EMOTIONALLY ATTUNED SUPERVISION: ROBERT KAFES 1

Emotionally Attuned Supervision: An interview with Robert Kafes, DCSW, ACSW, LCSW
By William Harryman

To suggest that Sigmund Freud and his psychoanalytic model have fallen out of favor in
the education of contemporary counseling students would be a gross understatement. Most
students get little more than the id, ego, and super ego, along with a brief discussion of
transference and countertransference and psychological defenses. While there may be lip service
paid to the development of object relations, attachment theory, Self Psychology, and maybe even
relational psychotherapy from Freudian concepts, there remains a stigma associated with Freud
and psychoanalysis. Stephen Mitchell has tried to dispel some of the myths about
psychoanalysis (Freud and Beyond, 1995), but many of them persist, even in counseling
programs.
Despite the dearth of teaching on psychoanalytic thought, there are many practitioners
and students who use this model in part or in whole. Robert Kafes, a licensed clinical social
worker and board certified diplomat, has been working in the psychoanalytic tradition as long as
he has been practicing (1971). He has been conducting psychoanalytically-informed supervision
for almost as long, since 1973, having been trained through an exercise of recording and
critiquing process notes line by line. His psychoanalytic supervision training focused on the
awareness of transference, countertransference, defenses, and resistance in the supervisee. Kafes
continued to pursue his own education, reading and researching the newest models and
techniques, as well as teaching and co-teaching supervision courses for the National Association
of Social Workers (NASW), the Board of Behavioral Health Examiners (BBHE), and the
Southwest School.
As a result of his supervision experience and in working with the various existing models
over the years, Kafes has developed his own model based in psychoanalytic Self Psychology –
Emotionally Attuned Supervision. His supervision model, in many ways, is similar to his
therapeutic model. The foundations of his model are in Self Psychology, including concepts
such as mirroring, idealizing, twinship, adversarial needs, vitalizing needs, and spirituality.
Added to that framework is the more post-modern relational model, as described by DeYoung
(Relational Psychotherapy: A Primer, 2003). The following is a paraphrase of how this
particular supervision model might be defined, using Kafes’ definition of relational therapy as a
foundation:

Supervision is a supervisee-directed relationship used systematically and purposefully to

integrate and facilitate the supervisee’s potential. Growth occurs through transforming
dimensions of intimacy between supervisor and supervisee. The supervisor’s professional
use of self becomes a primary human connection through which development happens.
Within their evolving participation, both supervisee and supervisor create a coherent
narrative about who the supervisee is as a therapist while engaging in the act of making
sense of that process together. (Kafes, personal communication, 2011)

While this may appear lofty and abstract as it is defined, it’s a whole other thing in practice.

The Supervision Process

Kafes understands his primary responsibilities as a supervisor to be monitoring (the
supervisee-client relationship) and mentoring (the supervisee as a therapist). When the
supervision relationship begins, there is a very specific contract created between Kafes and the
supervisee, spelling out in detail the perceived goals and how progress will be measured or
assessed. This contract is a written agreement, although it can be revised from time to time
through the supervision process. In addition, Kafes continually monitors and assesses the
supervisee’s progress and development – at all times, he is ultimately responsible for the care of
the client.
In many instances, the supervisee has been the subject of ABBHE censure, and the
supervision process is mandated by the Board as a condition of remaining licensed. In these
cases, Kafes bases his assessments on a form provided by the Board and the benchmarks that
must be met are determined by the adjudication ruling. In other situations, there is a three-way
contract between the agency, the supervisee, and the supervisor. In whatever situation the
supervision occurs, Kafes first and foremost seeks to assess the developmental stage of the
supervisee. Although it was not discussed in the interview, Kafes likely employs a
developmental model similar to the Rønnestad and Skovholt Model (Bernard and Goodyear,
2009, p. 97) in determining the experience level of supervisees.
No matter the circumstances of how one enters into supervision, however, Kafes sees his
role, again, as similar to his role as a therapist – to create a “safe harbor” or safe space, to be
trustworthy and reliable. Being a good supervisor requires being empathic with the supervisee’s
needs and emotional states. This is the foundational element of psychoanalytically-based
relational psychotherapy:

[Kohut] argued that the appropriate response is an empathic or “experience-near”

understanding of the individual’s needs to take in and utilize the other (the self-object) in
a manner that silently performs missing functions within one’s own self—without
necessarily acknowledging these significant external contributions. (Pollack, 2003, p.
1208)

One apprehends in this definition issues around mirroring, idealizing, twinship, and modeling –
all of these are as important in the supervision process as they are in the therapeutic relationship.
For the supervisee, the mentor/supervisor can often become an idealized image serving as both a
model and an idealized other and, in this exchange, the possibility of transference and
countertransference arises as a means of growth.

Psychoanalytic Supervision
As mentioned above, the four essential elements in psychoanalytic supervision are
transference, countertransference, defenses, and resistance. Each of these is a relational
construct in that it takes two or more people to create the transference or the resistance, for
example. Another example of how these processes might play out between the supervisor and
the supervisee, and therefore become part of the supervisory relationship, might appear as
follows:

Unresolved or problematic matters that reverberate between therapist and patient can be
unconsciously transported and enacted in the supervisory relationship, for example, the
patient might elicit a harsh, judgmental response from the therapist who, when discussing
the patient in supervision, elicits like treatment from the supervisor (see Langs & Searles,
1980, p. 132); conversely, matters between supervisor and supervisee may make their
 way into the therapeutic relationship (e.g., where the supervisor repeatedly acts toward
the supervisee in an unnecessarily harsh fashion and the supervisee carries that rage forth,
treating the patient with anger). (Watkins, 2010, p. 395)

From the relational perspective, the growth and the development of the supervisee is dependent
on these processes coming into play, although one clearly would want to minimize the
occurrence of “harsh” actions or reactions toward the supervisee. Moreover, it is the
responsibility of the supervisor to remain attuned emotionally and empathically to the
subjectivity of the supervisee so as to create the “safe space” that is understood to be necessary
for personal and professional growth. If the supervisor is attuned, harsh reactions are unlikely.
As Herron and Teitelbaum (2001) observe, however, misattunements are bound to
happen – try as one might, it is not possible to always be fully attuned (relating subject to subject
rather than subject to object):

Because of the narcissism of both people in a dyad, the recognition and respect for the
subjectivity of the other will vary, so that there will often be times in which the subject-
object relationship style predominates. Thus Benjamin (1995) points out, ‘‘breakdown is
a common feature within intersubjective relatedness--what counts is the ability to restore
or repair the relationship’’ (p. 47). (Heron &Teitelbaum, 2001, p. 152)

When the supervisor repairs these empathic failures, however, s/he is modeling for the
supervisee how to do this same work with the client. A lot of what happens in the supervisory
relationship is a form of teaching by example, wherein the supervisor models the appropriate
clinical behavior so that the supervisee can both experience it and begin to integrate it as a
potential behavior.
According to Kafes, this is true of the supervisory relationship as well. How the
supervisor and supervisee are in relationship is an experiential model that the supervisee can then
take into the relationship with the client. In the psychoanalytic literature, this triadic relationship
is referred to intersubjectivity (although this term has other meanings as well).

Intersubjectivity in clinical supervision involves the subjective reactions of the client,

therapist, and supervisor to one another, reflecting the unfinished business and
personality of each member of the triad (Brown & Miller, 2002). The intersubjective
perspective is emerging as a contemporary model for understanding the co-participatory
nature of psychotherapy, as well as the reciprocal mutual influence processes of
supervision (Fiscalini, 2004; Frie & Reis, 2005). (Southern, 2007, p. 280; see also Heron
&Teitelbaum, 2001)

Kafes stressed this element of the supervision process – the attunement between the supervisee
and supervisor is then carried into the supervisee relationship with the client. Of course, this
intersubjective relationship will bring up issues in both the supervisee and the supervisor, which
can look very much like therapy.

Supervision vs. Therapy (and other ethical issues)

As Bernard and Goodyear (2009) point out early in their textbook on supervision, there
are going to be elements of that relationship that resemble therapy. The key distinction for them,
as well as for Kafes, is that in the supervisory relationship, any therapeutic interventions must be
limited:

Therapeutic interventions with supervisees should be made only in the service of helping
them become more effective with clients: To provide therapy that has broader goals is
ethical misconduct (see, e.g., Ladany, Lehrman-Waterman, Molinaro, & Wolgast, 1999;
Neufeldt & Nelson, 1999). (p. 9)

For some psychoanalytically trained therapists, these boundaries, while acknowledged and
respected, are a little less rigid, but this is only a recent development resulting from the increased
influence of the intersubjective models (see Sarnat, 1992). While acknowledging that there will
be times when the supervision process does become therapeutic – in that the material interfering
in the therapy is deep-seated in the supervisee – Kafes prefers to maintain those boundaries as
much as possible. When necessary, he refers supervisees out for more in-depth and long-term
therapy.
While the therapeutic aspect is one common ethical issue in supervision, the more
common issues Kafes sees in supervisees are boundary crossings and boundary violations.
Interestingly, he said that he would rather work with supervisees who cross boundaries (short of
the bigger issues such as sex or harm) than those who do not take those risks. In his experience,
it is easier to reign in and contain a supervisee with good intentions – who cares a lot about the
client – but who has poor boundaries than it is to train a supervisee who is less caring or involved
to become more so. He can teach “holding to the frame,” but he cannot make people more
empathic or more caring if that is not their nature.
Finally, Kafes views self-disclosure in supervisors much the same as in therapists – does
it further the work? However, there are different layers involved in this triadic relationship.
Very often this issue is not about supervisors self-disclosing, but rather about the supervisee self-
disclosing with the client. This is far too broad a topic to be handled here, but Weinstein, Winer,
and Ornstein (2009) offer an excellent overview of the relevant issues for the supervisor,
including a “close study of a supervisory session dealing with self-disclosure” as a way to “to
develop a more general conceptual framework” for thinking about supervision (p. 1380).

Conclusion
One of the most salient characteristics of Kafes’ interpersonal psychoanalytic model –
Emotionally Attuned Supervision – is its adaptability to a variety of theoretical perspectives.
While a supervisee looking for clearly defined and mirrored Cognitive Behavioral supervision
would be advised to look elsewhere, Kafes’ model is open to various perspectives because his
focus is on the relationship the supervisee forms with the client more than the techniques
employed (although this is also important). His passion is for helping the supervisee be the best
and most caring therapist possible. Perhaps this is why his consultation groups are so highly
praised by working therapists in Tucson.

References
Bernard, J.M. & Goodyear, R.K. (2009). Fundamentals of Clinical Supervision, Fourth Edition.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
DeYoung, P.A. (2003). Relational psychotherapy: A primer. New York: Brunner-Routledge.
Herron, W.G., & Teitelbaum, S. (2001). Traditional and intersubjective supervision. The
Clinical Supervisor, 20(1), 145-159. doi:10.1300/J001v20n01_11
Mitchell, S. A., & Black, M. J. (1995). Freud and beyond: A history of modern psychoanalytic
thought. New York: Basic Books.
Pollack, W.S. (2003). Relational psychoanalytic treatment for young adult males. Journal of
Clinical Psychology/In Session, Vol. 59(11), 1205–1213. DOI: 10.1002/jclp.10211
Sarnat, J.E. (1992, June 1). Supervision in relationship: Resolving the teach-treat controversy in
psychoanalytic ssupervision. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 9(3), 387-403.
Southern, S. (2007, Oct. 1). Countertransference and intersubjectivity: Golden opportunities in
clinical supervision. Sexual Addiction & Compulsivity, 14:279–302. DOI:
10.1080/10720160701480808
Watkins, Jr., C.E. (2010). Psychoanalytic constructs in psychotherapy supervision. American
Journal of Psychotherapy, 64, 4; ProQuest Psychology Journals: 393-416.
Weinstein, L.S., Winer, J.A. & Ornstein, E. (2009, Dec.). Supervision and self-disclosure: Modes
of supervisory interaction. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, vol. 57
no. 6: 1379-1400. doi: 10.1177/0003065109356576