed or resentful at people’s responses, and will have opportu-
2 nities to reflect on what responses help or hinder the work of the
3 group. The issue of time will cease to be theoretical. They will have
4 responses to their own and others’ use or abuse of time in the
5 group. They will become increasingly aware of how differing
6 personalities, styles, cultural backgrounds, theoretical orientations,
711 and working contexts can contribute to, or complicate, supervision.
8 They will discover the importance of being clear about the extent
9 and limits of supervising and commenting on each other’s work
20 that their particular working agreement delineates. They may well
1 already be excellent listeners and empathic responders, but here
2 they will recognize the pressures of competition and comparison.
3 They will also experience the frustration when their peers—or
4 their supervisor—invade their reflective space as supervisee or
511 overload them with advice. They will have a chance to experience
6 being at the receiving end of various verbal and/or experiential
7 methods of group supervising. They will have participated, and
8 developed skill, in group reflection on work and in group reviews.
9 Underlying all that, they will have opportunities to tie up theo-
311 ries of group process and group dynamics with their own experi-
1 ence. They will have access to comments on group process by the
2 group supervisor. They will have access to the stated experience of
3 others, articulated in the group.
4 As group supervisee, they will have models of how the super-
5 visor uses authority in managing the group tensions while also
6 concentrating on the task of supervision and the care for individual
7 members. All this learning takes place within a tight time frame.
8 Participants on the course will have had varying experiences of
911 supervision groups in their professional life. The distinction here is
111 that the conscious recognition of their own and each other’s expe-
2 rience, in role of group supervisee, will be part of their explicit
3 learning agenda.
4
5
Step Four: becoming a skilled group supervisor
6
711 While becoming increasingly aware as a group supervisee, partici-
8 pants will also be having their turn as group supervisor. Well-filled
9 drawers from steps two and three allow this step to be less over-
10 whelming.
1 Tutors may well decide to demonstrate the process of setting up
2 and working with a supervision group, or to show DVDs of what
3 they consider good practice. They will need to make choices about
4 how to set up groups for group supervision practice (as opposed to
5 one-to-one practice). They will also need to set up a clear contract
6 as to the role they will take with those groups. Their feedback and
7 expertise will be uniquely valuable. They need to be mindful of
8 staying within their contracted role or being explicit if they decide
9 to change or renegotiate it.
211 If the trainee supervisors are to gain practice of supervising
1 trainees and volunteers, it might be useful for group members to
2 role play a less experienced version of themselves as supervisees
3 (Proctor and Inskipp, 2007). Practice in setting up the contract and
4 working agreement for the group while creating a collaborative and
5 encouraging atmosphere may need them to work in different
6 groups where the participants are less well known to each other.
7 This might be in tension with the desirability of letting a group
8 develop from session to session so that all members can monitor
9 group development over time. (It is surprising, to us, how even
30 short-term groups still seem to display distinct development from
1 forming, through storming and norming, to performing.)
2 However few turns of practising with feedback that individuals
3 may be able to take, there are two major experiences they need. One
4 is to practise their style and ability for leadership and for being
5 appropriately authoritative in stating “musts”. The other is the
6 chance to juggle with competing tasks, together with the awareness
7 of juggling. Good induction of the group members while engaging
8 in the task of supervision is a core skill. It is complex publicly to
911 supervise one member while at the same time teaching all group
111 members to participate helpfully. In addition, the course may have

2 advocated experiential and creative methods of supervision in the
3 group, with the intention of extending supervisees’ skill and aware-
4 ness in using all the senses. Such exercises require additional skill
5 and judgement.
6 Added to that, monitoring hot issues in the group (e.g., com-
7 petition, scapegoating, resentments, incompetence), validating
8 diversity and individual working contexts, noticing the stage of
9 development of the group as a whole and of each individual, being
10 aware of the appraisal aspect of the task, and the need to be
1 ethically aware, is formidable, and the conscious preparation and
2 modelling of which we have spoken helps. Feedback from fellow
3 trainees can do a great deal to relieve the overwhelming sense of
4 responsibility that beginning group supervisors can experience.
5 At this stage, trainees also need to be helped and reminded
6 about becoming practitioner researchers through keeping records,
711 appraisals, and feedback from reviews. They should also be encour-
8 aged to consider doing research about group supervision, a sadly
9 under-researched field.
20
1 Fifth step: self-appraisal and continuing development
2 as a group supervisor
3 Throughout the course, Mary will, we hope, have been encouraged
4 to become honest and searching in her own self-appraisal.
511 Becoming a competent group supervisor (and ideally an accredited
6 one) requires ongoing learning from experience of working over
7 time with a group or, preferably, groups. Consultation with an
8 experienced group supervisor is highly desirable, to give an oppor-
9 tunity for continuing self-appraisal and reflection. Peer group
311 supervision of supervision may also meet this need. The course has
1 a responsibility to promote and encourage CPD.
2 Obviously, Mary will gain from attending supervision confer-
3 ences and workshops, keeping up with reading and research, and
4 getting continuing feedback on her work from group participants,
5 trainers, and managers. Preparation for accreditation could also
6 intensify her learning.
7 The staircase (Figure 12.1) illustrates the complexities that
8 underlie the skilled leading and managing of supervision groups.
911 We know that Mary had enjoyed group supervision on her diploma
111 Step 5. Self-appraisal & CPD

2 Learning from experience:
3 reflection; self-appraisal with consultant, supervisor, peer group;
conferences, workshops, research, reading; preparing for
4
accreditation.
5
6 Step 4. Group supervisor practice
711 Experience:
8 finding own authoritative style; supervising in group; contracting a
working agreement; juggling time and needs of group; inducting and
9 teaching supervisee and co-supervising skills; managing group
10 process, comments, exercises, reflection, reviews.
1
2 Step 3. Supervisee in a supervision group
Awareness, skills, models:
3 presenting; developing co-supervision; collaborating as a participant;
4 valuing diversity; managing time, power/authority, process
5 comments, hot issues, reflection/reviews.
6
Step 2. Small practice group
7 Skills and models:
8 presenting and supervising publicly; giving and receiving feedback;
9 co-managing agreements and time; commenting on group process;
211 leadership, authority and power in small group.
1
Step 1. Collaborative learning
2 Models and practice:
3 co-creating Working Agreement; getting to know and work;
4 “good group manners”; recognition/management of: healthy group
process, 'hot issues', power and authority.
5
6
7 Figure 12.1. The staircase to competence and confidence as a group supervisor.
8
9 course, and was looking forward to running a group in a voluntary
30 organization. Some of the learning on her supervision course (for
1 instance, how to be a skilled group supervisee) may not be new
2 learning, but will reinforce and extend the skill and understanding
3 she already possesses and make it more explicit. What Mary lacked
4 when she joined the course was explicit skill and understanding of
5 collaborative learning and any experience of running a supervision
6 group.
7 Using the five-step illustration, we will look briefly at the train-
8 ing needs and possibilities of our other four hypothetical practi-
911 tioners.
111 Meeting Paul’s needs

2
3 Paul has chosen to go on a group supervision course that is a
4 follow-up to his Certificate in Individual Supervision. The course is
5 given over two weekends, to include tutor input, guided reading,
6 practice as group supervisee, and an opportunity to group super-
7 vise. It also requires written work. (We consider this to be a mini-
8 mum time-scale for such training.)
9 His Certificate course was not organized as an explicit collabo-
10 rative learning experience, so his group course should fully exploit
1 the opportunity to model the setting up of collaborative learning
2 (Step One).
3 The length of the course might not allow for much learning in
4 respect of Step Two, collaborative management of a small working
5 group. However, Paul is in a peer group, and will have some expe-
6 rience and models to build on (Step Two).
711 In his Certificate course, he has had the semi-public one-to-one
8 opportunities of Step Three. In his peer group, he has experience as
9 group supervisee. He can benefit, consciously, from taking the role
20 of supervisee with his colleagues/tutors on this course.
1 He will even have some experience of supervising in his peer
2 group on which to build (Step Four). Having “tried it” before the
3 course will be immensely helpful in enabling him to develop the
4 skill and ability of Step Four. It will also help to ground his reading
511 and tutor input.
6
7
8 And Yasmin?
9
311 Yasmin starts ostensibly at the same “stage” as Paul. However, she
1 has had bad experiences of being in supervision groups as a trainee,
2 but is already quite experienced in supervising in a group. Both
3 give her a solid base of experience against which to test theory and
4 know some of what else she needs in practice.
5 The first weekend can offer opportunities for developing theory
6 and understanding for underpinning Steps Three and Four. This
7 can be disseminated in a way that models and practises the skills of
8 Steps One and Two, collaborative learning and managing of small
911 working groups.
111 A course organized to allow six half-days of group supervising

2 and being supervised gives generous opportunities for practising
3 Steps Three and Four, and for the underpinning of Step Five.
4
5
6 But what about Damien?
711
8 He has learnt as he has gone along. If he knows that he wants to
9 move to a more collaborative learning style, he needs to do some
10 talking and planning with his fellow supervisors and the unit
1 manager. A day course could be wasted if there were no shared
2 agenda. The training provider needs to talk with the unit manager
and ask him to consult with the team and suggest agreed aims for
3
the day and future group supervision support and development
4
(Hawkins & Shohet, 2006).
5
A tailor-made day on group supervision can teach and model
6
the following.
7
8
1. How to set up a safe group: quick ways of getting to know
9 each other.
211 2. Contracting for how they will work together: the tasks, roles,
1 attitudes, and skills needed
2 3. How to teach group skills:
3 (a) accurate listening and reflection;
4 (b) different ways of focusing;
5 (c) brief outline of four frameworks of group styles (Inskipp
6 & Proctor 2001; Proctor, 2008).
7
8 The trainer needs to take care to set up the training day in the way
9 that demonstrates all these points (Steps 1–3). In demonstrating
30 exercises for teaching trainees the ability to listen carefully and to
1 respond to presentations in an orderly manner, they are also giving
2 participants the experience as group supervisee in a well-managed
3 group that they may not have had.
4
5
6 Finally, Sheila
7
8 Sheila has already experienced intentional collaborative learning,
911 She has had a good experience as a group supervisee. As trainer on
111 a course, presumably she has some group theory and experience.
2 Other members of the workshop on creative group supervision
3 might not be so experienced. There is an agreed shared aim that the
4 workshop will be experiential.
5 In such a workshop, we introduce all frameworks experientially.
6 We ask participants to enact them, holding labels of, for example,
7 different group theories and dialoguing with each other. Through
8 exercises, which they can replicate with group supervisees, we offer
9 a “felt sense” of hierarchy and dynamics in groups. We model
10 designing and leading creative supervision exercises to increase
1 sensory awareness.
2 It is unrealistic and potentially divisive to offer opportunities for
3 some very few unknown participants to practise group supervision
4 on a two-day course. A demonstration by a supervisor doing group
5 supervision can be helpful, particularly in showing ways to be
6 active in leadership without being bossy or authoritarian.
711 All such tasters help participants to decide if they are ready to
8 run a group, and to become aware of what they need in terms of
9 CPD. Tasters need to be accompanied by information on the core
20 principles of good practice, or reference to where those can be
1 found (Houston, 1995; Lahad, 2000; Proctor, 2008; Scaife, 2008).
2
3
4 In conclusion
511
6 The more we write on group supervision the more we realize the
7 complexities of the roles the supervisor needs to take. One group
8 described it as “being in a sand-pit”—a place to play and create—
9 but watch the sand does not get into your eyes! There is a tension
311 between being grown up and the need for self-protection, to accept
1 and value the child in self and others and to use this to understand
2 participants and clients. Parental responsibilities (according to role)
3 need to be acknowledged while working in adult mode. It helps if
4 the basic attitudes, skills, and understanding of task and processes
5 are already in place before undertaking practice as group super-
6 visor. A clear, ongoing working agreement is probably the greatest
7 help to things going well. Central in that is the reminder that all
8 the training is about helping every client to live more resourcefully
911 and to their own greater well being. When it is going well, group
111 supervising and training group supervisors can be hugely enjoy-

2 able and rewarding tasks.
3
4
5 Appreciation
6
711 Warm thanks to Melanie Lockett, who contributed to our prepara-
8 tory conversations.
9
10
1 References
2
3 Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the Helping Professions
4 (3rd edn). Buckingham: Open University Press.
5 Houston, G. (1995). Supervision and Counselling. London: Rochester
6 Foundation.
8 Supervision (2nd edn). Part 1: Making the Most of Supervision.
1 Supervision (2nd edn). Part 2: Becoming a Supervisor. Twickenham:
Cascade.
2
Lahad, M. (2000). Creative Supervision: The Use of Expressive Arts Methods
3
in Supervision and Self-Supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.
4
Proctor, B. (2008). Group Supervision: A Guide to Creative Practice (2nd
5
edn). London: Sage.
6
Proctor, B., & Inskipp, F. (2007). Creative Group Supervision. DVD: avail-
7 able from the School of Health and Social Sciences, PO Box 180,
8 Newport, South Wales, NP20 5XR, http://newport.ac.uk
9 Scaife, J. (2008). Supervision in Clinical Practice: A Practitioner’s Guide
30 (2nd edn). London: Brunner-Routledge.
1 Tuckman, B. (1965). Developmental sequence in small groups. Psycho-
2 logical Bulletin, 63: 384–399.
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
PART II
10
1 APPROACHES
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
173
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER THIRTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Supervision: a psychodynamic
8
9
and psychoanalytic perspective
10 on supervisor practice and
1
2
supervisor training
3
4
5 Christine Driver
6
7
8
9
S
211 upervision within the field of psychoanalytic work could be
1 said to have started with Freud at his Wednesday evening
2 meetings in Berlin (Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001). Here, the
3 approach was very much a process of “learning from the master”
4 (Freud himself), with little apparent reflection on the dynamics of
5 transference and process. It was almost fifty years later, through the
6 work of Heimann (1950) and, more especially, Searles (1955) that
7 the significance of transference, countertransference, and uncon-
8 scious communication in supervision was realized.
9 The key issue that Searles identified was that the supervisor’s
30 emotions are often “highly informative reflections of the relation-
1 ship between therapist and patient” (1955, p. 158), and that the
2 supervisory relationship is influenced and affected by unconscious
3 processes and dynamics from the patient material and the super-
4 visory relationship. This realization led Searles to coin the term
5 “reflection process” to describe this dynamic and, together with
6 ideas emerging from Ekstein and Wallerstein (1972), supervision
7 began to be seen as a more complex matrix involving at the very
8 least a triangular dynamic (Driver & Martin, 2002, 2005; Hawkins
911 & Shohet, 2002; Mattinson, 1975; Wiener, Mizen, & Duckham, 2003).
175
111 What emerged from this is that the role of the supervisor
2 requires the development of an observing ego (Greenson, 1981) and
3 an internal reflective capacity to hold, juggle, focus, and identify the
4 various conscious and unconscious components and communica-
5 tions within the supervisory relationship. This requires the super-
6 visor to sustain an analytic attitude in relation to understanding the
7 impact of the patient’s internal world and unconscious communi-
8 cations within supervision, enable the supervisee to develop their
9 awareness of the patient and the patient’s internal world, facilitate
10 the supervisee’s learning and development, and be aware of the
1 impact of organizational issues on the supervisory relationship.
2 This emphasizes that supervision is a process-orientated focus in
3 which the exploration and interpretation of the clinical material
4 requires dynamic internal activity by both supervisor and super-
5 visee.
6
711
8 Moving from therapist to supervisor
9
20 When clinical practitioners train in psychodynamic and psychoan-
1 alytic work, the key dimensions which they have to grapple with
2 and understand revolve around the nature of the unconscious, and
3 understanding unconscious processes and unconscious communi-
4 cation via transference, countertransference, and projection within
511 the encounter with the patient. The aim is to facilitate understand-
6 ing and awareness of the internal world of the patient and their
7 unconscious and emotional complexes so as to enable the patient to
8 make mutative shifts and develop awareness and understanding.
9 Developing these skills takes time, and they are the prerequisite
311 to moving into supervising psychodynamic and psychoanalytic
1 work. However, becoming a supervisor also requires development
2 of the capacity to manoeuvre between focusing on the patient mate-
3 rial, working with the supervisory relationship, considering the
4 overlapping dynamics of patient, supervisee, and supervisor, and
5 analysing the matrix (Perry, 2003) of overlapping processes within
6 the frame of the supervisory relationship.
7 Training in psychodynamic and psychoanalytic supervision,
8 therefore, requires development of the basic and generic skills such
911 as contracts, boundaries, supervisee development, clinical issues,
SUPERVISION: A PSYCHODYNAMIC AND PSYCHOANALYTIC PERSPECTIVE 177
111 assessment, organizational issues, and ethical issues, as well as

2 developing a deep understanding of unconscious processes, uncon-
3 scious logic, and a capacity to process the whole supervisory
4 dynamic so as to develop understanding and awareness in relation
5 to the patient.
6
711
8 The supervisory frame, contracts, boundaries,
9 and unconscious processes
10
1 Contracts and boundaries are the fundamental starting points of
2 clinical work, but within the supervisory setting there are addi-
3 tional factors. At a conscious level, it is easy to assume that the
4 supervisory relationship is collegial and that boundaries and con-
5 tracts do not need to be as specific as those formed with patients.
6 However, the impact of the supervisory frame on the supervisory
7 relationship needs to be carefully monitored and considered, espe-
8 cially in relation to unconscious dynamics such as anxiety, regres-
9 sion, transference, and countertransference.
211 Langs (1994, 1997) wrote very specifically about the impact of
1 the supervisory frame and, although one might disagree with the
2 extent of his focus on frames, his ideas nevertheless offer an impor-
3 tant perspective. For Langs, frequent changes of the supervisory
4 frame, such as changes in session times, rooms, etc., generate
5 unconscious anxiety that results in a disregard for boundaries and
6 frames in the supervisee in their work with their patients. Con-
7 versely, Langs identifies that frames and boundaries that remain
8 totally unchanged lead, at an unconscious level, to existential anxi-
9 ety and a sort of death-like feel, making it hard to stay with the
30 issues and challenges of the clinical work.
1 Although this creates a view of a “no win” situation, it never-
2 theless identifies that changes to the boundaries and frame are
3 significant and have an unconscious impact that results in cons-
4 cious enactments to counteract anxiety. These dynamics are also
5 apparent, on a larger scale, when the organizational demands have
6 an impact on supervision. Changes instigated by the organization,
7 such as increasing fees, changing rooms, changing supervisor, or
8 assessment processes, all affect the supervisory relationship and
911 dynamic.
111 Such demands may be consciously adhered to, but the uncon-
2 scious impact on the supervisory relationship and the clinical work
3 with the patient needs to be seriously considered. For example, the
4 demand to increase fees might lead to resistance in the supervisee
5 and a parallel resistance in the patient; a change of supervisor could
6 result in anxiety and uncertainty in the supervisee, leading to
7 unconscious regression or resistance and either a diminished capa-
8 city to hold patients or a “do it myself” stance. Assessment of a
9 trainee by a supervisor will also cause a powerful unconscious
10 dynamic. The anxiety generated by this might influence the clinical
1 material brought to supervision and result in an underlying theme
2 of criticism, or being critical, or the supervisee being overprotective
3 or overcritical with their patients.
4
5
6 The supervisory triangle, the patient, and unconscious
711 processes
8
9 Understanding unconscious dynamics and the nature of uncon-
20 scious logic and unconscious communication is, therefore, a key
1 challenge in supervisor training and development. Within super-
2 vision, however, the patient that the supervisory work is focused on
3 is absent (Martin, 2002). Martin reflects on this, and identifies that
4 the key challenge for the supervisor is to enable the supervisee to
511 stand back from the pairing with the patient and develop a more
6 asymmetric relationship in which both supervisor and supervisee
7 reflect on the transference, countertransference, and unconscious
8 dynamics that are occurring between the patient and the supervisee
9 (ibid., p. 15).
311 What the supervisor has to juggle is a simultaneous monitoring
1 of the conscious dialogue about the patient as well as reflecting on
2 the unconscious dynamics and communication from the patient
3 material within the supervisory relationship. This is an intrinsic
4 part of psychoanalytic and psychodynamic supervisor training.
5 Learning to develop these reflective and analytic skills requires the
6 supervisor to reflect on his or her own countertransference reac-
7 tions to both the patient material and the supervisee’s presentations
8 and use this awareness in their discussions and interpretations to
911 the supervisee.
111 Developing awareness of unconscious communication,

2 however, is a challenge, because, by its very nature, the uncon-
3 scious is unconscious. Training in supervision enables supervisors
4 to develop the skills and techniques to identify such phenomena
5 and to develop awareness and understanding of unconscious
6 processes and unconscious logic. A useful tool to develop this capa-
711 city is observed supervision. This enables feedback from the
8 observers about the unconscious communications and transference
9 and countertransference issues, and provides insight into the ways
10 in which awareness of these dynamics can be achieved.
1 This is the challenge of psychodynamic and psychoanalytic
2 supervision. It is relatively easy to comment on the concrete content
3 of the session, symbolic material, and technique in terms of theory
4 and conceptual understanding, but it is a much bigger challenge to
5 catch hold of the way issues from the patient are unconsciously
6 communicated or projected into the supervisory relationship. This
7 requires awareness of the difference between assimilative learning,
8 the gathering of new information and “increasing already existing
9 knowledge” (Szecsödy, 1997, p. 109), and accommodative learning.
211 This latter is a much more dynamic process of those “ah ha”
1 moments, in which awareness at a conscious and unconscious level
2 occurs and insight and understanding, at both a cognitive and
3 emotional level, deepens. Accommodative learning requires an
4 internal shift (Driver, 2005, p. 19; Martin, 2002) and enables previ-
5 ously held knowledge to be restructured and a new understanding
6 and awareness achieved by the supervisee and, ultimately, the
7 patient.
8
9
30 Supervisee development: the conscious and unconscious frame
1
2 Studies by Stoltenberg and Delworth (1987), Hawkins and Shohet
3 (2002), and Stewart (2002a) about supervisee development have
4 identified that beginners start clinical work with high anxiety,
5 dependence on the supervisor, and with a degree of self-focus. This
6 makes it difficult, initially, for the supervisee to consider transfer-
7 ence, countertransference, and unconscious processes from a more
8 objective perspective, or to reflect on the internal world of the
911 patient. The supervisor, therefore, needs to model a process of
111 discourse and internal reflection on the transference and counter-

2 transference issues emanating from the patient, and possibly
3 reflected in the supervision, to enable understanding and mutative
4 shifts (Martin, 2002) within the supervisee about the patient.
5 Maintaining and facilitating supervisee development also
6 brings to the fore issues relating to assessment. Assessment requires
7 a careful handling of both conscious and unconscious processes. It
8 also requires an ability to identify and evaluate the “skills, compe-
9 tences and abilities, or lack of, in the supervisee” (Driver, 2008,
10 p. 331), as well as the supervisee’s capacity to work and think
1 psychodynamically and psychoanalytically. In addition, when
2 assessing the supervisee’s work, the supervisor needs to distin-
3 guish between what is emerging from the patient and what is
4 intrinsic to the supervisee. Unconscious dynamics and communica-
5 tion from the patient via the reflection process (Searles, 1955) can
6 create confusion within the supervisory relationship of what is
711 being perceived. For example, a “fragmented and disorganised
8 patient can often make a supervisee’s presentations fragmented
9 and disorganised” (Driver, 2008, p. 337) and make thinking diffi-
20 cult. In such a situation, the supervisor needs to separate the
1 dynamics of the patient material from the supervisee’s learning
2 needs in order to develop understanding and awareness.
3 Supervisee development, therefore, requires the supervisor to
4 be cognizant of both conscious and unconscious dynamics and to
511 differentiate between the clinical material and the supervisee’s
6 capacities as a clinician. It is a delicate process that requires sensi-
7 tivity in order to maintain a creative dialogue and a process of
8 learning, but it is an important part of the supervisor’s skills in
9 enabling supervisee development and maintaining and developing
311 good practice.
1
2
3 Supervising across modalities
4
5 Psychodynamic and psychoanalytic supervisors often work in
6 counselling and psychotherapy agencies or NHS settings, supervis-
7 ing clinicians trained in various modalities. The key to any super-
8 visory process is dialogue, and the challenge for the supervisor is
911 to find a common language with their supervisees to generate
111 understanding about the patient. The psychodynamic and psycho-

2 analytic field contains a range of theories and theorists which
3 inform the work and thinking about the internal world of the
4 patient. However, reflection on the patient material can be exam-
5 ined more generically in relation to key figures such as mother,
6 father, siblings, family dynamics, etc., to generate a dialogue about
711 the patient’s internal world.
8 A supervisory process that enables understanding will always
9 benefit both practitioner and patient and the development of the
10 work. Psychodynamic and psychoanalytic supervisors work from
1 the basis that unconscious processes are key to understanding
2 the internal world of the patient, and that the patient’s material
3 and the interactive dynamics will throw light on this. Psycho-
4 dynamic and psychoanalytic work, therefore, aims at developing
5 understanding within the patient of the “internal struggles and
6 relationship patterns” (Driver, 2005, p. xvii) that they are caught up
7 in, in order to enable internal and external mutative shifts and
8 changes.
9 In many respects, this presents a challenge for cross-modality
211 supervision. Many modalities have a primarily conscious and cog-
1 nitive focus, whereas psychodynamic and psychoanalytic super-
2 vision focuses on affects, emotional complexes, defences, and
3 unconscious dynamics. Cross-modality supervision is creative and
4 enlivening because it challenges the assumptions made by a specific
5 modality, but it also has to deal with the differences and maintain
6 a balance between creativity and limitations.
7
8
9 Conclusion: the challenge of training supervisors of
30 psychodynamic and psychoanalytic work and the future
1
2 The key challenge in training psychodynamic and psychoanalytic
3 supervisors is finding ways to consider and reflect on the uncon-
4 scious dynamics that enter into the supervisory relationship. These
5 may be from the patient, the supervisee, the organizational setting
6 (Crowther, 2003; Stewart, 2002b), or even from the supervisor
7 (Stimmel, 1995).
8 Training in supervision needs to incorporate not just the generic
911 components, but also opportunities to think about and reflect on
111 issues relating to unconscious processes and unconscious dynamics.

2 Understanding cognitively and consciously what the patient mater-
3 ial is about is not enough. Unconscious processes, by their very
4 nature, are not immediately known or perceived, but, in order to
5 enable the supervisee and ultimately the patient to develop un-
6 derstanding and awareness, it is vital that the supervisor enables a
7 process that brings to conscious awareness the unconscious com-
8 munication and unconscious processes that influence and dis-
9 turb the supervisory relationship, so as to enable understanding
10 about the internal world of the patient and the learning needs of the
1 supervisee.
2 The need for supervision training is vital to enable the practi-
3 tioner to understand and develop both a theoretical and dynamic
4 understanding of the skills and competencies that a supervisor
5 needs. There are now many more trainings in supervision and a
6 growing awareness of the need for them, but training in super-
711 vision needs to extend beyond the counselling and psychotherapy
8 profession and include practitioners working in such roles as nurse
9 practitioners, support workers, and other professionals who under-
20 take a supervisory role in the caring professions, so that they, too,
1 can gain and develop understanding and awareness of the generic
2 and specific components of being a supervisor.
3 Looking ahead, in five, or perhaps ten, years’ time, all clinical
4 supervisors will probably be required to be trained and registered.
511 Within the psychodynamic and psychoanalytic arena, supervision
6 will be much more of a process-orientated dialogue, with more
7 attention given to unconscious communication by practitioners in
8 all orientations. Training in supervision will also incorporate
9 research into the practice and efficacy of supervision and the devel-
311 opment of a critical and analytic attitude to the dynamics and
1 process of supervision.
2
This chapter reflects a resumé of where supervision and super-
3
visor training within the psychodynamic and psychoanalytic field
4
has reached. The past twenty-five years have seen a massive
5
increase in the training and understanding of supervision and the
6
impact of unconscious communication within this. As awareness
7
and understanding develops, the next ten to twenty years will see
8
further developments and insights in this field.
911
111 References
2
3 Crowther, C. (2003). Supervising in institutions. In: J. Wiener, R. Mizen
4 & J. Duckham (Eds.), Supervision and Being Supervised: A Practice in
5 Search of a Theory (pp. 100–117). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
6 Driver, C. (2005). Language and interpretation in supervision. In:
C. Driver & E. Martin (Eds.), Supervision and the Analytic Attitude
711
(pp. 17–33). London: Whurr.
8
Driver, C. (2008). Assessment in supervision: an analytic perspective.
9
British Journal of Psychotherapy, 24(3): 328–342.
10
Driver, C., & Martin, E. (Eds.) (2002). Supervising Psychotherapy.
1
London: Sage.
2
Driver, C., & Martin, E. (Eds.) (2005). Supervision and the Analytic
3
Attitude. London: Whurr.
4
Ekstein, R., & Wallerstein, R. (1972). The Teaching and Learning of Psycho-
5 therapy. Madison, CT: International Universities Press.
6 Frawley-O’Dea, M., & Sarnat, J. E. (2001). The Supervisory Relationship:
7 A Contemporary Psychodynamic Approach. New York: Guilford.
8 Greenson, R. R. (1981). The Technique and Practice of Psychoanalysis.
9 London: Hogarth.
211 Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2002). Supervision in the Helping Professions
1 (2nd edn). Buckingham: Open University Press.
2 Heimann, P. (1950). On countertransference. In: M. Tonnesmann (Ed.),
3 About Children and Children No-Longer (pp. 55–59). London: Rout-
4 ledge, 1989, 2005.
5 Langs, R. (1994). Doing Supervision and Being Supervised. London:
6 Karnac.
7 Langs, R. (1997). The framework of supervision in psychoanalytic
8 psychotherapy. In: B. Martindale, M. Mörner, M. E. C. Rodríguez, &
9 J.-P. Vidit (Eds.), Supervision and its Vicissitudes (pp. 117–134).
30 London: Karnac.
1 Martin, E. (2002). Listening to the absent patient. In: C. Driver &
2 E. Martin (Eds.), Supervising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and
3 Psychodynamic Perspectives (pp. 11–22). London: Sage.
4 Mattinson, J. (1975). The Reflection Process in Casework Supervision.
5 London: IMS Tavistock Institute.
6 Perry, C. (2003). Into the labyrinth: a developing approach to super-
7 vision. In: J. Wiener, R. Mizen, & J. Duckham (Eds.), Supervision and
8 Being Supervised: A Practice in Search of a Theory (pp. 187–206).
911 Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
111 Searles, H. F. (1955). The informational value of the supervisor’s

2 emotional experiences. In: Collected Papers on Schizophrenia and
3 Related Subjects. London: Maresfield Library, 1986.
4 Stewart, J. (2002a). The interface between teaching and supervision. In:
5 C. Driver & E. Martin (Eds.), Supervising Psychotherapy: Psycho-
6 analytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives (pp. 64–83). London: Sage.
7 Stewart, J. (2002b). The container and the contained: supervision and
8 its organisational context. In: C. Driver & E. Martin (Eds.), Super-
9 vising Psychotherapy: Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic Perspectives
(pp. 106–120). London: Sage.
10
Stimmel, B. (1995). Resistance to awareness of the supervisor’s trans-
1
ference with special reference to the parallel process. International
2
Journal of Psychoanalysis, 76(6): 609–618.
3
Stoltenberg, C. D., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising Counsellors and
4
Therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
5 Szecsödy, I. (1997). (How) Is learning possible in supervision? In:
6 B. Martindale, M. Mörner, M. E. C. Rodríguez, & J.-P. Vidit (Eds.),
711 Supervision and its Vicissitudes (pp. 101–116). London: Karnac.
8 Wiener, J., Mizen, R., & Duckham, J. (Eds.) (2003). Supervision and Being
9 Supervised: A Practice in Search of a Theory. Basingstoke: Palgrave
20 Macmillan.
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER FOURTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training for supervisors of
8
9
transactional analysis
1
2
3 Charlotte Sills
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
211 n this chapter, I aim to do two things. The first is to highlight
1 the ways in which transactional analysis (TA) supervision
2 might be different (or at least have different emphases) from
3 generic supervision and, in doing so, identify what particular
4 strengths the TA supervisor might have to offer practitioners of any
5 approach. The second is to identify one or two challenges that face
6 TA supervisors in supervising practitioners from different disci-
7 plines and also in responding to developments in the field, both
8 within and outside of transactional analysis. Although, inevitably,
9 they tend to be different sides of the same coin, I will try to separate
30 them into strengths and challenges.
1 As far as I know, TA is the only approach to counselling and
2 therapy that has developed a complete structured training for
3 supervisors of its practitioners. This training takes the form of
4 several years of supervision practice under contract with a mentor,
5 alongside other formal and informal learning experiences, regular
6 supervision of supervision, and a commitment to take part in the
7 organizational life of TA. Each developing supervisor’s learning
8 journey is individually designed with his or her primary super-
911 visor, so that, although there may be periods of “workshop style”
185
111 learning in groups, each person has their own pathway and time
2 frame. The journey culminates in an examination comprising two
3 viva exams, in which the candidate responds to questions from an
4 international board of peers, as well as doing live demonstrations
5 of supervision at practitioner level and advanced level. The candi-
6 date is required to demonstrate a depth knowledge of TA theory
7 and practice as well as other psychological approaches, along with
8 a coherent supervision philosophy and method that are congruent
9 with the ethics and principles of TA. The decision about readiness
10 for examination is partly administrative: in other words, the
1 completion of clearly prescribed numbers of hours of formal learn-
2 ing, supervision and practice; it is also a more subjective assessment
3 of readiness by the candidate herself and at least two supervising
4 supervisors. The final examinations lead to the qualification of
5 Supervising Transactional Analyst (STA); they are usually, though
6 not always, as some supervisors do not want to teach, combined
711 with a further viva exam on teaching skills and methods, the whole
8 day leading to the grand title of Teaching and Supervising
9 Transactional Analyst (TSTA).
20 Perhaps understandably, the people who have devised this chal-
1 lenging supervision training—let alone those who have undergone
2 it—are rather protective about their achievement! Consequently,
3 only TSTAs and endorsed “Provisional” trainers (PTSTAs) who
4 supervise under the guidance of a TSTA can offer official training
511 and supervision in TA; in other words, to acquire the relevant hours
6 of training and supervision necessary to qualify as a practitioner of
7 TA, one must be working with these endorsed trainers/super-
8 visors. The implication is that being a supervisor of TA trainees and
9 practitioners is a very different activity from generic supervision
311 and, therefore, the training of TA practitioners can only be entrusted
1 to those further up the TA hierarchy.
2 As the reader might imagine, this situation has led to a deal of
3 discussion and debate: is this exclusivity justifiable? Trainees some-
4 times feel constrained by the closed market of the (dare I say it?)
5 pyramid; and then there is the inevitable possibility of becoming
6 overly self-referential if “foreign” ideas are not integrated.
7 However, the thought and care that goes into the training and
8 accrediting of supervisors has led to the TA communities being
911 centres of real knowledge and excellence in the field. Even as I write
TRAINING FOR SUPERVISORS OF TA PRACTITIONERS AND OTHERS 187
111 (2008), I am involved in some extensive international research, both

2 quantitative and qualitative, into the training of effective super-
3 visors. This is commissioned and funded by the European TA
4 Association (EATA). What is more, the requirement of TSTAs to
5 demonstrate that they can locate TA in the wider field of psycho-
6 logical thought and integrate theories and methods from other
711 approaches goes a long way to offsetting the concern about an ideo-
8 logical closed shop, as does the international multi-cultural nature
9 of the organization, including the examination boards. Concerns
10 about dual relationships and conflict of interest are also largely
1 unnecessary (though might not have been thirty years ago). In the
2 UK alone, there are around sixty TSTAs, and there are TA organi-
3 zations in upwards of thirty European (Western and Eastern) coun-
4 tries, as well as in Australasia, the Americas, South Africa, and so
5 forth. It is almost always possible to ensure neutrality and fairness
6 in the system.
7
8
9 What may be the particular strengths of
211 transactional analysis supervision?
1
2 For a depth exploration of TA supervision, consult Tudor (2002),
3 who offers an excellent overview of the nature of transactional
4 analysis supervision and its history in the literature; also the April
5 2007 edition of the Transactional Analysis Journal (Cornell &
6 Shadbolt, 2007a), which has the topic of supervision as its theme.
7 This chapter, however, focuses more on what the TA supervisor
8 brings to the craft of supervision generally.
9 Despite the fact that the concepts and theories of TA draw
30 greatly on both the psychoanalytic and the cognitive behavioural
1 movements, the philosophy and principles of TA locate the
2 approach firmly in the humanistic tradition of therapies. First, there
3 is “OKness”, immortalized in that deceptively trivializing phrase,
4 “I’m OK—You’re OK”. This aphorism captures the existential state-
5 ment: I am and you are separately existing yet connected, with the
6 additional value of OKness, which is understood to mean equally
7 worthy of respect, valuable, important. The whole speaks of the
8 aspiration to mutual respect in the relational dance of power and
911 intimacy.
111 The second tenet states that all human beings have the capacity
2 to think, and make decisions about themselves and their lives
3 (albeit sometimes unawarely), and that these decisions can be
4 changed. The principle of self-responsibility and empowerment is
5 very strong in TA, which in the 1960s and 1970s grew as a “radical
6 psychiatry”.
7 These positive and optimistic statements lead to two corner-
8 stones of TA practice: the contract and open communication. These
9 may be two of the particular strengths of TA supervision.
10
1
2 The contract
3
4 It is well documented (e.g., Bordin, 1994; Lambert, 1992; Wampold,
5 2001) that one of the elements necessary to successful therapy
6 outcome is a clear agreement between therapist and client as to the
711 goals of the therapy, including a general understanding of how this
8 will be achieved: the tasks of the work. These agreements are key
9 parts of the working alliance that is so essential to effectiveness. It is,
20 undoubtedly, also true for supervision. Of course, the supervision
1 contract is well respected and discussed by many writers in the field
2 (see, for example, Proctor, 2006); but the contractual method has a
3 particular place at the heart of TA practice and supervision (Berne,
4 1966), where it is used not simply as a tool for clarifying and struc-
511 turing, but as a subtle and dynamic part of the work. As such, it can
6 become surprisingly powerful as a container, guide, boundary, diag-
7 nostic tool, and transference identifier. A TA supervisor will expect
8 to make a clear contract, not only for the overall development of the
9 supervisee and the manner of the supervision (including, where
311 relevant, the theories to be used, the methodology, and so on), but
1 also for each session, revisiting and updating it if necessary and
2 checking its completion. Frequently, the contract will articulate the
3 part each person will play in the session’s encounter. The TA super-
4 visor will also be highly aware of the implications of context and
5 setting and the necessity of the multi-handed contract (English,
6 1975; Micholt, 1992; Tudor, 2006), and this makes her an ideal super-
7 visor for a multi-approach agency or counselling scheme.
8 The contract (be it for therapy or for supervision) should appeal
911 to all ego states; it should emerge from careful and committed
111 inquiry and understanding of the situation and should involve an

2 exchange of benefit between supervisor and supervisee and be
3 within the law (Steiner, 1974).
4
5
6 Open communication
711
8 The definition of TA supervision (e.g., Barnes, 1977; Cox, 1998)
9 stresses that its intention is to improve the service to the client by
10 developing the effectiveness of practitioners through the use of TA.
1 This requires supervisors to have a more than working knowledge
2 of the theory and the language of TA in order to practise. There is
3 a reason for this. Of course, there is a sense in which TA, like any
4 theoretical approach to understanding human beings, looks at the
5 structure of personality, how it develops, the causes of problems,
6 and, crucially, how change occurs. That being the case, the particu-
7 lar concepts and language of one approach can normally be “trans-
8 lated” into another. What makes TA unusual is that it has a wealth
9 of theory and methods that use direct, precise, and straightforward
211 language to describe both the complexities of conscious and uncon-
1 scious intrapsychic life and its development and also how that is
2 manifested and maintained in the co-created interpersonal rela-
3 tionship. This is contained in the notion of “script”, the patterned
4 course of the person’s life: self-determining yet changeable. The
5 concepts are clear, simple without being simplistic, and under-
6 standable to practically everyone. TA’s theory embodies the values
7 inherent in its philosophy and principles, and it is important that
8 the supervisor models these. The triad of philosophy, practice, and
9 theory is thus shaped and contained by the accessibility and imme-
30 diacy of the concepts.
1 Respectful open communication was always a feature of TA;
2 Berne encouraged his clients to read his books. Supervision has
3 always been considered an important part of effective practice.
4 Supervision and supervisor development is frequently carried out
5 in “cascade” format with practitioners, supervisors, and supervis-
6 ing supervisors working together and each making a contract for
7 their development. Sometimes, patients are involved in practitioner
8 development, a tradition started by Berne (1968), who held staff–
911 patient staff conferences at the psychiatric hospitals where he
111 worked. He considered that if a thing is worth saying, it must be

2 sayable in front of the patient. So, he structured the ward rounds
3 and case conferences in such a way that all the staff—doctors,
4 nurses, support workers, therapists—talked about the patients’ pro-
5 gress and treatment in a circle group while the patients sat around
6 the outside of the room listening. Then the patients were brought
7 into the circle to discuss their own progress—and their thoughts
8 about the effectiveness of the staff—while the medics sat around the
9 edge and listened. These staff–patient conferences were aimed at
10 challenging the patient–therapist divide and were designed so that
1 they gave all staff and all patients an equal opportunity to have a
2 voice and discuss the treatment being carried out. (For a modern
3 account of this challenging form of open communication, see
4 Cornell, Shadbolt, and Norton, 2007b.) It is reported that the
5 patients found this system much more comfortable than the staff.
6
711
8 Standards of assessment
9
20 Thus, an integral part of TA supervision is the notion of a robust
1 attitude to asking for consultation and help, while staying respon-
2 sible for one’s own work. The stage and experience of the practi-
3 tioner is always considered, and the supervisor is expected to vary
4 her style: being ready to provide information and education about
511 theory and skills if necessary, monitor ethics, or offer support where
6 relevant, and also be able to provide a space for reflection, or enter
7 into a more subtle conversation about relational dynamics, parallel
8 process, and the like.
9 Based on its philosophy and principles, the international TA
311 communities have identified and articulated a number of essential
1 competencies for a TA supervisor (first developed by trainers and
2 trainees at Metanoia Institute, London: see Clarkson, 1992, p. 275).
3 These form the basis of the final examination to become an STA.
4 They are: contract made and fulfilled; key issues identified; proba-
5 bility of harm reduced; developmental direction increased; appro-
6 priate process modelled (i.e., transference–countertransference and
7 parallel process attended to); and equal relationship maintained.
8 Mazzetti (2007, p. 94) developed these into a seven-point opera-
911 tional model of TA supervision.
111 ● Establish a clear and appropriate contract.

2 ● Identify key issues.
3 ● Establish effective emotional contact with supervisee.
● Attend to the safety and protection of both client and super-
4
visee.
5
● Increase developmental direction.
6
● Increase awareness of and effective use of parallel process.
711
● Develop an equal relationship.
8
9 As will be obvious, nothing in this list presents a problem in super-
10 vising counsellors and therapists from other disciplines, as long as
1 their philosophies are compatible with TA’s humanistic principle of
2 self-responsibility and autonomy. If the TA supervisor is willing to
3 put her language on one side and make the effort to translate
4 concepts into other terms, there is no reason why she should not be
5 an excellent supervisor of practitioners of any discipline whose
6 philosophy is compatible. However, as I discuss below, in order to
7 engage with the more emergent process of a relational or psycho-
8 analytic supervision, she will need to widen her repertoire.
9
211
1 Supervising TA trainees: challenges for the future
2
3 Each of these strengths gives rise to a potential challenge or
4 shadow. I hailed the contract as a powerful tool for facilitating effec-
5 tive work, particularly in supervision, where there is unlikely to be
6 an advantage in allowing the transference and countertransference
7 dynamic to develop. However, the shadow of this clarity of the
8 contract is that it risks being too concrete. Traditionally, the TA
9 contract would be outcome-focused, observable, measurable, and
30 verifiable, a fact which led TA to be considered purely as a cogni-
1 tive–behavioural therapy for many years. Of course, the existence
2 of a clear and measurable outcome contract lends this sort of cogni-
3 tive TA to carrying out the type of research that is prized by health
4 services and fund holders. However, the contract implies cer-
5 tainty—even foreknowledge—on the part of the supervisee, who is
6 expected to articulate (often near the start of the supervision
7 session) exactly what he wishes to learn. This inevitably means
8 that, by definition, the goal of the session is one that is envisaged
911 within the current frame of reference; no second order learning is
111 anticipated or invited. What is more, there is a danger that specify-

2 ing a contract might upset the delicate balance between respecting
3 that which is known and honouring that which cannot be known.
4 Therapists must allow themselves to stay with the messiness of
5 emergent feelings and images, and not believe that everything
6 should be neatly boxed. Recently, there has been a move to develop
7 the contract’s more flexible role as part of the relational dialogue.
8 For example, the contracting matrix (Sills, 2006) identifies four
9 types of contact, the latter two of which honour the emergence of
10 “implicit” experience in the therapeutic space (Figure 14.1). There
1 remains some inevitable and perhaps necessary limiting quality to
2 any contract other than the purely administrative, and yet it allows
3 space for the therapeutic or supervisory encounter to discover new
4 ground.
5 Here lies a paradox for the TA practitioner and supervisor. On
6 the one hand, TA, with its contractual method and its articulated
711 competences for practitioners, lends itself very well to creating re-
8 search trials, even randomized control trials (RCTs). Practitioners of
9 TA could clearly articulate the concepts and treatment plans associ-
20 ated with specific problems (for example, eating disorders, self
1 harm, depression) and create “manuals” for practitioners that could
2 be applied and tested using one of the outcome measures.
3 However, a move in this direction would not only jar with the
4 humanistic “philosophy” of the approach, it would directly oppose
511 the recent developments in the practice of TA that have been
6
7
8
9 Clarifying –– Behavioural change ––
311
1
2
3
4
5 Exploratory –– Emergence ––
6
7
8
911 Figure 14.1. Contracting matrix.
111 welcomed by therapists who felt that there was something missing:
2 the relational perspective.
3
4
5 The relational trend in TA
6
711 While the principles and values of TA are humanistic, its theory is,
8 in part, cognitive–behavioural (for example, stroke theory, racket
9 theory, script decisions, and so on) and very largely psychoanalytic
10 (ego states, impasses, games, etc.). Berne himself undertook train-
1 ing as a psychoanalyst before seriously falling out with his institu-
2 tion. It is likely, therefore, that he assumed that any TA practitioner
3 would automatically bring a psychodynamic awareness and think-
4 ing to his or her client work. However, he was determined to chal-
5 lenge what he saw as exclusivity, obfuscation, and time-wasting in
6 his psychoanalytic colleagues. Therefore, he developed TA method-
7 ology in the more cognitive–behavioural tradition (although writ-
8 ing as he did in the 1950s and 1960s, his ideas actually pre-dated
9 many of the original CBT thinkers) in order to create a way of work-
211 ing that was speedy, accessible, and understandable. As a result, the
1 significance of some of his most important theories was partly over-
2 looked.
3 In recent years, there has been a movement in TA to recapture
4 the richness of its psychoanalytic roots (in particular, the existence
5 of “the unconscious”, or unconscious processes) while attempting
6 to retain some of its pragmatism. This was especially developed in
7 the Italian TA institutes in the 1980s (e.g., Moiso, 1985; Novellino,
8 2003) but has spread all over the world (for example, see the April
9 2005 edition of the Transactional Analysis Journal [Hargaden, 2005]).
30 The relational movement has (for all sorts of theoretical, sociologi-
1 cal, and geopolitical reasons that are beyond the scope of this chap-
2 ter) begun to gain sway in the worlds of philosophy, modern
3 science, organizational theory, and psychological therapies. This
4 trend is mirrored in transactional analysis with what is now called
5 Relational TA (Cornell & Hargaden, 2005; Hargaden & Sills, 2002).
6 Berne was ahead of his time. Perhaps it was his passion for equal-
7 ity that drove him to develop theories that acknowledged the co-
8 created nature of meaning and of behaviour. His theories of ego
911 states contain a meaningful object relations theory, explaining how
111 personality is formed in relationship. His theories of transactions

2 and games track the transferential dance of mutual enactment.
3 Relational TA builds on these theories and connects them both to
4 their roots in unconscious processes and also to recent understand-
5 ing of neurobiology and of connection in social processes.
6 Relational TA involves letting go of a search for “the answer” and
7 allows for a multiplicity of truths in the co-created here and now,
8 acknowledging the communication of the relational unconscious
9 through feelings, emotions, body signals, symbols, and images.
10 This inevitably brief outline suffices to point to the second obvi-
1 ous challenge to future TA supervisors, both of TA practitioners and
2 others. Working with uncertainty, with careful inquiry into mean-
3 ings and responses, does not lend itself to the efficient container of
4 the contract and a twenty-minute supervision. Neither does it sit
5 comfortably with TA’s facility to name what is happening quickly,
6 confidently, directly, and often with a touch of humour. Embracing
711 the idea that we all shape, and are shaped by, our context and our
8 relationships challenges the confident location of a script, a game
9 invitation, or a racket within the individual patient. On the
20 contrary, it means that practitioners and their supervisors need to
1 become as skilled as possible in listening to their own feelings and
2 transferential and countertransferential stirrings, in order to engage
3 with a client in collaborative encounter. This means possibly blur-
4 ring the boundary between personal work and education, and
511 including in the contract a willingness to explore all sorts of ways
6 of understanding relational unconscious processes. An acceptance
7 that supervisor and supervisee are also shaping their relationship
8 calls for new discussion about difference, power, and authority in
9 supervision. These ideas about relational supervision are elab-
311 orated by Hahn, Hargaden, and Tudor (2009), and Fowlie in an
1 unpublished paper.
2 The challenge is, therefore, how can the TA supervisor allow
3 space for this sort of uncertainty and exploration while retaining all
4 that is reassuringly accessible in TA and that gives useful tools for
5 taking charge of one’s life and the supervisory process?
6 And this brings me to my last current, ongoing, and future chal-
7 lenge: the language of transactional analysis. It is dated, unmistake-
8 ably Californian, arguably a little “glib”, and often sexist (whoever
911 would think of talking about the envious attack of the paranoid
111 schizoid position as “Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch”?). Is
2 there a way of finding other language—catchy, straightforward,
3 and even humorous—that will continue the ethos of being acces-
4 sible to all, while fitting better with the twenty-first century and
5 respecting the complexity and “unknowability” of human beings?
6
711
8 References
9
10 Barnes, G. (1977). Doing contractual supervision. In: M. James (Ed.),
1 Techniques in Transactional Analysis for Psychotherapists and Coun-
2 selors (pp. 166–175). MA: Addison Wesley.
3 Berne, E. (1966). Principles of Group Treatment. New York: Grove Press.
4 Berne, E. (1968). Staff–patient staff conferences. In: M. James (Ed.),
5 Techniques in Transactional Analysis for Psychotherapists and Coun-
6 selors (pp. 153–165). Reading MA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
7 Bordin, E. S. (1994). Theory and research on the therapeutic working
8 alliance. In: O. Horvath & S. Greenberg (Eds.), The Working Alliance:
Theory Research and Practice (pp. 113–137). New York: Wiley.
9
Clarkson, P. (1992). Transactional Analysis: An Integrated Approach.
211
London: Routledge.
1
Cornell, W. F., & Hargaden, H. (2005). From Transactions to Relations.
2
Chadlington: Haddon Press.
3
Cornell, W., & Shadbolt, C. (Eds.) (2007a). Theme issue: supervision.
4 Transactional Analysis Journal, 37(2).
5 Cornell, W. F., Shadbolt, C., & Norton, R. (2007b). Live and in-limbo: a
6 case study of an in-person transactional analysis consultation.
7 Transactional Analysis Journal, 37: 159–172.
8 Cox, M. (2003). A method of doing supervision: using a mix of trans-
9 actional analysis and developmental theory. Presentation at the
30 Insitute of Transactional Analysis Conference, Swansea, UK.
1 English, F. (1975). The three cornered contract. Transactional Analysis
2 Journal, 5: 383–384.
3 Fowlie, H. (2008). Relational supervision. Unpublished paper.
4 Hahn, H., Hargaden, H., & Tudor, K. (2009). The supervision of
5 relational psychotherapy (in press).
6 Hargaden, H. (Ed.) (2005). Transactional analysis and psychoanalysis.
7 Theme Issue. Transactional Analysis Journal, 35: 106–211.
8 Hargaden, H., & Sills, C. (2002). Transactional Analysis: A Relational
911 Perspective. London: Routledge.
111 Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: implications

2 for integrative and eclective therapists. In: J. I. Norcross & M. R.
3 Goldfried (Eds.), The Handbook of Psychotherapy Integration (pp. 94–
4 129). New York: Oxford University Press.
5 Mazzetti, M. (2007). Supervision in transactional analysis: an opera-
6 tional model. Transactional Analysis Journal, 37: 93–103.
7 Micholt, N. (1992). Psychological distance and group interventions.
Transactional Analysis Journal, 22: 228–233.
8
Moiso, C. (1985). Ego states and transference. Transactional Analysis
9
Journal, 15: 194–201.
10
Novellino, M. (2003). Transactional psychoanalysis. Transactional
1
Analysis Journal, 33: 223–230.
2
Proctor, B. (2006). Contracting in supervision. In: C. Sills (Ed.), Contracts
3 in Counselling and Psychotherapy (pp. 161–174). London: Sage.
4 Sills, C. (2006). Contracts in Counselling and Psychotherapy (2nd edn).
5 London: Sage.
6 Steiner, C. (1974). Scripts People Live. New York: Grove Press.
711 Tudor, K. (2002). Transactional analysis supervision or supervision
8 analysed transactionally? Transactional Analysis Journal, 32: 39–55.
9 Tudor, K. (2006). Contracts, complexity and challenge. In: C. Sills (Ed.),
20 Contracts in Counselling and Psychotherapy (pp. 119–136). London:
1 Sage.
2 Wampold, B. E. (2001). The Great Psychotherapy Debate. Englewood
3 Cliffs, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Person-centred supervision
8
9
training across theoretical
10 orientations
1
2
3 Rose Battye and Anna Gilchrist
4
5
6
7
8
9
I
211 “ magine you are on your way to your supervision session, and
1 think of all the things you don’t want to talk about,” said
2 Dave Mearns.
3 We were in a seminar about supervision, in the second year of
4 our counselling training in 1986. We both had placements, and
5 plenty of ideas came into our minds, such as when we overran our
6 sessions, the times we found we were talking about ourselves,
7 clients who bored us or made us feel uncomfortable, and the times
8 we felt out of our depth. There were sessions where everything
9 seemed to be going swimmingly and there just was not anything
30 to say.
1 Dave waited for us to scribble down our thoughts, and then he
2 said very seriously, “And these are the things you need to take to
3 supervision.”
4 It was a moment we never forgot, and when, twelve years later,
5 we were planning our course in the person-centred approach to
6 counselling supervision, we agreed that our experiences as super-
7 visors and supervisees had confirmed the wisdom of Dave’s words.
8 For the benefit of client and supervisee, we feel strongly that super-
911 vision needs to be a place where the supervisee is able to bring
197
111 everything about themselves with regard to their work for discus-
2 sion and reflection. Because we believe this is important for super-
3 vision generally, we offer our training to people from all theoretical
4 backgrounds. This conviction greatly affected the way we designed
5 the course, which is perhaps more structured than is typical for a
6 person-centred training and also contains theoretical input from
7 other perspectives.
8
9
10 The course
1
2 We initially faced the challenge of offering training in supervision
3 that provides a learning experience based on person-centred prin-
4 ciples while respecting and working with perceptions and beliefs
5 from different theoretical modalities.
6 The challenge was met chiefly in the way we delivered the train-
711 ing. We discovered that the person-centred approach to training
8 shares much with the person-centred approach to supervision. Both
9 are underpinned by the clear acknowledgement of “the profound
20 personal development demands for working at relational depth”
1 (Mearns, 1997, p. 94). In our first course, we hoped to create a
2 person-centred learning environment by embodying the approach’s
3 principles ourselves as fully as we were able. Reflecting afterwards,
4 we realized that something unexpected had happened; the way we
511 had been during the course had incorporated all the key elements
6 of the supervision relationship. While learning about supervision,
7 the trainees had experienced it for themselves within the process of
8 their training. With subsequent courses, we have been more mind-
9 ful of this process, and now understand it as one of the training
311 roles described by Tudor and Worrall (2007, p. 214):
1
2 To manifest the attitudes of the person-centred approach, not so as
3 to model them—since the notion of modelling derives from a learn-
4 ing theory that is antithetical to the person-centred approach (see
5 Wood, 1995)—but in a spirit of congruence, and so as to offer
6 students an experience of receiving what they might be aspiring to
7 offer.
8
911 Roger Casemore describes similar experiences in Chapter Two.
PERSON-CENTRED SUPERVISION TRAINING 199
111 Focus on the perspective of the supervisee and the trainee

2
3 A key feature of person-centred supervision is the focus on the
4 supervisee, “so that they can explore non-defensively what the
5 counselling process means to them, and how they experience them-
6 selves in relationship with their clients” (Merry, 2002, p. 173). Of
711 course, there would be no supervision activity without the exis-
8 tence of clients. Supervision is for the benefit of the client, but the
9 underlying principle is that the client is best served by supervision
10 that enables the supervisee to become the best counsellor they can
1 be. Mearns and Cooper (2005) describe a potentiality model of
2 supervision, “where the aim is to help the supervisee to develop
3 further the skills and sensitivities they have” (p. 156). We hope to
4 enable each trainee to become the best supervisor they are capable
of being, which entails developing their individual skills and sensi-
5
tivities during the actual time spent on the course.
6
In both supervision and training, this release of potential
7
happens through a relationship characterized by the necessary and
8
sufficient conditions for therapeutic personality development
9
postulated by the person-centred approach. Mearns and Cooper
211
describe these as “A Single Core Condition” (ibid., p. 35).
1
2 The full power of the therapeutic relationship—as manifested in
3 relational depth—is best regarded as a gestalt comprising the core
4 conditions in high degree and in mutually enhancing interaction.
5 [ibid., p. 36]
6
7 The learning environment of the course enables trainees to experi-
8 ence this gestalt for themselves, and so learn its value in the super-
9 visory relationship.
30
1
2 The integrative power of the core conditions
3 in supervision and supervision training
4
5 One of our first exercises is to ask trainees to identify, from their
6 experiences as supervisees, the characteristics that distinguish help-
7 ful and unhelpful supervision. Being understood, being accepted,
8 trusting the supervisor, and feeling judged, criticized, misunder-
911 stood, and generally not feeling safe, always come out as key
111 characteristics. It is immediately clear from this exercise that

2 Rogers’ core conditions of unconditional positive regard, empathy,
3 and congruence (1957, p. 96) provide what is needed to create the
4 helpful supervisory relationship which is our starting point. This
5 exercise brings the group together in a spirit of shared understand-
6 ing and purpose, whatever differences may be present from past
7 experience and various theoretical orientations.
8 As well as the expected differences, given the mix of theoretical
9 backgrounds, there are commonalities where people have devel-
10 oped their own understanding of the core conditions as a result of
1 professional and personal experience. At the same time it is not
2 uncommon to discover widely differing attitudes and beliefs from
3 people apparently coming from the same tradition, including the
4 person-centred approach itself. The interactions and dynamics
5 between trainees give plenty of opportunities to practise and
6 deepen their understanding of the “integrative power” (Mearns &
711 Cooper, 2005, p. 37) of the core conditions.
8 Empathy has a powerful role in deepening this understanding
9 in both supervision and training. If the supervisor is able thor-
20 oughly to enter the frame of reference (Rogers, 1957, p. 96) of the
1 supervisee, to get a clear sense of where they are coming from and
2 what it is really like for them to be listening to their client, there is
3 a much better chance of the supervisor understanding the attitudes,
4 beliefs, and experiences which are driving and influencing the
511 supervisee’s reactions and interventions, and, therefore, a greater
6 chance of being able to feel accepting towards the supervisee. We
7 extend this empathy to our trainees, hearing and valuing each indi-
8 vidual’s experiences and background as their unique frame of refer-
9 ence, whatever their theoretical position. As a result, we see them
311 become less defended and more able to explore and discuss their
1 beliefs. The core conditions work together; better understanding
2 leads to greater acceptance, and the training experience becomes
3 more effective.
4 While feeling accepted and understood clearly helps the super-
5 visee or trainee bring parts of themselves or their work that may
6 otherwise be avoided or neglected, “cosiness” (Houston, 1995, p. 16)
7 and collusion are obviously not desirable. Supervisees and trainees
8 alike need to be willing to reflect on and, if necessary, question their
911 perceptions, behaviour, and motivation. The supervisor’s ability to
111 be congruent and authentic helps to keep the relationship as a place

2 of keen reflective practice. Again we see the interweaving of the
3 conditions, as Elke Lambers explains, the supervisor
4
5 who offers the supervisee her congruent acceptance, creates in the
6 supervision relationship an excellent basis for support, challenge
711 and for open respectful exploration about both therapeutic and
8 ethical issues. [2000, p. 211]
9
10 If supervision trainers can embody this kind of authenticity,
1 trainees will learn its value by experiencing it. In both supervision
2 and training, it is the interplay of the core conditions that facilitates
3 “collaborative enquiry” (Merry, 2004, p. 192) as well as support and
4 encouragement. As trainees become willing at least to try to extend
5 integrated core conditions to each other, we see increasing respect
6 towards different approaches as well as different positions within
7 the same approach, and we know that, as supervisors, it is more
8 likely they will be willing and able to hear the unique perspective
9 of their supervisees.
211
1
2 Balancing experiential learning with theoretical understanding
3
4 We believe in the effectiveness of experiential learning. Our course
5 takes place over five weekends at two-monthly intervals. Each day
6 (apart from the final weekend) includes supervision sessions in
7 triads to enable trainees to examine their practice in depth. Every
8 trainee is observed by one of the trainers each weekend, to monitor
9 their development. Each day also includes a supervision group,
30 which the trainees take turns at facilitating. These groups end with
1 process time, so the facilitator can receive and give feedback and
2 group process can be examined. We encourage mindful, reflective
3 practice wherever possible, so that trainees can develop the habit of
4 enhancing awareness of what they do and why. Assessment devel-
5 ops awareness through the submission of two essays, the analysis
6 of a recorded supervision session, and the analysis of the super-
7 vision relationship, which are marked at a postgraduate level.
8 Along with Professor Brian Thorne, our participating consultant,
911 we believe that it is extremely important that supervisors are able
111 to conceptualize their work as well as that of their supervisees. The

2 writing of these pieces is more challenging for some than for others,
3 but, through the process, all trainees develop increased insight and
4 improve their ability to link theory and practice.
5
6 Experiential learning which is unsupported by sound theoretical
7 understanding is likely after a while to leave the trainee confused
8 or incapable of describing and analysing the processes he or she is
experiencing. [Thorne & Dryden, 1991, p. 8]
9
10
1
2 Similarities and differences between being
3 a trainer and a supervisor
4
5 The way we are as trainers exemplifies key qualities of being as a
6 supervisor, through embodying the core conditions as best we can.
711 More overt and practical similarities between being a person-
8 centred trainer and supervisor include:
9
20 ● keeping focused on the agreed task;
1 ● checking understanding;
2 ● being open to ideas that might be helpful;
3 ● being aware of an individual’s personal process, our own
4 process, and group process;
511 ● responding in a way that encourages people to open up, to be
6 curious;
7 ● creating an atmosphere where spontaneity, humour, and fun
8 can emerge;
9 ● monitoring for over-working and the importance of work–life
311 balance;
1 ● sensing when to move things on and when more space is
2 needed;
3 ● providing containment by respecting time constraints.
4
5 However, for us there are differences, too. As supervisors, we do
6 not have a specific agenda for the supervision session, but as train-
7 ers we do: we believe certain subjects should be addressed within
8 supervision training. This is a considerable challenge for us: how to
911 maintain the person-centred learning environment, give time for
111 these essential subjects, and make sure the trainees have enough
2 time to honour their own process. Evaluation forms are filled in
3 anonymously halfway through the course in order for us to have an
4 additional way of checking whether trainees have any problems.
5 Forms are also given out at the end. Ever since the first course, the
6 consistent honesty of the feedback has suggested that trainees have
711 experienced a powerful person-centred learning environment, and
8 we have thus met our challenge.
9 In the person-centred tradition, there are community meetings
10 at the beginning and end of each day in order that trainees can
1 encounter trainers and colleagues freely and reflect on their experi-
2 ences during the course. Other activities include presentations
3 chosen, designed, and led by trainees, private and learning jour-
4 nals, small study groups between training weekends, and peer
5 and self assessment. We hope to create a place where trainees can
6 feel “held not confined”, the refrain in Seni Seneviratne’s beautiful
7 poem at the beginning of Tudor and Worrall’s Freedom to Practise
8 (2004). Within this place, we introduce the subjects that we think are
9 necessary for supervision training.
211
1
2 colour changing
3 pastel to bold
4
held not confined
5
6 fluid in honesty
7 growing asking changing
8
9 held not confined
30 being energy, questions, difference
1 moving out of safe to scary
2
4
meeting self changing self
5 a place of feeling
6
8
[Seneviratne, 2002]
911
111 The “essential” subjects of our core curriculum and our

2 openness to ideas from other approaches
3
4 Our core curriculum includes looking at four models of super-
5 vision, all of which consider key issues such as the supervisory
6 process, the alliance, contract, and functions and roles from differ-
7 ent perspectives, so that trainees can find a way of working that
8 best suits them. Some people create their own model.
9 Other core subjects are practising the giving and receiving of
10 feedback, awareness of ethical dilemmas, and fears associated with
1 essay writing. These can be difficult subjects to examine deeply,
2 because they often involve hidden feelings and beliefs that chal-
3 lenge the self-concept: “the person’s conceptual construction of
4 himself” (Mearns & Thorne, 1999, p. 7); “The individual preserves
5 his self-concept by completely evading any conscious contact with
6 experiences or feelings which threaten him” (ibid., p. 14).
711 Self-concepts can become unusually fragile when confronted by
8 new tasks or the potential criticism of tutors or colleagues. Trainees
9 may be restricted from being the most effective supervisors they
20 can be by not recognizing their prejudices and fears as well as their
1 denied strengths, and we believe these can be identified by devel-
2 oping awareness of fluctuations in their self-concept. We invite
3 trainees to notice when they become defensive, or feel held back in
4 any way from being fully congruent, empathic, or accepting, and
511 also to respectfully challenge their fellow trainees if they sense they
6 are overreacting or inhibited in some way. Other orientations often
7 describe this in terms of the shadow and its unsuspected influence.
8 “The shadow is the unacknowledged side of the self, that part of
9 ourselves which we dismiss to ‘the shadows’ or recesses of our
311 conscious awareness” (Page & Wosket, 2001, p. 123).
1 The gestalt of the single core condition, co-created by the train-
2 ers and trainees, makes deep personal reflection and the commit-
3 ment to awareness possible. In the safety of such a community, even
4 the most difficult aspects of “the shadow” can be faced.
5 Not surprisingly the shadow side of those of us in the helping
6 professions often includes those parts of ourselves which are
7 antipathetic to our chosen field. Thus a counsellor may, for
8 instance, have in their shadow desires to bully, inflict or witness
911 pain, judge, or exert power over others. Uncovering and facing
111 these aspects of ourselves can be quite shattering at the time;

2 indeed, doing so inevitably breaks a psychological defence we have
3 previously had in place. [Page, 1999, p. 124]
4
5 It is extremely important to remember that the shadow is also un-
6 derstood to contain positive qualities. Unacknowledged strengths,
711 described in the language of psychosynthesis as “the refusal of the
8 sublime” (Assagioli, 1993, p. 48), may be discovered there.
9 Just as understandings about “the shadow” can inform explora-
10 tion of distortions of “self concept”, we believe there are many ideas
1 from other theoretical orientations which can enrich person-centred
2 conceptualizations and one of us has written more extensively
3 about this (Battye, 2003). We feel that our courses have greatly bene-
4 fited from the exchange of ideas as a result of including trainees
5 from different modalities. We agree with Hitchings:
6
Whilst I do believe that concepts from other models need to be
7
translated into a person-centred language and frame of reference,
8
to ignore what other compatible therapeutic systems might have to
9 offer, is in my view, irresponsible. [2004, p. 216]
211
1
2
3 Conclusion
4
We hope that the trainees who complete our course will feel able, if
5
they so wish, to supervise practitioners from other orientations; we
6
hope they do not feel threatened by new and different ideas, and
7
know that what ultimately matters is giving attention to the process
8
of the supervisee.
9
30
If we see ourselves as responsible for helping the therapist to artic-
1 ulate the relationships he sees between his practice and whatever
2 theory he believes himself to be working to, and for helping him to
3 explore his experience of his work in the light of that articulation,
4 we do not need to be familiar with the detail of whatever theory he
5 works to. [Worrall, 2007, p. 206]
6
7 We believe our training, with its emphasis on self-exploration
8 through experiential learning, backed by theoretical understanding,
911 can lead to the inner confidence that this requires. Worrall says it
111 demands supervisors who are comfortable in their own ignorance;

2 who don’t need to impress, control or teach; and who are genuinely
3 willing for their supervisees to be accountable and responsible for
4 their own work, even and perhaps especially when they think and
practise differently. [ibid., pp. 206–207]
5
6 Not every person-centred practitioner will agree with this.
7 Hitchings summarizes a diversity of person-centred approaches
8 and refers to Rennie’s (1998) distinction between the literalists and
9 the experientialists.
10
The experientialists, whilst generally arguing that they remain true
1
to core theory and especially Rogers’ therapeutic conditions, pay
2
more explicit attention to the client’s overall process and their own
3
interrelated process. Where they depart from the literalists is in the
4 apparent directivity of their responses. [Hitchings, 2004, p. 204]
5
6 It will be clear from what we have been saying that, in the train-
711 ing of supervisors, we place ourselves in the experientialist camp.
8 We are dedicated to the core theory and to the therapeutic condi-
9 tions but our training is arguably directive in that we follow a struc-
20 tured programme. None the less, we consider our work to be a
1 valid and proven training in the person-centred approach to super-
2 vision and one which has much to offer at time when the bound-
3 aries between different orientations are becoming more permeable,
4 to the potential benefit of both therapist and client.
511
6
7 References
8
Assagioli, R. (1993). Transpersonal Development: The Dimension Beyond
9
Psychosynthesis. Rome: Aquarian Press.
311
Battye, R. (2003). Beads on a string. In: S. Keys (Ed.), Idiosyncratic Person-
1 Centred Counselling (pp. 151–171). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
2 Hitchings, P. (2004). On supervision across theoretical orientations. In:
3 K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise: Person-centred
4 Approaches to Supervision (pp. 203–224). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
5 Houston, G. (1995). Supervision and Counselling. London: Rochester
6 Foundation.
7 Lambers, E. (2000). Supervision in person-centred therapy: facilitating
8 congruence. In: D. Mearns & B. Thorne (Eds.), Person-Centred
911 Therapy Today (pp. 196–211). London: Sage.
111 Mearns, D. (1997). Person-Centred Counselling Training. London: Sage.

2 Mearns, D., & Cooper, M. (2005). Working at Relational Depth in
3 Counselling and Psychotherapy. London: Sage.
4 Mearns, D., & Thorne, B. (1999). Person-Centred Counselling in Action
5 (2nd edn). London: Sage.
6 Merry, T. (2002). Learning and Being in Person-Centred Counselling (2nd
711 edn). London: Sage.
Merry, T. (2004). Supervision as heuristic inquiry. In: K. Tudor &
8
M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise: Person-Centred Therapy Today
9
(pp. 189–200). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
10
Page, S. (1999). The Shadow and the Counsellor. London: Routledge.
1
Page, S., & Wosket, V. (2001). Supervising the Counsellor: A Cyclical Model
2 (2nd edn). Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
3 Rennie, D. (1998). Person-Centred Counselling: An Experiential Approach.
4 London: Sage.
5 Rogers, C. (1957). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeu-
6 tic personality change. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2):
7 95–103.
8 Seneviratne, S. (2004). Poem. In: K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom
9 to Practise: Person-centred Approaches to Supervision. Ross-on-Wye:
211 PCCS Books.
1 Thorne, B., & Dryden, W. (1991). Key issues in the training of counsel-
2 lors. In: W. Dryden & B. Thorne (Eds.), Training and Supervision for
3 Counselling in Action. London: Sage.
4 Tudor, K., & Worrall, M. (2007). Training supervisors. In: K. Tudor &
5 M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise Volume II: Developing Person-
6 Centred Approaches to Supervision (pp. 211–220). Ross-on-Wye: PCCS
7 Books.
8 Wood, J. K. (1995). The person-centered approach to small groups:
9 more than psychotherapy. Unpublished manuscript.
Worrall, M. (2007). Person-centred supervision across theoretical orien-
30
tations. In: K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise Volume
1
II: Developing Person-Centred Approaches to Supervision (pp. 205–209).
2
Ross-on-Wye: PCCS Books.
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER SIXTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training for supervising
8
9
cognitive–behavioural
1
2
3 Alec Grant
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 Introduction: cognitive–behavioural supervision
1 overlaps with therapy and teaching
2
I
3 n a seminal text on clinical supervision in Beckian-derived
4 cognitive psychotherapy, subsequently supported by Liese and
5 Beck (1997), Padesky (1996) argued for supervision to parallel
6 the process of therapy. Specifically, that supervisor and supervisee
7 should establish a supervision problem list, set goals, collabora-
8 tively conceptualize roadblocks to attaining these goals, set agendas
9 for supervision, and utilize Socratic dialogue and behavioural
30 experiments.
1 Arguing also that supervision overlaps with teaching, Padesky
2 was mindful of competency development in her view that super-
3 vision methods should be tailored to meet supervisees’ level of
4 expertise and needs. To this end, the revised cognitive therapy scale
5 (CTS-R) (Blackburn et al., 2001) could be utilized to measure super-
6 visee knowledge and competency level, and growth as a function
7 of supervision. This would be appropriate, for example, if a super-
8 visee has good knowledge of cognitive therapy methods but poor
911 conceptualization and related skills:
209
111 the supervisor might ask the supervisee to role play a problem
2 clinical situation . . . This role play could be followed by questions
3 about how these interventions generally proceed . . . and how diffi-
4 culties occur with this particular client. [Padesky, 1996, p. 283]
5
6 Padesky stressed that video, audio, or live supervision is funda-
7 mental to the supervision relationship. In her view, supported by
8 others working in cognitive–behavioural and related modalities
9 (Sloan, 2003; Townend, Iannetta, & Freeston, 2002), retrospective
10 reporting, or verbal summaries of supervision, at best only capture
1 elements of current awareness or understanding.
2
3
4 The picture of supervision among accredited
5 CBT therapists in 2002
6
711 In 2002, Townend and colleagues surveyed a random sample (50%)
8 of therapists accredited with the British Association of Behavioural
9 and Cognitive Psychotherapy (BABCP). The results of this survey,
20 which have not been replicated since, contrast with Padesky’s
1 advice on supervision. The aim of the survey, which had a 61%
2 (number 170) response rate, was to describe the current supervision
3 practices of UK accredited cognitive–behavioural therapists, in
4 order to highlight areas of good practice and, conversely, identify
511 areas requiring attention. A further aim was to identify issues to
6 address in clinical supervision training programmes for both cogni-
7 tive–behavioural therapists and others who utilize cognitive–
8 behavioural approaches.
9 The survey found that, whereas 65% said they engaged with reg-
311 ular planned supervision, 17% reported having irregular planned
1 supervision, while 11% reported that they had supervision on an “as
2 needed” basis. The form of supervision described was mostly in-
3 formal, operationalized as “case discussion on an unplanned basis
4 when a problem occurred”. This was stated as happening “some-
5 times” (47.8%) or “often” (38.5%).
6 In terms of models of supervision, either a cognitive–behavioural
7 or rational emotive therapy model was described as influencing the
8 supervision of most respondents. Padesky (1996) and Liese and Beck
911 (1997) were most frequently cited as influences on their supervision
TRAINING FOR SUPERVISING COGNITIVE–BEHAVIOURAL PRACTITIONERS 211
111 practice. However, direct examination of practice through the use of

2 audio- or videotapes of therapy sessions were used often by only 5%
3 of respondents, although a further 13% reported that they sometimes
4 used this method. Direct observation of practice was reportedly used
5 even less frequently, with only 6% stating that they used this method
6 “often” or “sometimes”. Only half of those who supervised were
711 receiving supervision for their supervisory practice, which poses
8 questions about the training, or lack of it, to prepare supervisors for
9 their supervisory role.
10
1
2 Dual role relationships
3
4 A dual role relationship is one where the supervisor has another
5 relationship with the supervisee along with the supervisory one.
6 Townend and his colleagues sought to ascertain the prevalence and
7 impact of such relationships. With regard to managerial and profes-
8 sional relationships, 38% of respondents reported engaging in dual
9 relationships. A line management relationship was the most
211 common, with 19% indicating that their supervisor was also their
1 manager. Another type of dual relationship, indicated by 13% of
2 respondents, included having supervision with a colleague at the
3 same level as themselves in the service. It also emerged that a
4 personal relationship alongside the supervision relationship was
5 described as relatively common (27%). Such relationships included
6 friends, friends’ partners, and, on one occasion, the supervisor was
7 the therapist’s partner. Interestingly, only ten respondents reported
8 that a personal relationship interfered with supervision, and that
9 only rarely or sometimes.
30 Weaknesses in clinical supervision among accredited therapists
1 included the fact that, whereas therapists espoused the need to
2 follow a formal model, such as Padesky (1996) or Liese and Beck
3 (1997), this did not appear to be adhered to in their day-to-day
4 clinical practice. Another major weakness of supervision prac-
5 tice was the limited use made by experienced therapists of audio-
6 and videotapes, or real life observation, and the competency devel-
7 opment-based use of instruments such as the Cognitive Therapy
8 Scale (CTS). This indicates a clinical practice to supervision slip-
911 page, and vice versa.
111 The fact that a high number of respondents voiced satisfaction

2 with their supervision is equivocal. That it may have reflected high
3 standards of supervision is unlikely, given the above data. What is
4 more likely, according to Townend and his colleagues, is that it
5 demonstrated a generally low level of expectation from both super-
6 visor and supervisee. Similarly, the impact and danger of dual role
7 relationships has to be viewed as a weakness, indicating a lack of
8 awareness of ethical and other dimensions of supervision.
9
10
1 Cognitive–behavioural supervision in relation
2 to supervision in mental health
3
4 Although widely regarded as important (Department of Health,
5 1998), supervision has been a strikingly poorly researched topic
6 within mental health (Scaife, 2001), referred to as an “alarming state
711 of affairs” (Russell & Petrie, 1994). The traditional assumption that
8 supervisors are meant to develop competence by drawing on their
9 skills as therapists and on their past experiences as supervisees has
20 been argued as unlikely to form the basis of competent supervision
1 (Hess, 1987). What is arguably needed is a CBT-specific form of clin-
2 ical supervision (Townend, Iannetta, & Freeston, 2002) which has an
3 educational basis and which derives from both theoretical under-
4 standing and empirical investigation.
511
6
7 Educational approaches to
8 cognitive–behavioural-specific supervision
9
311 To this end, a number of helpful guides to good cognitive–behav-
1 ioural supervision practice now exist (Lewis, 2005; Liese & Beck,
2 1997; Padesky, 1996; Townend, 2004). Further, in a definitive and
3 important article, James, Milne, Blackburn, and Armstrong (2006)
4 argued that there are a number of educational approaches to super-
5 vision that make it more successful. Although the evidence base
6 does not as yet justify being too prescriptive, James and his
7 colleagues asserted that some theories enhance and should under-
8 pin cognitive–behavioural supervision. These authors proposed the
911 following series of steps:
111 Step 1: Assessing learning needs: The supervisor should spend time
2 assessing the supervisee’s experiences and background early on in
3 the supervision relationship. Such learning should be matched to
4 the supervisees’ educational needs, which will include their exist-
5 ing competencies and learning context (context includes the learn-
ing opportunities available, the expectation of duties to be
6
performed and competencies to be demonstrated).
711
8 Step 2: Establishing baselines and developing competencies: At this stage
9 the supervisor looks for the supervisee’s baseline competencies.
10 This may usefully employ the Cognitive Therapy Scale-Revised
1 (CTS-R) (Blackburn et al., 2001). This in turn utilises the Dreyfus
competence taxonomy (Dreyfus, 1989). This will help quantify the
2
presence and absence of specific skills.
3
4 The Cognitive Therapy Scale-Revised (CTS-R) scale (Figure 16.1), is
5 the most widely used competency scale in cognitive–behavioural
6 therapy (Figure 16.2):
7 Step 3: Working in the zone of proximal development (ZPD) (Vygotsky,
8 1978): The ZPD defines the distance between what a supervisee can
9 do independently with respect to a skill versus what s/he can
211 potentially achieve with maximum supervisory assistance. For
1 example, at the beginning of a cognitive behavioural course, a
2 supervisee might score 28/72 on the CTS-R, and, realistically, by
3 the end of the course the best s/he is likely to achieve is 38/72. This
4 ten-point range would therefore be her/his zone with respect to
these competencies. The relevance of the zone in relation to a
5
specific skill is that it can help identify those aspects of the skill “yet
6
to be developed” that will enable the learner/supervisee to perform
7
the skill independently.
8
9 Step 4: Applying effective techniques in supervision: Based on a review
30 of leadership techniques in teaching, training, therapy, coaching,
managing and supervision, Milne et al. (2002) provided a synthesis
1
of supervisory activities in an observation tool called Teachers’
2
PETS (Process Evaluation of Training and Supervision). PETS iden-
3
tifies 13 activities typically engaged in by a CBT supervisor. These
4 are listening/observing, managing, supporting, questioning,
5 formulating, informing, feeding back, challenging, disagreeing,
6 evaluating, guiding experiential learning (e.g. modelling, role play)
7 and “other” (e.g. social chat, paper work and setting up equip-
8 ment). These techniques are supported in guidelines to profession-
911 als (e.g. British Psychological Society, 2003), advocated in textbooks
111 CTS-R Items Score Comments and how

2 you could improve
3 on your score
4 1. Agenda setting and adherence

Did the therapist set a good agenda and
5
adhere to it?
6 2. Feedback
7 Were there statements and/or actions
concerned with providing and eliciting
8 feedback?
9 3. Collaboration
10 Were there statements and/or actions
encouraging the client to participate
1 appropriately, and preventing an unequal
2 power relationship developing?
3 4. Pacing and efficient use of time
Were there statements and/or actions
4 concerning the pacing of the session, helping
5 to ensure the time was used effectively?
6 5. Interpersonal effectiveness
Was a good therapeutic relationship evident
711 (trust, warmth, etc)?
8 6. Eliciting appropriate emotional expression
9 Were there questions and/or actions designed
to elicit relevant emotions and promote a
20 good emotional ambience?
1 7. Eliciting key cognitions
to elicit relevant cognitions (thoughts, beliefs,
3 etc)?
4 8. Eliciting and planning behaviours
to elicit dysfunctional behaviours and engage
6 the client in planning for change?
7 9. Guided discovery
Were there questions and/or actions designed
8
to elicit dysfunctional behaviours and engage
9 the client in planning for change?
311 10. Conceptional integration
Were there statements and/or actions
1
designed to promote the client's under-
2 standing of the models underpinning CT?
3 11. Application of change methods
Did the therapist facilitate in-session learning
4 and change through a change method
5 (cognitive and behavioural)?
6 12. Homework setting
Did the therapist set an appropriate
7 homework effectively?
8
911 Figure 16.1. The Cognitive Therapy Scale-Revised (CTS-R) scale.
111
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4 Figure 16.2. The Dreyfus scale is incorporated and informs item ratings within
5 the CTS-R.
6
7
on supervision (e.g. Falender & Shafranske, 2004) and found within
8 successful studies of supervision (Milne & James, 2000).
9
211 The learning process proposed by PETS has recently been opera-
1 tionalised in the “Tandem” model (Milne & James, 2005). The
2 Tandem analogy provides a practical and accessible way of
construing and examining key conceptual, relational and structural
3
issues in supervision. This model contains at least seven key
4
axioms. For example, there is a need for the supervisor to take
5
charge in the early stages of the relationship in order to “steer” a
6 developmental course. Furthermore, the front wheel of the tandem,
7 under the control of the supervisor, is essentially the educational
8 cycle. This describes the inter-related steps of engaging in “needs
9 assessment”, “agreeing learning objectives”, “using appropriate
30 change techniques” and “evaluating performance”.
1
In contrast, the back wheel represents the experiential learning
2
process that is closest to the experience of the supervisee, in the
3 tandem’s “stoker” (back seat) position. The tandem’s back wheel is
4 used to depict Kolb’s (1984) experiential learning cycle. According
5 to Milne and James (2005), it is the essential role of the supervisor
6 to ensure that the supervisee moves around the learning cycle
7 appropriately (the functional definition of successful supervision).
8 Other aspects of the tandem, such as the frame, gears and pedals,
911 are also used analogously (for example frame as “framework” and
111 gears as mechanisms of change). They relate to the various inter-

2 personal process and teamwork issues required in the delivery of
3 effective supervision.
4 Step 5: Evaluating progress: The PETS instrument also examines the
5 impact of the supervisor’s actions on the supervisee. The resultant
6 supervisee behaviour categories are: reflecting, experimenting,
7 conceptualizing, planning, experiencing emotion (for example
8 expressing discomfort; providing details of emotional state in ther-
9 apy). In relation to step five, there are straightforward tools that can
10 be used by the supervisee to foster self-monitoring and for the
1 supervisor to enable formative and summative evaluation. These
2 include the CTS-R (Blackburn et al., 2001) and the Therapist
3 Evaluation Checklist (Hall-Marley, 2000 reproduced in Falender &
Shafranske, 2004).
4
5
6
711 The present and future
8
9 In summary, it has been argued that there are sound empirical,
20 theoretical, and conceptual models of clinical supervision available
1 for cognitive–behavioural practitioners engaged in appropriate
2 formal supervisory relationships. However, these may have had a
3 relatively insignificant impact in actual supervision practice among
4 BABCP accredited therapists in recent years.
511 So far, the discussion has focused on the supervision of trained
6 cognitive–behavioural therapists. However, an immediate and
7 future challenge is cognitive–behavioural supervisors providing
8 supervision for those who are either barely trained in, or who are
9 learning, the cognitive–behavioural approach, having come from a
311 different modality. This phenomenon should be viewed in the
1 context of the interrelated cognitive behavioural dissemination
2 agenda and evidence-based psychotherapy.
3 The importance of empirically-supported psychological thera-
4 pies has been accorded a high profile in policy literature in the last
5 decade (Department of Health, 1996, 2001, 2004, 2005). Cognitive–
6 behavioural approaches remain consistently the “front runner” in
7 this context, reflected in clinical practice guidelines (NICE, 2008).
8 Since the publication of the Depression Report (LSE, 2006), and the
911 Labour Government’s manifesto commitment in 2005 to increase
111 the psychological treatments available to those suffering from anxi-

2 ety and depression, backed up by an investment pledge of £173
3 million, the 2008 profile of cognitive–behavioural therapy has
4 arguably never been higher.
5 All of this has resulted in a trend of therapists from different
6 modalities training in cognitive–behavioural therapy. However, not
711 all those who “jump ship” to cognitive–behavioural training will do
8 so willingly, because of issues such as the wholesale neglect of
9 modalities such as person-centred therapy from the government
10 and evidence-based psychotherapy agendas. How well prepared is
1 the cognitive–behavioural supervisory community to meet this
2 challenge, and what is the nature of the challenge? Supervisees with
3 other prior training and a different set of conceptual thinking will
4 need to learn a completely new psychotherapeutic vocabulary and
5 conceptualization skills. This will require cognitive–behavioural
6 supervisors to be mindful not just of the formative, competency
7 developmental demands of supervision, but of its normative and
8 restorative dimensions. Anxiety management and confidence
9 building must, of necessity, be centre stage. A further demand will
211 be that of sensitivity. Explicit respect must be accorded to super-
1 visees’ prior modality training and the need to build on this.
2 Formative, and, to some extent, normative and restorative
3 supervision development should sensitively utilize the forms of
4 competency development previously discussed in this chapter
5 (Blackburn et al., 2001; Dreyfus, 1989). In addition, it will be impor-
6 tant for novice cognitive therapists’ development to relate to the
7 three systems of learning inscribed within the “DPR” (declarative,
8 procedural, and reflective) model (Bennet-Levy, 2006; Grant, Town-
9 end, & Sloan, 2008). According to Bennett-Levy, student cogni-
30 tive–behavioural therapists develop in relation to declarative and
1 procedural systems which amount to knowledge of factual informa-
2 tion, or “knowing that”. This is associated with novice learning,
3 and refers to mastering cognitive–behavioural techniques. The
4 reflective system is more advanced, relating to “when-then” rules
5 (the awareness of the moment-by-moment opportunities in therapy
6 when techniques and procedures can and should be applied sensi-
7 tively).
8 This clearly has implications for cognitive–behavioural clinical
911 supervision training to proceed alongside cognitive–behavioural
111 training programmes. This should enable effective and graduated

2 competency skills to be developed and maintained through systems
3 of feedback on performance and the transfer of knowledge from the
4 classroom into practice (Grant & Townend, 2007; Grant, Townend,
5 & Sloan, 2008; Townend, 2005; Townend, 2008). However, this task
6 is compounded by a range of assumptions which clearly illuminate
7 the conceptual ambiguities that still exist around cognitive–behav-
8 ioural supervision (Armstrong & Freeston, 2006; Townend, 2008).
9 A related problem is the fact that, according to the supervision
10 competency development work of Roth and Pilling (CORE, 2008),
1 the BABCP had only forty-six accredited cognitive–behavioural
2 supervisors compared to around 1300 accredited practitioners. This
3 may well reflect a relatively low priority still being accorded to
4 supervision as a serious clinical activity.
5 And what of the ethical dimension to supervision? A useful
6 illustration of one aspect of this is the infrequent use of live or real-
711 time equivalent supervision reported earlier in this chapter that
8 may, for example, be usefully compared with the development of
9 counselling psychology. Ladany, Hill, Corbett, and Nutt (1996), in a
20 survey of 108 supervisees in the USA, found that nearly all admit-
1 ted to non-disclosure of varying kinds. A substantial amount of
2 such avoidance related to material that could be central to learning
3 and competency development, including personal issues raised by
4 clinical work, perceived clinical mistakes, and negative reactions to
511 clients.
6 The trend of retrospective reporting forms of clinical super-
7 vision, as opposed to live or real-time equivalent forms, makes it
8 highly likely that selective non-disclosure currently remains a
9 feature of supervision in cognitive–behavioural psychotherapy.
311 This places the onus on cognitive–behavioural supervisors to
1 model good supervision practice by have recordings of their clini-
2 cal work as the basis for their own supervision.
3 It is to be hoped that the above developments, inscribed within
4 the increasing profile of competency development in cognitive–
5 behavioural psychotherapy and supervision discussed in this chap-
6 ter, may gradually close the gap between good cognitive–behav-
7 ioural supervision and related educational practice represented by
8 writers such as Padesky, James, and Bennett-Levy, and the debased
911 variants exposed by Townend and colleagues. Time will tell!
111 References
2
3 Armstrong, P. V., & Freeston, M. H. (2006). Conceptualisation and
4 formulating cognitive therapy supervision. In: N. Tarrier (Ed.), Case
Formulation in Cognitive Behaviour Therapy: The Treatment of Chal-
5
lenging and Complex Cases (pp. 349–372). London: Routledge.
6
Bennett-Levy, J. (2006). Therapist skills: a cognitive model of their
711
acquisition and refinement. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy,
8
34(1): 57–78.
9 Blackburn, I. M., James, I., Milne, D. L., Baker, C., Standart, S., Garland,
10 A., & Reichfeldt, F. (2001). The revised cognitive therapy scale (CTS-
1 R): psychometric properties. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy,
2 29: 431–446.
3 British Psychological Society (2003). Policy Guidelines in Supervision in
4 the Practice of Clinical Psychology. Leicester: Division of Clinical
5 Psychology.
6 CORE (Centre for Outcomes, Research and Effectiveness) (2008).
7 Website: www.ucl.ac.uk/clinical-psychology/CORE/supervision_
8 framework.htm (accessed 15 June 2008).
9 Department of Health (1996). NHS Psychotherapy Services in England:
211 A Review of Strategic Policy. London: Department of Health.
1 Department of Health (1998). A First Class Service. Leeds: Department
2 of Health.
3 Department of Health (2001). Mental Health Policy Implementation Guide.
London: Department of Health.
4
Department of Health (2004). The NHS Knowledge and Skills Framework
5
(KSF) and the Development Review Process. www.dh.gov.uk (accessed
6
30 December 2007).
7
Department of Health (2005). Chief Nursing Officer’s Review of Mental
8 Health Nursing. London: Department of Health.
9 Dreyfus, H. L. (1989). The Dreyfus model of skill acquisition. In:
30 J. Burke (Ed.), Competency Based Education and Training. London:
1 Falmer Press.
2 Falender, C., & Shafranske, E. (2004). Clinical Supervision: A Competency-
3 based Approach. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association.
4 Grant, A., & Townend, M. (2007). Some emerging implications for clini-
5 cal supervision in British mental health nursing. Journal of Psychiatric
6 and Mental Health Nursing, 14(6): 609–614.
7 Grant, A., Townend, M., & Sloan, G. (2008). The transfer of CBT educa-
8 tion from classroom to work setting: getting it right or wasting the
911 opportunities. The Cognitive Behavioural Therapist, 5 August: 27–44.
111 Hall-Marley, S. (2000). Unpublished instrument, available as an appen-

2 dix to C. Falender & E. Shafranske (2004), Clinical Supervision: A
3 Competency-based Approach. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric
4 Association.
5 Hess, A. K. (1987). Advances in psychotherapy supervision: introduc-
6 tion. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 18: 187–188.
7 James, I. A., Milne, D., Blackburn, I.-M., & Armstrong, P. (2006).
Conducting successful supervision: novel elements towards an in-
8
tegrative approach. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy, 35:
9
191–200.
10
Kolb, D. (1984). Experiential Learning. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-
1
Hall.
2 Ladany, N., Hill, C. E., Corbett, M., & Nutt, L. (1996). Nature, extent
3 and importance of what therapy trainees do not disclose to their
4 supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43: 10–24.
5 Lewis, K. (2005). The supervision of cognitive and behavioural
6 psychotherapists. BABCP Magazine: Supervision Supplement, 33(2):
711 1–4.
8 Liese, B. S., & Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive therapy supervision. In: C. E.
9 Watkins (Ed.), Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision (pp. 114–133).
20 New York: Wiley.
1 LSE Centre for Economic Performance (2006). The Depression Report. A
2 New Deal for Depression and Anxiety Disorders. London: London
3 School of Economic and Political Science.
4 Milne, D. L., & James, I. (2000). A systemic review of effective cogni-
511 tive–behavioural supervision. British Journal of Clinical Psychology,
6 39: 111–129.
Milne, D. L., & James, I. (2005). Clinical supervision: ten tests of the
7
tandem model. Clinical Psychology Forum, 151: 6–10.
8
Milne, D. L., James, I., Keegan, D., & Dudley, M. (2002). Teacher’s PETS:
9
A new observational measure of experiential training interactions.
311
Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, 9: 187–199.
1 NHS National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)
2 (2008). www.nice.org.uk.
3 Padesky, C. (1996). Developing cognitive therapist competency: teach-
4 ing and supervision models. In: P. M. Salkovskis (Ed.), Frontiers of
5 Cognitive Therapy (pp. 266–292). New York: Guilford.
6 Russell, R. K., & Petrie, T. (1994). Issues in training effective super-
7 visors. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 3: 27–42.
8 Scaife, J. (2001). Supervision in the Mental Health Professions. A Prac-
911 titioner’s Guide. Hove: Brunner-Routledge.
111 Sloan, G. (2003). Audio recordings of nurse-patient interactions.

2 Nursing Standard, 17(29): 33–37.
3 Townend, M. (2004). Supervision contracts in cognitive behavioural
4 psychotherapy. BABCP Magazine: Supervision Supplement, 34(3): 1–4.
5 Townend, M. (2005). Interprofessional supervision from the perspec-
6 tives of both mental health nurses and other professionals in the
711 field of cognitive behavioural psychotherapy. Journal of Psychiatric
8 and Mental Health Nursing, 12: 582–588.
9 Townend, M. (2008). Clinical supervision in cognitive behavioural
psychotherapy: development of a model for mental health nursing
10
through grounded theory. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health
1
Nursing (in press).
2
Townend, T., Iannetta, L., & Freeston, M. (2002). Clinical supervision in
3
practice: a survey of UK cognitive behavioural psychotherapists
4
accredited by the BABCP. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy,
5 30: 485–500.
6 Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher
7 Psychological Processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER SEVENTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Learning to supervise using a
8
9
solution-focused approach
10
1
2
Carole Waskett
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
H
211 ow do we teach people how to supervise others? The
1 multiplication of courses, and requirements for super-
2 vision qualifications are fairly new. We used to trust coun-
3 sellors and psychotherapists to “just know” how to supervise.
4 When looking for a supervisor we searched out someone with expe-
5 rience and a good reputation, perhaps someone who used the
6 model we were comfortable with, who was willing to take on the
7 role. That was how I found my first supervisor, and how I started
8 to do it myself.
9 Then, after training, having supervision, and practising in a
30 solution-focused (SF) way for some years, I learned more about SF
1 supervision at BRIEF (www.brieftherapy.org.uk) in a two-day
2 course. I went on doing that with my supervisees. Eventually, the
3 world wagged a finger and said, “Two days is not long enough to
4 be properly trained in supervision”. So I completed a longer univer-
5 sity module, based on the person-centred and Hawkins and Shohet
6 (2006) models. I appreciated the tutors’ input, enjoyed the company
7 of the rest of the group, did my best with the work, and passed
8 comfortably. But the course seemed to make supervision unneces-
911 sarily complicated, and I have always been a fan of KISS—Keep it
223
111 Short and Simple. So I continued to supervise my various super-

2 visees in a simple SF way. But now I had a certificate that “proved”
3 I could do it. It was all rather confusing.
4
5
6 Supervision applied to a variety of helping professionals
7
8 Now, as an NHS trainer who also runs a private training and super-
9 vision practice, I teach both mental health professionals and a vari-
10 ety of other helping professionals (mostly the latter) how to
1 supervise and support others. In my working world, the meanings
2 of “supervision” for therapists, counsellors, and other mental
3 health workers, and “clinical supervision, or practice supervision,
4 or professional support” for nurses, allied health professionals,
5 prison officers, social workers, and others, share permeable bound-
6 aries.
711 SF supervisors have to have some common qualities and skills,
8 whoever they are supervising. Because these qualities and skills
9 are, in the main, dedicated to being curious and supportive about
20 what the other person is saying or doing, there is no need to do
1 anything special or different for different disciplines. It is the super-
2 vision partner—the supervisee—who will be doing or saying or
3 thinking the different or distinctive things according to their disci-
4 pline. The SF supervisor does not have to know more than the
511 supervisee, or be wiser about the supervisee’s practice. They have
6 only quietly to use their supervision skills of taking their part in a
7 helpful conversation (checking quite frequently that it is, in fact,
8 helpful) and maintaining ethical practice.
9 These are the three qualities or skills that seem to me to be essen-
311 tial to the SF supervisor:
1
2 ● a willingness to tune in to the ordinary working language and
3 world view of the supervisee;
4 ● an interest in any strengths, resources, helpful behaviours, and
5 forward movement towards the preferred future, which
6 belong to, or are possible for, both the supervisee and their
7 clients;
8 ● enough learning and practice to know how to have a SF
911 conversation with its different tools.
LEARNING TO SUPERVISE USING A SOLUTION-FOCUSED APPROACH 225
111 Two further elements are common to all good supervision:

2
3 ● an ability to keep one’s own ego out of the way, and an under-
4 standing of how to adapt one’s side of the conversation to the
5 supervisee’s natural timing and pacing;
6 ● a clear understanding of the appropriate ethics, boundaries,
711 and professional responsibilities of a supervisor.
8
9 It seems to me that, if an SF supervisor is confident and comfort-
10 able with each of the above elements, they can do supervision
1 safely, ethically, and properly with anyone who requests it, what-
2 ever the supervisee’s professional background and practice.
3
4
5 More about a solution-focused approach to supervision
6
7 In this approach, we assume that the supervisor, like the SF thera-
8 pist, is “non-expert”. However practised one’s empathy, it is impos-
9 sible accurately to be inside the mind of someone else, either
211 supervisee or client, or to know very much about the relationship
1 between supervisee and client. So the SF supervisor will be open-
2 minded and curious about these areas.
3 We make no formulations or hypotheses. We do, however, make
4 an assumption: that the person we are working with has all the
5 resources necessary to run their own professional life and make
6 good decisions for themselves; likewise for any client being
7 discussed. The supervisor’s job is to be interested in and nurture
8 the supervisee’s desired forward movement in their practice while
9 not getting in their way. In this approach, supervisors tend to be
30 more interested in the supervisee than in the supervisee’s clients.
1 Helping to enable the supervisee’s best work will feed through to
2 the benefit of their clients, and the supervisee is the only person we
3 have a mandate to work with.
4 Provided the supervisee is willing to work with the supervisor,
5 it is irrelevant whether the supervisor is aligned with the super-
6 visee’s discipline, model, or approach, neither does it matter if the
7 supervisor is senior to the supervisee. This is an egalitarian and
8 non-expert model, in which the only expertise the supervisor offers
911 is the ability to use SF language skills in co-creating a helpful
111 conversation with the supervisee: that is, a conversation which

2 helps the supervisee to work at their best. This dialogue will often
3 consist of thoughtful questions and answers to highlight the skills
4 and know-how of the supervisee and help them to consider their
5 work and think ahead.
6 These conversations are not always specifically about cases. The
7 supervisee might wish to talk more generally about their practice,
8 and we may, for instance, have a conversation around how good a
9 practitioner they feel they are, perhaps using scaling thus:
10
1 “So if 10 means you feel you are already an excellent practitioner,
2 and 0 means you’re definitely in the wrong job, where on the scale
3 would you say you were at present?”
4 “And what makes you think you’re at X rather than further down
5 the scale?”
6 “And what do you think you (or the client) will be doing differently
711 at one step up?”
8
9 This respectful curiosity really embodies the supervision. The
20 supervisor holds the boundaries of time, place, and their own ethi-
1 cal practice firmly, while being open and interested in how the
2 supervisee works and how they see forward movement happening
3 in the work they are doing, with respect for however the supervisee
4 chooses to do it.
511 In their own clinical work, an SF practitioner will often be more
6 interested in the client’s behaviour than in their expressed feeling,
7 and in general will not use ideas about unconscious processes,
8 transference and countertransference, or the parallel process. She is
9 more inclined to stay on the surface than probe the depths.
311 However, as a supervisor, her interest is in what the supervisee
1 believes and does in their work. If she is working with a person-
2 centred practitioner, she may echo the supervisee’s person-centred
3 language: “feelings”, “congruence”. With a practice nurse, she is
4 likely to respond in familiar nursing language, such as “patient”
5 and “treatment”.
6 If the SF supervisor is invited to work with someone wanting to
7 look at unconscious processes and parallel process, again they will
8 adapt their language to fit, following the supervisee’s lead. Working
911
111 with someone from another counselling model is similar to working

2 with someone from another discipline altogether. The SF supervisor
3 will be interested in the supervisee’s views of how unconscious
4 communications affect and assist the therapy under discussion. This
5 work across models can be stimulatingly fruitful as supervisor
6 and supervisee create pathways and bridges towards each other’s
711 beliefs and professional experiences, and learn how to collaborate
8 with each other for the benefit of the supervisee’s clients and
9 work.
10 Each supervisee is unique, and the supervisor will also be aware
1 of learning about what this supervisee means when they use these
2 particular words. We try to make the conversation smooth and easy
3 for the supervisee, not snagging or distracting them with jarring
4 language.
5
6
7 Teaching SF supervision to SF trainees
8
It is quite simple to teach SF practitioners to use SF as supervisors,
9
although it takes learners practice and attention to become skilled.
211
These trainees already understand the philosophy and elements of
1
the approach (MacDonald, 2007; O’Connell, 1998). Solution-focused
2
therapy and solution-focused supervision work in parallel. All the
3
elements of SF are revisited and used:
4
5 ● tuning in to the language/world view of the supervisee, and
6 being guided by the supervisee’s agenda;
7 ● recognizing the supervisee’s existing strengths, skills, and
8 resources;
9 ● respectfully acknowledging problems and difficulties while
30 not encouraging further problem talk;
1 ● inviting the supervisee to describe and develop ideas about the
2 preferred future (for their own work generally, or their work
3 with a particular case);
4 ● using circular questioning, that is, questions from the view-
5 points of others, e.g., “What would the client’s mother think of
6 this?”;
7 ● looking for exceptions to the problem;
8 ● finding out what the supervisee and their client are doing that
911 works for them (both in the supervisee’s practice and in the
111 client’s way of running their life), and being interested in what
2 will happen when they do more of that;
3 ● collaborating to chart progress by various means, including
4 using scales.
5
6 Briggs and Miller (2005), Trenhaile (2005), and Pichot (2005)
7 each describe in much more detail some aspects of SF supervision.
8 In general, the central needs of these students are to grasp the
9 double vision of holding both supervisee and their supervisee’s
10 clients in view, to master the additional more formal responsibili-
1 ties of the supervisor, and to gain confidence.
2
3
4 Teaching trainees from other helping professions
5
6 It is also surprisingly easy to teach professionals from other disci-
711 plines, such as nurses, allied health professionals, drugs workers, or
8 social workers how to do SF supervision. These workers tend to be
9 interested in the precise yet simple language skills used, and are
20 often attracted to the positive and pragmatic attitudes of SF think-
1 ing. While many (for example, nurses) use the medical model in
2 their normal work, they are usually very willing to try something
3 new when it comes to supervising colleagues.
4
511
6 Teaching trainees who are non-SF psychological therapists
7
8 Psychological therapists trained in other models might find it more
9 difficult to learn to supervise in a solution-focused way, and often,
311 understandably, prefer to supervise from their own approach.
1 However, those who attend SF supervisor training willingly and
2 with interest, seem very able to absorb this way of working. For
3 some, this means that they will take on the SF approach fully in
4 their supervision practice and perhaps even begin to use it in their
5 therapeutic work; others may just pick up a few concepts or tools
6 to incorporate into their usual style.
7 At first, learning the approach can feel awkward. As an illustra-
8 tion, in a recent SF training session with trained and experienced
911 but non-SF therapists, pairs worked together to practise the use of
111 scaling. Embedded in this exercise was the concept of non-expert-

2 ness: the supervisor (or therapist) did not need to know the details
3 of the problem. The interviewee was asked to silently imagine a
4 change they wished to make, without describing the change and
5 why they wanted to make it. The interviewer then asked their part-
6 ner, “If 10 means you’ve made this change successfully, and 0 = the
711 opposite, where are you now?”, and explored details of “How did
8 you get to X?”, and “What will be different one step up, or as you
9 move up the scale?”
10 In feedback at the end of the exercise, several interviewers
1 expressed frustration that they were not told about their partner’s
2 problem and why the change was desired, and said they found it
3 very difficult to restrain themselves from asking about these
4 matters. They were naturally curious, and they honestly felt they
5 were not being as helpful as they wanted to be. The speakers,
6 though, to everyone’s surprise, expressed pleasure and a sense of
7 space and accomplishment in the short conversation. The inter-
8 viewer’s interest and encouragement was fully present, without the
9 contamination of their views on the actual situation. This exercise
211 demonstrates how beneficial—and how difficult—it can be for us as
1 supervisors to leave our own ego or advice out of the conversation
2 and simply focus on the supervisee’s thinking.
3
4
5 Final thoughts
6
7 Mental health practitioners such as counsellors, psychotherapists,
8 psychiatrists, and the like will usually trust the model or approach
9 they first trained and practised in. There are many understandable
30 reasons why practitioners may not wish to learn a different model,
1 so, in my view, SF supervision, as other models, should be freely
2 chosen by the supervisee.
3 Nevertheless, a great strength of the SF approach is its prag-
4 matic adaptability to, and interest in, the needs of the client or
5 supervisee. SF supervisors take respect for, and curiosity about, the
6 ideas, language, and practice of the person they are working with
7 as a main tenet of the approach. We adapt our language to that of
8 the supervisee. We use the simple elements of the model to collab-
911 orate with the supervisee to help them to work better; we “coax
111 expertise”, in Thomas’s (1996) delightful phrase. The SF approach

2 allows us to supervise any professional who wishes to work with
3 us in this way, simply, supportively and safely.
4
5
6 References
7
8 Briggs, J. R., & Miller, G. (2005). Success enhancing supervision. In:
9 T. S. Nelson (Ed.), Education and Training in Solution-Focused Brief
10 Therapy (pp. 199–222). New York: Haworth.
2 Maidenhead: Open University Press.
3 MacDonald, A. (2007). Solution-Focused Therapy: Theory, Research &
4 Practice. Los Angeles: Sage.
5 O’Connell, B. (1998). Solution-focused Therapy. London: Sage.
6 Pichot, T. (2005). Thoughts from a solution-focused supervisor. In: T. S.
Nelson (Ed.), Education and Training in Solution-Focused Brief Therapy
711
(pp. 277–280). New York: Haworth.
8
Thomas, F. (1996). Solution-focused supervision: the coaxing of exper-
9
tise. In: S. D. Miller, M. A. Hubble, & B. L. Duncan (Eds.), Handbook
20
of Solution Focused Brief Therapy (pp. 128–151). San Francisco, CA:
1
Jossey-Bass.
2 Trenhaile, J. D. (2005). Solution-focused supervision: returning the
3 focus. In: T. S. Nelson (Ed.), Education and Training in Solution-
4 Focused Brief Therapy (pp. 223–228). New York: Haworth.
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 CHAPTER EIGHTEEN

2
3
4
5
6
711 Training for supervising
8
9
transpersonal therapists and others
10
1
2
Suzanne Dennis
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
O
1 ver ten years, the Psychosynthesis and Education Trust has
2 developed and delivered annual supervision training for
3 therapists of any orientation who wish to supervise coun-
4 selling and psychotherapy work using a transpersonal and integra-
5 tive approach.
6 Transpersonal psychology is concerned with psycho-spiritual
7 development.
8 An integrative approach is embedded in psychosynthesis. The
9 founder of psychosynthesis, Roberto Assagioli (1888–1974), stated,
30 “The position assumed by Psychosynthesis is a ‘synthetic’ one. It
1 thus appreciates and weighs the merits of all therapies, all methods
2 and techniques of treatment, without preconceived preferences”
3 (Assagioli, 1967).
4 Assagioli was a pioneer of his time. He endorsed Freud’s think-
5 ing, but also pointed out the limitations he saw in psychoanalysis.
6 He was one of the founders of humanistic and transpersonal psy-
7 chology, writing and teaching about his concept of the human
8 psyche well before Maslow. He drew inspiration from eastern, as
911 well as western, spiritual and scientific traditions. Psychosynthesis,
231
111 therefore, sees itself as an open, non-dogmatic approach suited to

2 training supervisors to work across orientations.
3
4
5 Evolution of the training
6
7 The supervision training has changed and lengthened in order to
8 provide a robust training that meets the needs of supervisors in
9 today’s counselling and psychotherapy profession. Competent
10 supervisors require a sophisticated grasp of relevant maps, a highly
1 trained awareness of what is going on in the supervisory relation-
2 ship, as well as a good ability to think systematically and ethically.
3 The craft of supervision requires new skills. The training has
4 evolved into a packed twenty-day course that, combined with
5 study and practice hours, has been validated at postgraduate level.
6
711
8 Individual learning goals
9
20 This training requires students to identify personal learning needs
1 depending on their previous training and experience. For those not
2 previously trained in the transpersonal approach, time has to be
3 allowed to read and reflect on this, and to increase familiarity with
4 ideas about integration and eclecticism. Reading research on what
511 works in therapy (Hubble, Duncan, & Miller, 1999; Miller, Hubble,
6 & Duncan, 2008), can loosen fixed ideas about the rightness of a
7 particular approach, and promotes open-minded enquiry, as can
8 studying a case from different therapeutic orientations (Corey,
9 2001).
311
1
2 Supervision of supervision
3
4 Learning to supervise is challenging; not everyone is suited to this
5 role. Containing anxiety, (both the supervisor’s and the super-
6 visee’s), is demanding. Beginning supervisors may often resort to
7 too much focus on teaching and structure, unconsciously distanc-
8 ing themselves from supervisees, or fall back on identifying with
911 previous supervisors. For this reason, we require trainees to be
TRAINING FOR SUPERVISING TRANSPERSONAL THERAPISTS AND OTHERS 233
111 apprenticed to an experienced (and trained), supervisor for super-

2 vision of supervision. Here, some of the challenges of supervising
3 in practice, such as using authority and power wisely, systemic
4 problems, and group dynamics can be given the space they deserve.
5 Supervision of supervision also provides cutting edge learning
6 for the trainee supervisor through listening to and discussing
711 recordings of their supervision sessions. This promotes awareness
8 of unconscious processes, and enables reflection on the choice,
9 style, and impact of a supervisory intervention on a supervisee.
10 The value of supervision of supervision is highlighted in an arti-
1 cle by Packwood (2008), who recently completed a supervision
2 training. It is titled “Gandalf’s apprentice—the magic of super-
3 vision”:
4
5 To be the Wise One, Gandalf the white carries a great responsibil-
6 ity . . . This ability does not come merely with age, with a short
7 course or a bit of practice. . . . This seems a much-neglected area
both in the training and in the continuing development of super-
8
visors . . . We seem to overemphasise the “love” of theory and
9
neglect the spiritual life of the supervisee . . . We therefore need a
211 developmental pathway that acknowledges more of the spiritual
1 side of the supervisory process. An imitation or mentorship under
2 the eye of an acknowledged wise supervisor is not widely seen as
3 essential to a supervisee’s development. [p. 36]
4
5 It is essential to explore the shadow motivations for supervising
6 in order to assist the trainee supervisor to cultivate the capacities of
7 presence, openness, and responsiveness. Supervisors might be
8 motivated, for instance, by the desire for power, the wish for admi-
9 ration, or the desire to keep up a defence that it is others who need
30 help.
1
2
3 Presence
4
5 The ability to be open and to stay with the unknown is a key feature
6 of the transpersonal approach:
7
8 Whatever our theoretical framework and whether we are with a
911 trainee, developing or experienced supervisee, while we hold
111 authority it is important not to place the supervisee under psychic

2 or actual pressure for specific outcomes. However much we know
3 we must be able to let go, we must be involved but not attached to
4 preconceptions of what ought to occur. [Dennis & O’Reilly, 2003,
p. 38]
5
6
In psychosynthesis, the human psyche includes the spiritual, as
7
well as the primitive, unconscious. The spiritual unconscious is
8
where our sense of purpose and potential lie. If we repress the spir-
9
10 itual unconscious it can cause suffering and prevent growth and
1 individuation, just as much as when we repress the primitive
2 unconscious. Life offers us obstacles and challenges and we are
3 each on an unfolding path. While the past has its influence, it is not
4 an explanation of the present. Psychosynthesis works with both the
5 primitive and the spiritual unconscious to evoke the self (best
6 understood as the spiritual heart of a person), our potential. This
711 transpersonal context holds awareness of the bigger picture of
8 which we are a part.
9
20
1 Opening doors
2
3 Another working assumption of transpersonal supervision is that
4 the supervisee “knows more than they know”, that is, they know
511 more about the client and the process of healing than they can
6 access through the mind. Psychosynthesis supervision offers
7 creative methods conducive to the transpersonal that allow the
8 supervisory couple or group to transcend the structures of the
9 cognitive mind. Guided imagery can dissolve a seemingly other-
311 wise insoluble therapeutic block. Here, the supervisee is guided to
1 identify and dialogue with an internal image or symbol represent-
2 ing the block, gaining insight and resolution. Drawing, mime, the
3 use of symbolic objects, setting up constellations in individual or
4 group supervision, provide penetrating ways to access the super-
5 visee’s wisdom, compassion, and the truth lying in the uncon-
6 scious. The choice of pieces in sand tray work and the way we place
7 them reveals new dimensions. Creative role-play, where the super-
8 visee role-plays the client and the supervisor role-plays the super-
911 visee, gives the supervisee a vivid experiential sense of what it is
111 like to be the client. The supervisor can reflect on what it is like to
2 be therapist with this client. A role-play is part of a dynamic super-
3 visory process that allows the experience of being separate
4 consciousnesses to dissolve and insight to emerge.
5
6
711 Intuition
8
9 The transpersonal supervisor needs to have ability to both play
10 with and respect the unconscious, to use intuition, and to be able to
1 support and hold the supervisee in the powerful feelings that can
2 be evoked. They also need to facilitate considered reflection and
3 interpretation by the supervisory dyad or group of what has
4 emerged. As psychosynthesis therapist Rachel Charles’ (2004),
5 research showed, intuition is often accompanied by the sense of
6 being right. We need to be wary, and at the same time to be able to
7 treat intuition with respect. At best, these techniques bring tremen-
8 dous insight and movement in the therapeutic process; at worst,
9 they release energy that loosens up the interactive field in the
211 supervisory and therapeutic systems.
1
2
3 Giving soul a voice in supervision
4
5 From the transpersonal meta-perspective, “supervision is a form of
6 retreat”, says Whitmore (1999). Supervisees communicate with
7 their inner voice, images, and symbols, not only to uncover the
8 meaningfulness of the countertransference, but also the subtle
9 latent potential of the spiritual unconscious. The supervisor holds
30 the space for the retreat, the holding for the retreat, and the
1 transpersonal context for the retreat.
2 Why is it important to give the transpersonal space in super-
3 vision? Clarkson and Angelo’s (2000) research found that the soul
4 of supervision is as important as its body. Supervisees were asked
5 to select and write about a significant supervision experience in
6 order to find out more about what competences supervisees looked
7 for in a supervisor. Various dynamic transpersonal qualities, such
8 as “insight”, “creativity”, and “integrity”, were just as important as
911 “sound theory”, “listening”, “support”, and “diverse knowledge”.
111 Theory
2
3 Theoretically speaking, as far as models go (though the map is not
4 the territory), we find it useful to draw on Hawkins and Shohet’s
5 process model of supervision which they call the “seven-eyed”
6 model, where they see seven processes that are fruitful to explore
7 in supervision (2006, p. 82). Just as Inskipp and Proctor (1995)
8 added a seventh focus to Hawkins and Shohet’s original six-foci
9 model we have added an eighth all encompassing transpersonal
10 focus.
1 Why choose to concentrate on Hawkins’ and Shohet’s model
2 rather than other models which are described as integrative? (See
3 Gilbert and Evan’s integrative relational model [2000], or the
4 models described in Part I of Carroll and Tholstrup [2001].) We find
5 this model is useful in practice for practitioners from most psycho-
6 therapeutic orientations, from cognitive–behavioural to person-
711 centred original trainings. It draws on systemic, psychodynamic,
8 intersubjective, cognitive, behavioural, and humanistic approaches.
9 It equips supervisors to adapt their system of supervision to suit the
20 supervisee and increases their ability to work with a greater range
1 of difference, especially trans-culturally.
2 The seventh focus that looks at the contextual systemic field is
3 of a different order, as Hawkins and Shohet have realized as they
4 have developed their thinking in this area (2006). Similarly, we
511 would argue that the transpersonal context of the eighth eye is of a
6 different order. While it could be argued that there is no need for a
7 seventh or eighth eye as they permeate the other foci, it is essential
8 to keep them on the map because, as Hawkins and Shohet say of
9 the seventh eye, without it we “would lose the constant challenge
311 that nearly all of us need: regularly to move our attention from
1 what is naturally in our field of vision, to the wider domain in
2 which we are operating” (2006, p. 102).
3 Indeed, often the spiritual is repressed, we shy away from the
4 things that make us truly moved for fear of being overwhelmed, or
5 because we defend against uncertainty, or fear being judged. Being
6 on the edge, in a liminal space, seems too frightening, as can
7 happen in an experience of spiritual emergence. Therefore, we need
8 this challenge to remind us to take the risk to look at meaning and
911 purpose, suffering, and the potential for growth in our lives, and
111 allow the spiritual unconscious to have a voice. Here, we can be

2 open to the mysterious sense that often we get the clients we need,
3 to synchronicity, to archetypal patterns. We can be inspired by
4 courage, integrity, humour, and love, as well as stay with, and
5 accept, our helplessness in the face of suffering.
6 Transpersonal therapy or supervision should not be seen as the
711 exclusive domain of transpersonal therapists and supervisors who
8 have reached the “subtle” or “causal” levels of psychospiritual
9 development, as John Rowan (2006) implies. The transpersonal is
10 not up there or out there; it exists in consciousness, not outside it.
1 In psychosynthesis, the transpersonal is seen as immanent: it is
2 already there. There are a variety of ways in which the sacred
3 can be cultivated and embodied; there is not one way. Evidence
4 of this can be seen in other therapeutic orientations (see O’Hanlon,
5 2006), and in supervision (see Cameron, 2004; Shohet, 2008).
6 Supervisors do need to know enough about psychopathology to
7 be able to guide supervisees to assess risk, and distinguish between
8 spiritual emergence, spiritual emergency, and situations where
9 psychiatric advice is indicated. They also need to know something
211 about the distortions caused by the ego and narcissism that can
1 accompany the psychospiritual journey.
2
3
4
5 Harnessing the power of groups
6
7 Group supervision can be particularly fertile ground for the
8 transpersonal. In psychosynthesis theory, the stages of group
9 dynamics are governed by the archetypes of love and will. Skilled
30 handling of their interplay in group process results in more ability
1 to think in symbols and imagery and access intuitive insights There
2 can be a sense of trusting the process gained through travelling
3 through the shadow of the group (which often involves attachment
4 and rivalry about differing orientations) to the darker side of
5 ourselves, discovering immanence as well as transcendence. We
6 connect again to our common humanity. Sometimes we can feel the
7 hair on the backs of our necks prickle in the presence of the group’s
8 soul. Or we may connect with the hidden purpose of coming
911 together, which may be the conscious task or not.
111 Groups like this can enhance the supervisory experience of all
2 the members and facilitate exploration of the unconscious to greater
3 depth than individual supervision. Creative group experiential
4 exercises are often used; these can be extremely rewarding espe-
5 cially in groups where there are different theoretical orientations.
6
7
8 Shadow
9
10 The breadth and openness of psychosynthesis, and its attitude of
1 holding theory lightly, lends itself to supervising across orientations.
2 However, the shadow side of inclusivity could be omnipotence. It is,
3 therefore, imperative that, wherever appropriate, the supervisor has
4 the humility to state that they know very little about the supervisee’s
5 orientation, that they are willing to learn more, and to think about
6 the implications of this for the effectiveness of supervision and the
711 supervisory relationship. Key to this is the initial contracting and
8 regular reviewing. The supervisor has to determine whether they are
9 willing to learn more about their supervisee’s orientation and how
20 to do so. It could be that it would not be wise to work together;
1 it might not be what the supervisee needs, especially if s/he is a
2 novice. Or it may be that the supervisor does not wish to spend time
3 learning about that orientation and work on adapting their style.
4 The importance of developing the ability of supervisors to be
511 aware of the implications of power imbalances, especially where
6 the supervisor has an assessing role, and the ability to work with
7 difference and diversity, cannot be over emphasized. Supervisors
8 need to be able to work with difference, whether it is cultural, reli-
9 gious, gender, sexuality, age, disability, or difference in orientations.
311 Where there is a power imbalance, such as being in the role of gate-
1 keeper to the profession, we need to be open hearted.
2 Becoming a supervisor is an opportunity for tremendous
3 growth. We are prompted to look back on our own training as
4 therapists, on our own experience of supervision, and to take a
5 more active role in being part of our profession. Engaging with the
6 transpersonal and integrative approach is an exciting and reward-
7 ing challenge, which does not end with the training, but is instru-
8 mental in bringing strands together which carry us forward in a
911 creative, ever-changing weave.
111 References
2
3 Assagioli, R. (1967). Psychosomatic medicine and bio-psycho synthesis.
4 Psychosynthesis Research Foundation, 21.
Cameron, R. (2004). Shaking the spirit. Subtle energy awareness in
5
supervision. In: K. Tudor & M. Worrall (Eds.), Freedom to Practise:
6
Person-Centred Approaches to Supervision (pp. 171–188). Ross-on-
711
Wye: PCCS Books.
8
Carroll, M. (2001). The spirituality of supervision. In: M. Carroll &
9
M. Tholstrup (Eds.), Integrative Approaches to Supervision (pp. 76–89).
10 London: Jessica Kingsley.
1 Carroll, M., & Tholstrup, M. (Eds.) (2001). Integrative Approaches to
2 Supervision, Part I (pp. 11–89). London: Jessica Kingsley.
3 Charles, R. (2004). Intuition in Psychotherapy and Counselling. London:
4 Whurr.
5 Clarkson, P., & Angelo, M. (2000). In search of supervision’s soul:
6 competencies for integrative supervision in action. Counselling
7 Psychology Review, 17(4).
8 Corey, G. (2001). Case Approach to Counselling and Therapy (5th edn).
9 Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
211 Dennis, S., & O’Reilly, J. (2003). The transpersonal in supervision.
1 Therapy Today, August: 38–39.
2 Gilbert, M., & Evans, K. (2000). Psychotherapy Supervision. Buckingham:
3 Open University Press.
4 Hubble, M. A., Duncan, B. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). The Heart and Soul
5 of Change: What Works in Therapy. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
6
Hawkins, P., & Shohet, R. (2006). Supervision in the Helping Professions
7
(3rd edn). Maidenhead: McGraw-Hill.
8
Inskipp, F., & Proctor, B. (1995). The Art, Craft and Tasks of Counselling
9
Supervision. Twickenham: Cascade.
30 Miller, S. D., Hubble, M. A., & Duncan, B. L. (2008). Supershrinks.
1 Therapy Today, 19(3): 4–9.
2 O’Hanlon, B. (2006). Pathways to Spirituality. New York: Norton.
3 Packwood, D. (2008). Gandalf’s apprentice—the magic of supervision.
4 Therapy Today, July: 36–38.
5 Rowan, J. (2006). Transpersonal supervision. Journal of Transpersonal
6 Psychology, 10: 14–24.
7 Shohet, R. (Ed.) (2008). Passionate Supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.
8 Whitmore, D. (1999). Handout from Supervision Training at Psycho-
911 synthesis and Education Trust, London.
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
711 Epilogue
8
9
10 Penny Henderson
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
T
211 he range of ideas and approaches about supervision and
1 supervision training represented in this volume is consider-
2 able, although it does not begin to represent all options
3 available. I hope the references and different approaches will seed
4 more cross-theoretical interest among trainers.
5 There are shared themes. Most authors concur, or imply, that
6 teaching experienced practitioners calls for methodologies that
7 capitalize on experience, enable deep reflection with more self-
8 aware reflexive practice, and embody values congruent with the
9 processes of supervision itself.
30 Most indicate the essentially contractual nature of a supervisory
1 relationship. Learning to take authority, offer developmental feed-
2 back, be trans-culturally aware, and promote the development of
3 ethical awareness is very important. Headlines are agreed, such as
4 the importance of appropriate boundaries and an agreed focus
5 within supervision
6 Our differences are also striking. All the last six authors were
7 invited to say whether their approaches could usefully be general-
8 ized to offer supervision to supervisees who are not trained within
911 their particular approach, and all are confident that they can. Yet,
241
111 their particular ideas differ in crucial ways. The same implication
2 is embedded in the earlier chapters, and readers will notice differ-
3 ing theoretical assumptions here, too. Some comparative research
4 studies are badly needed.
5 The issues between these approaches that I think may be worthy
6 of further research are as follows.
7
8 1. Is it essential that a supervisee bring live or recorded examples
9 of their work for supervision to overcome omissions in disclo-
10 sure of difficulties?
1 2. How far can training be adequate without some focus on orga-
2 nizational contexts of supervision?
3 3. Some approaches emphasize educational functions of super-
4 vision and do not emphasize the restorative functions or the
5 containing power of the supervisory relationship. How does
6 effectiveness of supervision vary as a result?
711 4. If transpersonal approaches can be applied within most theo-
8 retical frames, why are they not more included in supervision
9 training?
20 5. What is the effect of not attending to unconscious process, and
1 parallel process in particular, in supervision?
2
3 I think that more space to encourage reflective and reflexive
4 practice about the social, political, global, and organizational
511 contexts of the work is timely. We have always explored power in
6 supervision in relation to difference and oppression. Yet, it is impor-
7 tant also to weave into our approach to this topic a sense of our
8 selves as embodied beings living within aging bodies. We have
9 connections and responsibilities within personal and professional
311 networks, and we are also a product of our own personal history
1 and culture. For some people, spiritual matters, or the state of the
2 economy or the planet, will frame or focus their study of how to be
3 as a supervisor.
4 Most centrally, I want egalitarian and collegial values to be
5 combined with a rigorous attitude to assessment from a position
6 that notices, encourages, and celebrates development and life-long
7 learning. Learning beyond the course will come from habits of
8 reflection about experience, from feedback, and from time for
911 creativity and self-care.
EPILOGUE 243
111 So, I end much as I began. I believe that courses must be

2 connected to practice, and to current and foreseeable political and
3 professional developments. Courageous leadership is important.
4 Just as counsellors do not learn all they need to know in their initial
5 training, so supervisors need many opportunities to develop within
6 and beyond initial training. I hope this book will contribute to that.
711
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111 APPENDIX 1
2
3
4
5
6
711 Professional organizations with
8
9
some involvement in supervision
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
211 ABC awarding body, www.abcawards.co.uk
1 BACP British Association for Counselling and Psychotherapy
2 www.bacp.co.uk
3 BABCP British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive Psycho-
4 therapies www.babcp.co.uk
5 BAPCA British Association for the Person Centred Approach www.
6 bapca.co.uk
7 BAPPs British Association for Psychoanalytic and Psychodynamic
8 supervision (For psychodynamically focused supervisors)
9 www.adbapps.freeserve.co.uk
30 COSCA Counselling & Psychotherapy in Scotland www.cosca.
1 org.uk
2 CPCAB Counselling & Psychotherapy Central Awarding Body
3 www.cpcab.co.uk
4 EAS European Association for Supervision www.supervision-
5 eas.org
6 EATA The European Association of Transactional Analysis (for
7 TA supervision and training), www.eatanews.org
8 HPC (Health Professions Council) www.hpc-uk.org
911 NOS National Occupational Standards www.ukstandards.org
245
246 APPENDIX 1
111 UKCP United Kingdom Council for Psychotherapy www.

2 psychotherapy.org.uk
3 UKRC United Kingdom Register of Counsellors www.ukrconline.
4 org.uk
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
Henderson 2 index 6/11/56 2:45 am Page 247
INDEX
accreditation, xxi–xxii, 6–7, 9–10, Banks, M., 124, 139

47–48, 56, 157, 166–167, 186, Barnes, G., 189, 195
210–211, 216, 218 Batts, V. B., 71, 74, 79
Adler, A., 109, 112, 121 Battye, R., 205–206
Ahlers, R. H., 82, 90 Beck, J. S., 209–212, 220
Allen, M., 82, 89–90 Belbin, R. M., 37, 41
Allen, P., 98, 104 Bennett-Levy, J., 217–219
Angelo, M., 235, 239 Bennetts, C., 62, 67
Ansbacher, H. L., 112, 121 Bernard, J. M., 83, 88, 90, 112, 121
Ansbacher, R. R., 112, 121 Berne, E., 33, 41, 188–189, 193, 195
anxiety, 62, 84, 103, 117, 125, 127, Blackburn, I. M., 209, 212–213,
130, 138, 148, 159, 177–179, 217, 216–217, 219–220
232 Blackmore, C., 88, 91
Armstrong, P. V., 212, 218–220 Bolton, G., 104–105, 129, 139
Assagioli, R., 205–206, 231, 239 Bordin, E. S., 188, 195
Association of Counsellors and Boud, D., 83, 90
Psychotherapists in Primary Bourhuis, J., 82, 89–90
Care (CPC), xxi, 153–156 Bowlby, J., 112, 120–121
awarding body (ABC), 6, 43, 59, Bramley, W., 94, 99, 101, 105
245 Brear, P., 57, 67, 136, 139
Briggs, J. R., 228, 230
Bach, S., 82–84, 89–90 British Association for Behavioural
Baker, C., 209, 213, 216–217, 219 and Cognitive Psychotherapies
Baldwin, J., 107, 121 (BABCP), xxi, 210, 216, 218, 245
247
248 INDEX
111 British Association for Counselling Cooper, M., 199–200, 207

2 and Psychotherapy (BACP), Corbett, M., 218, 220
xxi–xxii, 9, 11, 13, 17–18, 24–25, Corey, G., 232, 239
3
43, 47–48, 58, 60, 114, 122, Cornell, W. F., 187, 190, 193,
4 129–130, 139, 245 195
5 British Association for Counselling & Psychotherapy
6 Psychoanalytic and Central Awarding Body
7 Psychodynamic supervision (CPCAB), 6, 43, 245
8 (BAPPs), xxi–xxii, 245 Counselling & Psychotherapy in
British Association for the Person Scotland (COSCA), xxii, 245
9
Centred Approach (BAPCA), countertransference, 11, 30, 32, 71,
10 245 73, 97, 145, 175–180, 190–191,
1 British Psychological Society, 213, 194, 226, 235 see also:
2 219 transference
3 Brown, K. G., 82, 91 Cox, M., 189, 195
Burrell, N., 82, 89–90 Crick, P., 134, 139
4
Cameron, R., 237, 239 Crowther, C., 181, 183
5 curriculum, xvii, 3, 6, 8, 11, 13,
6 Carroll, M., 10, 13, 29, 41, 45, 54, 99, 85–86, 135, 204
711 105, 129, 139, 236, 239
8 CASCADE Supervision Training, Delworth, U., 137, 179, 184
9 44–45, 59 Dennis, S., 234, 239
Casement, P., 100, 105 Department for Education and
20
Casemore, R., 24–25 Skills (DFES), 85, 90
1 Centre for Outcomes, Research and Department of Education and
2 Effectiveness (CORE), Training (DET), 85, 90
3 xxii–xxiii, 7, 14, 155, 218–219 Department of Health (DOH), 144,
4 Charles, R., 235, 239 156, 212, 216, 219
Claiborn, C. D., 114, 122 Docchar, C., xxi, xxiii, 3, 13
511
Clarkson, P., 4, 7, 10–11, 13, 30, 36, Dorrian, J., 57, 67, 136, 139
6 41, 190, 195, 235, 239 Down, G., 12, 14
7 Clear, Owned, Regular, Balanced, Dreikurs, R., 108, 122
8 and Specific (CORBS), 115, 118 Dreyfus, H. L., 213, 215, 217, 219
9 Cockx, A., 82–84, 88, 90 Driver, C., 175, 179–181, 183
311 cognitive therapy scale (CTS), 211 Dryden, W., 202, 207
revised (CTS-R), 209, 213–216 Duckham, J., 175, 184
1
cognitive–behavioural therapy, 144, Dudley, M., 213, 220
2 191, 193, 209–210, 212–213, Dugger, M., 82, 90
3 216–218, 236 Duncan, B. L., xxi, xxiii, 108,
4 conscious(ness), 38, 114, 126, 129, 121–122, 232, 239
5 145, 158–159, 162–163, 165–166,
168, 176–182, 189, 204, 235, 237 Ekstein, R., 127, 139, 175, 183
6
see also: unconscious(ness) Encke, J., 104–105
7 containment, 15, 36, 40, 57, 62, 109, English, F., 188, 195
8 126, 146–148, 150, 152, 154, ethical dilemma, 10, 24, 29, 32, 127,
911 188–189, 194, 202, 232, 242 129, 204
INDEX 249
111 European Association for Gist, M. E., 82, 90

2 Supervision (EAS), 245 Goodyear, R. K., xxi, xxiii, 83, 88,
European Association of 90, 112, 121
3
Transactional Analysis Gorell Barnes, G., 12, 14
4 (EATA), xxi–xxii, 187, 245 Granello, D. H., 137, 140
5 Evans, K., 96–97, 105, 236, 239 Grant, A., 82–84, 88, 90, 217–219
6 Greenson, R. R., 176, 183
Falender, C., 215–216, 219 group dynamics, 11, 24, 50, 52, 133,
711
Fawbert, F., 83, 88, 90 164, 233, 237
8 feedback, xvii–xviii, xxi, 5–6, 9,
9 60–62, 65, 84, 86, 88–89, 103, Hahn, H., 194–195
10 107–109, 111–116, 118–121, 124, Hall-Marley, S., 216, 220
1 128, 130–132, 134–138, 158–160, Hammarskjöld, D., 123, 140
163, 165–166, 179, 203, 214, 218, Hargaden, H., 193–195
2
229, 241–242 Hawkins, P., 3, 5, 8–9, 14, 31, 36, 41,
3 giving, 10, 103, 109–110, 114–115, 99, 105, 113, 115, 118, 122, 126,
4 118, 161–163, 201, 204 131, 137, 140, 147, 152, 156, 169,
5 receiving, 10, 103, 109–110,
171, 175, 179, 183, 223, 230, 236,
6 117–118, 160, 162–163, 166–167,
239
201, 204
7 Haynes, P., 82–84, 89–90
verbal, 60, 111
8 Health Professions Council (HPC),
written, 60–61, 111, 116–117
9 xxii, 54, 245
Feletti, G., 83, 90
Heimann, P., 175, 183
211 Fielden, K., 31, 41
Heinze, A., 83–85, 90
1 Fowlie, H., 194–195
Henderson, P., 4, 7, 12, 14, 44, 124,
Frawley-O’Dea, M., 175, 183
2 128, 140
Freeston, M. H., 210–212, 218–219,
3 221 Heron, J., 5, 10, 14, 31, 41, 128, 140
4 Freire, P., 19, 25 Heron’s six-category intervention
Freud, S., 175, 231 analysis, 5, 10, 128
5
function Herrick, J., 135, 140
6 Hess, A. K., 212, 220
creative, xix
7 Hewson, J., 29, 32, 36, 41, 46
educative, xix, 31, 99, 242
8 restorative, xxii, 135, 242 Hill, C. E., 218, 220
9 supportive, xix Hillier, Y., 83–84, 86, 88, 90
30 managerial, xix Hitchings, P., 205–206
Furman, M., 136, 141 Holloway, E. L., 29, 36, 42
1 Houston, G., 170–171, 200, 206
2 Gabriel, L., 24–25, 67 Hubble, M. A., xxi, xxiii, 108,
3 Gardner, H., 73, 79 121–122, 232, 239
4 Garland, A., 209, 213, 216–217, 219 Hunt, C., 62, 67
5 general practitioner (GP), 27, 32,
144–147, 149 Iannetta, L., 210–212, 218, 221
6
Gibbs, G. R., 82, 90 Increased Access to Psychological
7 Gibson, N., 62, 67 Therapies (IAPT), xxii–xxiii, 7,
8 Gilbert, M. C., 4, 7, 10–11, 13, 36, 41, 14, 144
911 96–97, 105, 236, 239 Ingham, H., 128, 140
250 INDEX
111 Inskipp, F., xviii–xix, xxiii, 3, 14, Mander, G., 126, 140
2 98–99, 105, 127, 130–131, 140, Margerison, C. J., 37–39, 42
157, 164–165, 169, 171, 236, 239 Marken, M., 15, 25
3
interpersonal process recall (IPR), Martin, E., 175, 178–180, 183
4 10, 98, 111 Mattinson, J., 175, 183
5 intervention(s), 5, 9–11, 30–32, 40, Mattrey, M., 82, 89–90
6 70, 73, 94–95, 99, 101–102, 117, Mayer, J. E., 126, 141
7 128, 131–133, 150, 200, 210, 233 Mazzetti, M., 190, 196
8 intuition, 4, 34, 100, 104, 132, 235, McCann, D., 12, 14, 37–39, 42
237 McLeod, J., 95, 105
9
Mearns, D., 18, 25, 48, 54, 197–200,
10 James, I. A., 209, 212–213, 215–217, 204, 207
1 219–220 Merry, T., 199, 201, 207
2 Jeffrey, B., 147, 156 Micholt, N., 188, 196
3 Jollifee, A., 83, 90 Millar, A., 115, 122, 124, 140
Jones, H., 146, 156 Miller, G., 228, 230
4
Miller, S. D., xxi, xxiii, 108, 121–122,
5 Kagan, N., 111, 122 232, 239
6 Kass, S. J., 82, 90 Mills, J., 82–84, 88, 90
711 Keegan, D., 213, 220 Milne, D. L., 209, 212–213, 215–217,
8 Kekkonen-Moneta, S., 82, 90 219–220
9 King, D., 11, 14, 126, 141 Mizen, R., 175, 184
Knoff, H. M., 71, 79 Moiso, C., 193, 196
20
Knowles, M. S., 19, 25 Moneta, G., 82, 90
1 Kolb, D., 215, 220 Munson, C. E., 119–120, 122
2 Kyriakidou, M., 84, 90 Murphy, A., 146, 156
3 Murphy, D., 84, 91
4 Ladany, N., 218, 220 Murray-Garcia, J., 71, 79
Lago, C., 125, 140
511
Lahad, M., 170–171 National Health Services (NHS),
6 Lambers, E., 201, 206 144, 146, 149–151, 153–155, 180,
7 Lambert, M. J., 188, 196 224
8 Langs, R., 177, 183 National Institute for Health and
9 Larsen, R. E., 82, 91 Clinical Excellence (NICE), 216,
311 Lees, J., 145, 156 220
Lewis, K., 212, 220 National Occupational Standards
1
Lewis-Smith, J., 82–84, 89–90 (NOS), xxii–xxiii, 7, 14, 245
2 Lichtenberg, J. W., 114, 122 Neaman, G., 146, 156
3 Liese, B. S., 209–212, 220 Norton, R., 190, 195
4 LSE Centre for Economic Nottingham Andragogy Group, 20,
5 Performance, 216, 220 25
Luft, J., 128, 140 Novellino, M., 193, 196
6
Luscri, G., 57, 67, 136, 139 Nutt, L., 218, 220
7
8 Mabry, E., 82, 89–90 O’Connell, B., 227, 230
911 MacDonald, A., 227, 230 O’Hanlon, B., 237, 239
INDEX 251
111 O’Reilly, J., 234, 239 Russell, R. K., 212, 220

2 Orlinsky, D. E., 55, 67 Russell, T., 82, 91
3
Packwood, D., 233, 239 Samec, J. R., 136, 141
4 Padesky, C., 209–212, 218, 220 Sarnat, J. E., 175, 183
5 Page, S., 3, 8–9, 14, 36, 42–43, 54, 94, Savin-Baden, M., 83, 91
6 99, 105, 114, 122, 131, 135, 140, Scaife, J., 12, 14, 119, 122, 170–171,
711 204–205, 207 212, 220
8 parallel process, 9, 11, 30, 33, 95, Schon, D. A., 83–84, 91, 93, 105
100, 132, 155, 190–191, 226, Schwoerer, C., 82, 90
9
242 Searles, H. F., 175, 180, 184
10 Payne, M., 15, 25 self
1 Peluso, P. R., 128, 140 assessment, 58, 65–66, 203
2 Perren, S., 154, 156 awareness, xx, 9–10, 74, 97, 99,
3 Perry, C., 176, 183 103, 124, 127–128, 144–145
Petrie, T., 212, 220 Seneviratne, S., 203, 207
4
Piaget, J., 19, 25 Shadbolt, C., 187, 190, 195
5 Pichot, T., 228, 230 Shafranske, E., 215–216, 219
6 Pinderhughes, E., 69, 79 shame, 28, 34–35, 40, 75, 77, 98,
7 Pocknell, C., 8, 14 107–108, 118, 128, 130, 134, 164
8 portfolio(s), 7, 58, 62, 64–65, 87, 102 Shohet, R., 3, 5, 8–9, 14, 99, 105, 113,
9 primary care, 144–156 115, 118, 122, 126, 131, 137, 140,
Process Evaluation of Training and 147, 152, 156, 169, 171, 175, 179,
211
Supervision (PETS), 213, 183, 223, 230, 236–237, 239
1 215–216 Sills, C., xxii, 192–193, 195–196
2 Proctor, B., xviii–xix, xxiii, 3, 14, 99, Simmering, M. J., 82, 91
3 105, 127, 131, 140, 157, 164–165, Skovholt, T. M., 138, 141
4 169–171, 188, 196, 236, 239 Sloan, G., 210, 217–219, 221
Proctor, C., 83–85, 90 Smith, N., 31, 36, 41
5
Pryor, R. G. L., 127, 141 solution-focused (SF), 223–230
6 Standart, S., 209, 213, 216–217, 219
7 Quality Assurance Agency for Steiner, C., 74, 79, 189, 196
8 Higher Education (QAA), 6, 14 Stevens, Darryl T., xxi, xxiii
9 Stevens, David, 83, 90
30 Reichfeldt, F., 209, 213, 216–217, 219 Stewart, J., 135, 141, 179, 181, 184
Rennie, D., 206–207 Stewart, N., 4, 14, 146, 148, 156
1
Richards, K., xx, xxiii, 15, 25 Stimmel, B., 181, 184
2 Ristvedt, S., 136, 141 Stoltenberg, C. D., 137, 179, 184
3 Ritter, J., 83, 90 subjectivity, 44, 55–56, 58, 67, 96, 98,
4 Robertson, P., xxi, xxiii 109, 186
5 Robiner, W. N., 136, 141 inter-, 100, 126, 143, 145, 236
Rogers, C. R., 16, 25, 200, 206–207 Sugg, S., 129, 141
6
Ronnestad, M. H., 55, 67, 138, 141 Supervising Transactional Analyst
7 Rosen, B., 82, 90 (STA), 186, 190
8 Rosenblatt, A., 126, 141 Sutton, L., 84, 91
911 Rowan, J., 237, 239 Szecsödy, I., 179, 184
252 INDEX
111 Tantum, D., 88, 91 United Kingdom Register of

2 Teaching and Supervising Counsellors (UKRC), 246
Transactional Analyst (TSTA), Uschi, F., 83, 91
3
186–187
4 Tervalon, M., 71, 79 van Deurzen, E., 88, 91
5 Tholstrup, M., 236, 239 Vasserman, D., 146, 156
6 Thomas, F., 230 Vygotsky, L. S., 213, 221
7 Thompson, J., 125, 140
8 Thorne, B., 48, 54, 201–202, 204, 207 Walker, R., 84, 91
Titsworth, S., 82, 89–90 Wallerstein, R., 175, 183
9
Tollemache, R., 146, 156 Wampold, B. E., 188, 196
10 Townend, M., 82–84, 88, 90–91, 212, Wanberg, C. R., 82, 91
1 217–219, 221 Watkins, E., 83, 88, 91
2 Townend, T., 210–212, 218, 221 Weaks, D., 55, 67
3 transactional analysis (TA), xxii, Webb, G., 84, 91
151, 185–194, 245 Welsh, E. T., 82, 91
4
relational, 193–194 Weston, H., 8, 14
5 transference, 11, 30, 70, 97, 100, Wheeler, S., xviii, xx–xxi, xxiii,
6 145–147, 156, 175–180, 188, 10–11, 14–15, 25, 56, 67,
711 190–191, 194, 226 see also: coun- 112–113, 117, 122, 126, 141
8 tertransference Whitmore, D., 235, 239
9 Trenhaile, J. D., 228, 230 Wiener, J., 175, 184
Tuckman, B., 162, 171 Willutski, U., 55, 67
20
Tudor, K., 12–14, 132, 141, 187–188, Wood, J. K., 198, 207
1 194–196, 198, 203, 207 Worrall, M., 12, 14, 132, 141, 198,
2 Turner, S., 62, 67 203, 205–207
3 Wosket, V., 3, 8–9, 14, 36, 42–43, 54,
4 unconscious(ness), 9, 21, 32, 93, 95, 94, 99, 105, 114, 122, 131, 135,
99, 132, 145–148, 155, 175–182, 140, 204, 207
511
189, 193–194, 226–227, 232–235, Wright, J., 84, 91
6 237–238, 242 see also: Wright, K., 96–97, 105
7 conscious(ness)
8 United Kingdom Council for zone of proximal development
9 Psychotherapy (UKCP), 48, 246 (ZPD), 213
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911
111
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
711
8
9
20
1
2
3
4
511
6
7
8
9
311
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
911

Supervisor Training - Issues and Approaches (Guide To Supervision) (2009, Karnac Books)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supervisor Training - Issues and Approaches (Guide To Supervision) (2009, Karnac Books)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Henderson_PRELIMS_FINAL 5/6/09 12:49 pm Page i

111 Guide to Supervision Series

111 CHAPTER FIVE

111 CHAPTER FIFTEEN

111 ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

xii ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

111 subsequently she has worked as an independent practitioner.

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xiii

111 Alec Grant is a British Association for Behavioural and Cognitive

xiv ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS

111 in independent practice, and is also director of a four-year coun-

ABOUT THE EDITOR AND CONTRIBUTORS xv

111 second edition of Group Supervision: A Guide to Creative Practice was

111 The book might well also be of interest to colleagues involved in

111 There is a distinction between the functions and purposes of

111 Good practice in supervision

111 tens of thousands of accredited counsellors, non-accredited coun-

111 Standards and thus could support development of supervision

111 CHAPTER ONE

111 than experience as a counsellor and as a supervisee. Some became

111 Identifying training needs

111 a supervisee, and sometimes from having practised as a supervisor.

111 ● To embrace the paradox of valuing tradition while also being

111 to develop a knowledge base, to develop a supervisory style and

111 regulatory authorities, more work on equivalence for basic training

111 CHAPTER TWO

111 The relationship is the key

IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 17

111 experienced practitioner. Though not concerned primarily with

IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 19

111 on the principles of educating children, which largely come from

111 2 Adults have the potential to undergo further qualitative

IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 21

111 me, along with the responsibilities that I am expected to carry. At

IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 23

111 no real idea of what counselling is, are unlikely to be practising

111 I believe it is important for the content of supervision courses to

IT IS ALL IN THE RELATIONSHIP 25

111 developing supervision courses to see them as education with

111 CHAPTER THREE

111 priorities, operational strategies, personal preferences, and differing

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 29

111 to psychiatric institutions or expose them, with the probable out-

111 behaviour. This requires emotional intelligence, which is part and

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 31

111 counselling course, and, because she unconsciously identiﬁed her-

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 33

111 The central role of contracting

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 35

111 culture, norms, language, rituals, and signiﬁcance of emphasis.

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 37

111 the course, the theories of contracting, process, menus of super-

111 supervisor and later (if used in supervision) the supervisee to

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 39

111 shaming lack of knowledge in a safe environment, but also the

TRAINING SUPERVISORS IN MULTI-DISCIPLINARY GROUPS 41

111 specialists in complementary medicine, the view of the same land-

111 Holloway, E. L. (1995). Clinical Supervision: A Systems Approach.

111 CHAPTER FOUR

111 that it is possible to pursue a supervision course more or less imme-

RECRUITMENT AND ACCESS 45

111 before training became an essential requirement. Individuals who

111 Relevant training