Dealing with Difficulties in Supervision

In this page we will be looking at the following aspects of supervision:
1) Must and can interventions.
2) Identifying unhealthy processes in supervision.
3) Game Playing in supervision .
4) Mirroring, Parallel Process and Transference/Counter-Transference.
5) Strategies for dealing constructively with unhealthy processes in supervision.
6) Principles that assist manage the Supervision/Therapy Dialectic.

Must and Can Interventions

Must and can interventions are notions derived from Proctor (1988). These notions are to be used by supervisors when it becomes apparent and necessary to encourage the supervisee to change their behaviour.

Must Interventions

According to Proctor (1988:7) a Must intervention is used when :

            ' the supervisee (social worker) is doing something that concretely and
                tangibly affects you, or it is part of your job to ensure the performance of
                certain tasks.'

Two examples of when a must intervention would be appropriate are:
1) when a social worker is the rostered duty social worker and they are nowhere to be found without arranging for another social worker to cover them, or
2) when reviewing a case it becomes apparent that children are at risk of harm.

With a must intervention the supervisor must be satisfied with the action that is proposed.

The Guidelines for a must intervention are:

1) Signal you are concerned.
2) State your concern (Be explicit and explain why you need to intervene).
3) Involve the supervisee (social worker) in finding a solution.
4) If you perceive the supervisee (social worker) is resistant or reluctant, use reflective
     listening to explore the resistance or reluctance.
5) Make sure you are comfortable with the solution (It is important that you have
     a set bottom line and that you make this clear to the supervisee).
                                                                                 (Proctor,1988)

Can Interventions

A can intervention is used when:

you have a relationship, which ensures your being heard.
you have information that may assist.
you want to assist the supervisee (social worker).

With a can intervention, it is the social worker's (supervisee's) choice as to whether, when, and if the information will be used, and the supervisor does not need to approve the supervisee's proposed action.
An example of where a can intervention may be appropriate is, perhaps, when the supervisee is feeling stuck with a resistant and reluctant client who is difficult to engage.
Guidelines for a can intervention - where the outcome is not vital, but where you wish to assist the supervisee to maximise their options:

1) Ensure that you and the supervisee are in the right space to permit challenge.
2) State your concern in general terms and seek permission from the supervisee to
provide some information.
3) Wait for the supervisee’s permission before you proceed.
4) Provide your information (be specific).
5) If you perceive resistance or reluctance use reflective listening.
6) Be brief and to the point. (Do not repeat yourself)
7) Let the supervisee decide how, if, or when s/he wishes to act upon your intervention
(Do not follow up unless invited to by the supervisee).

Identifying Unhealthy Processes in Supervision

" No matter what we discuss in supervision, or how positive I feel at the start, I always
come out feeling as if I have been put down and put through the wringer. "

" I am relieved when s/he does not turn up for supervision and the session is postponed."

" I always come out of a session with him/her feeling like I am banging my head against a brick wall. "

I wonder how many of us can identify with the above statements? Each of them is an example of something beneath the surface colouring the interaction taking place. This something beneath the surface that colours the interaction is an unhealthy process.

According to Morrison (1993:91):

    'All interactions have at least two components:
    The Content : the surface action, the overt, what is said or written down.
    The Process : the depth action, the covert, the unspoken, the hidden agenda based
                           on undeclared feelings and beliefs often operating at a preconscious level.'

Supervisors may be lured into unhealthy or hazardous processes from different levels namely:

The social worker - Client/Supervisor - Supervisee.
The Team/Office level.
The Service/Departmental level.
The Professional level

A reported example of the effect of unhealthy processes is found in the following comments attributed to the General Manager of the then Children and Young Persons Service who was reported by the Evening Standard (24 November 1995) to have:

' ...described morale as variable and said the service mirrored the dysfunctional
nature of its clients to an "alarming extent" .'

Some particular types of repetitive unhealthy processes are sometimes called Games.
The consequences of Games are:

" Prevention of change.
Avoidance of responsibility.
Discrimination, disempowerment and distorted thinking.
Inability to empathise with others, avoidance of feelings.
Dangerous and destructive behaviour.
Poor decision-making. " Morrison (1993:91).

Game Playing in Supervision

The concept of Games is derived from Transactional Analysis, and in particular, from the work of
Eric Berne (1964), and ultimately refers to psychological games. Berne (1964:44) defines a psychological game as:

' a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially rational with a concealed motivation.'

Essentially there are three main elements involved in a Game :

1) A continuing sequence of mutual interchanges which appear reasonable on the social stage.
2) There is a hidden agenda/motive beneath the interchange which
3) Contains a predictable payoff, which ends the game and provides the purpose for the game.

According to Kadushin (1992), both supervisors and supervisees can play games (It is important to note here that he does not assert that all supervisors and supervisees play games). Kadushin (1992:280) argues that games are used in supervision as:

"Defensive adjustments to the threats and anxieties that the supervisory situation
poses for them [ie. the initiator of the game]."

The Signs of a Game are:

Feeling uncomfortable regularly with a particular person or group of persons.
A sense that you are involved in a NO WIN situation and that negotiation is futile.
No matter what you do to help you feel as if you are being kicked in the teeth.
You do not get the opportunity to say what you really want, or you find that what you say is twisted or miss-interpreted.

The Routine characteristics of a game :

Uncandid communication.
A lack of specificity, with statements tending to be generalisations.
Withholding or the holding back of vital information.
Evasion of the issue(s).
Emotional volatility.
Little or no progress towards a satisfactory outcome.
An assignment of blame - It's their fault or it's my fault.
Denial of feelings.
Denial of needs/wants and vulnerability.
Conflict between what is disclosed and what is held back.
Incongruence between verbal and non-verbal behaviour.
Personal comments made rather than issue-based comments.
Irrelevant historical material is raised with the aim of discrediting you or another.
Communication and feedback is indirect.
Issues related to Power, Ground-rules, and roles are not explicit.

Games Played by Supervisees:

Kadushin (1992) groups the games played by supervisees in terms of their similar tactics.
These groupings are:

Manipulating demand levels

Games of this type include: "Seducing for subversion " (eg. Management is treating you
terribly!"), "Two against the Service", (eg. We both know that the service requirements
are ridiculous don't we?), "Be nice to me because I am nice to you" (eg. I wish I knew as
much as you did.). These games are played to reduce the level of demand the supervisor places on the supervisee

Redefining the relationship

Games of this type include: "Treat me don't beat me" (eg. My personal life is a mess and I
am finding it hard to cope.). Here the supervisee would rather expose themself than their
work. Another game is "Evaluation is not for friends". In this game the relationship is
redefined as a social one.

Reducing the Power disparity

Games of this kind include: "If you knew the DSM IV TR like I do..." Here the supervisee to
use knowledge that the supervisor does not have, to be-little and expose the supervisor
and thereby place the supervisee in the expert position. Another game is "So what do you
know about it?" This game is usually played by experienced and senior practitioners who
will let you know that they have been in the service for 20 years and this is the best way
do things etc...

Controlling the situation

Games of this kind include: "I have a little list". Here the supervisee sets the agenda by
repeatedly putting questions to the supervisor for an answer, so that they can avoid having
their work discussed. "Yes but", "I'm fragile", "I did as you told me and it didn't work" and
"I'm confused" are also games which supervisees use to control the situation.

Supervisors' Games:

As stated previously, supervisors also play games. According to Kadushin (1992: 332):

" Supervisors play games for the same reasons that supervisees play. The games are methods of adjusting to stresses encountered in performing their role. Supervisors play games out of the felt threats to their position in the hierarchy, uncertainty about their authority, reluctance to use their authority, a desire to be liked, a need for the supervisees' approval- and out of some hostility to supervisees that are inevitable in such a complex, close relationship. "

Some of the classic supervisory games are:

" I wonder why you really said that" - In which honest disagreement is turned into a resistance
to be explored and analysed.

" One good question deserves another" -Where questions asked by supervisees are met with another question in an attempt to avoid letting the supervisee know that you don't know the answer. Usually characterised by "What do you think?"

The Drama Triangle

The Drama Triangle originates from Transactional Analysis and was devised by Karpman (1968).
It is an extremely useful concept, and underpins a number of the psychological games that both clients play with social workers, and that social workers play with supervisors.

The Rescuer -

Feels - Concerned for the Victim (Client/Supervisee/social worker).

Behaves by -     Taking control (eg, Tells the client/Supervisee/social worker what to do).
                          Doing the thinking and problem solving.
                          Doing more than their share.

Believes that-    The Victim (Client/Supervisee/social worker) can not solve their problems and is
                          unable to help themself. They (Rescuer/social worker/Supervisor) knows
                          what is best for the Victim.

The Persecutor -

Feels - Angry, hostile, annoyed with the Victim (Client/Supervisee/social worker).

Behaves by -       Punishing the Victim (Client/social worker) (eg. By telling them off - You should
                            have kept your appointment and it's not good enough !!!).Blaming the Victim
                            (Client/social worker) for their behaviour (eg. Because you're not doing what
                            you're supposed to, you're forcing me to take action. Putting the Victim
                            (Client/social worker) down (eg, You're forever rescuing your clients.
                            When are you ever going to manage a case properly!!!)

Believes that - You mess with me you pay! And "Its pay back time!!!"

The Victim -

Feels- Powerless, and hurt.

Behaves by -       Abdicating their personal responsibility, control and power.
                            Complaining about their powerlessness and discomfort.
                            Blaming others for their powerlessness and hurt.
                            (eg. The demands from all these cases is making me work late all the time
                              and it's stressing me out).

Believes that -    Someone else must/should solve my problems.
                           And that my problems are someone else's fault and responsibility.
                           They are unable to solve their problems.

It has been my experience that social workers that are involved in the Drama Triangle are usually in a state of Role Confusion, ie. their definition of the social worker role and its boundaries has become blurred. Often the social work role is finely balanced between helping/ care and statutory authority/ control. An over-emphasis on helping clients can leave a social worker in the Rescuer position. Likewise an over-emphasis of the social workers statutory authority can lead to the Persecutor position. In both cases the client is likely to be either wanting to be in the Victim position, or is already there.

It is worthwhile to point out that the positions in the Drama Triangle are not fixed, and that a social worker can, in the process of a case or a supervision session, move from Rescuer to Persecutor to Victim etc... Also, If you (as a supervisor) notice that this process is occurring between the social worker you are supervising and their client, YOU CAN BET THAT THE PROCESS IS BEING PARALLELED/MIRRORED IN YOUR SUPERVISION SESSION. (eg. If the client is in the victim position and the social worker in the Rescuer, it is likely that the social worker is in the victim position and the supervisor is in the Rescuer etc... ).

Getting Out of the Triangle :

Identify for yourself what is going on and who is where.
Stop playing.
Use YOU-ME talk with the supervisee. (Name what is going on for you and how you feel etc.)
Introduce the Drama Triangle if the supervisee does not know of it and outline it .
If they do, ask them to outline it.
Explore the issues within this framework.
From this exploration, problem solve solutions.

Mirroring, Parallel Process and Transference/Counter-Transference

These are all processes in which the dynamics of past or present relationships (be they clients or others), are reproduced in the relationship between the social worker and Supervisor.

Mirroring/Parallel Process

Mirroring/Parallel Process is a concept developed by Ekstein and Wallerstein (1958). It essentially involves the appearance of the dynamics of the social worker/client interaction in the dynamics of the Supervisor/social worker interaction (eg. an angry client for the social worker and angry social worker for the Supervisor).
The effects of Parallel Process should not be under-estimated, particularly since social workers are dealing with an increasing number of difficult people who:

Deny responsibility for their behaviour.
Minimise their behaviour.
Blame others for their behaviour.
Collude with the client and reinforce the problem behaviour in the process (eg. Family members that are co-dependent and make excuses etc..).
Project their feelings onto others (eg. "You're really a disappointment").
Invalidate other people’s perspectives perspectives (eg. "You don't use dope, so what the hell do you know about its effects").
Suffer from learned helplessness (eg. "There is no way out")
Delay disclosure (eg. "I should have told you this weeks ago").
Use secrets (e.g."This is just between us isn't it?").

When one considers that social workers are faced with the above regularly and repeatedly, it should not be surprising if social workers begin to mirror their clients behaviour when discussing their cases in supervision.

In dealing with a parallel process in supervision, it is important for the Supervisor:

To recognise that a parallel process is occurring.
To use YOU-ME talk to explore what is going on between You and the social worker (eg. I am wondering to what extent our supervision is mirroring what you have described as happening between you and your client?).
To assist the supervisee to NAME the parallel process.
Once the supervisee has gained INSIGHT into the impact of the parallel process on them and the supervision session, ask "How will they use this insight to assist them to decide what to do next or how to move forward?"

Transference and Counter-Transference

Transference and Counter-Transference and derived from Freud and the psychodynamic school and occur when material from another relationship (usually from the past), is brought into a current interaction (eg. social worker/Client or social worker/Supervisor), and this material colours the current interaction (Strean, 1996). Transference is when it is the "client" who is affected by the material from another relationship.Counter-Transference is when it is the "Helper" who is affected by the material from another relationship. The most common forms of Transference and Counter-Transference in social work are the:

Client - seeing the social worker as Mum or Dad, Aunt or Uncle etc...
Social Worker - seeing the Client as Son or daughter or Niece or Nephew etc... (Or vice versa depending on the age etc... of the client and social worker ).
Social Worker - seeing the supervisor as Mum or Dad, Aunt or Uncle etc...
Supervisor - seeing the social worker as Son or daughter or Niece or Nephew etc... (Or vice versa depending on the age etc... of the social worker and Supervisor).

The above transference dynamics can also occur amongst colleagues, particularly where you have some who are very experienced, and some who are not so experienced and there is, perhaps, a generation between them (eg. An experienced social worker may have a son or daughter the age of the less experienced social worker, or the less experienced social worker may have a parent the age of the experienced social worker etc...).

In terms of dealing with Transference and Counter-Transference, the key questions for both parties are:

" WHO DOES THIS PERSON REMIND ME/YOU OF?"
" HOW IS THIS REMINDER OF ..... AFFECTING YOUR CURRENT BEHAVIOUR WITH YOUR CLIENT/SOCIAL WORKER/SUPERVISOR ?"

Strategies for Dealing Constructively with Unhealthy Processes In Supervision

The following are some guidelines that may assist Supervisors to deal with Unhealthy Processes constructively:

Notice what is going on for you (ie. What you think, How you feel, and what you are doing).
Analyse the interaction and track down when you started to think and feel that the process was becoming unhealthy and your response to it.
Name the process for yourself and own your part in it.
Work out what your payoff was for being part of this process.
Identify what the process is prohibiting You and the Supervisee from dealing with.
Assess the impact of the process on the issue you are addressing.
Check out your perception with your supervisor.
Discontinue your part of the process.
Use YOU and ME talk with the supervisee to outline what you believe is going on and to get feedback on your perception.
Name the process.
Ask the Supervisee if they have experienced anything like this before in supervision with either past or present supervisors.
Explore the perceived outcome if this process had not occurred. What would be the benefits and the costs?
Clarify the purpose of your current session.
Problem solve ways forward which do not include the unhealthy process.
Agree on specific ground-rules.

Guidelines in relation to the Supervision/Therapy Dialectic

In the literature on social work supervision there are very few if any written guidelines in respect of the area of the boundaries between supervision and therapy, despite wide recognition of the emotional-support component in supervision. An article by Itzhaky H and Itzhaky T, in the Clinical Social Work Journal Vol 24, No.1 Spring 1996, offers a guiding principle in regard to this area of supervisory practice. Itzhaky and Itzhaky (1996) adhere to Kadushin's (1992) three domains of supervision namely; Administrative, Teaching and Supportive. The guiding principles outlined below clearly relate to the above three domains and also provide an emphasis and balance for the supervision conducted in each:

In the area of the emotional- support or therapeutic domain of supervision the guiding principle is the minimum necessary;
In the area of the teaching domain the principle is the maximum necessary; and
In the administrative area the principle is according to need.

In essence the guiding principle of the minimum necessary applies to the therapy/supervision dialectic. In applying this principle the supervisor may:

Assist supervisees identify personal issues, which are impacting on their practice;
Encourage and support supervisees in obtaining appropriate assistance with personal issues that are impacting on their practice (eg, counselling, or help through employee assistance programs).

Supervisory actions, which clearly contravene this principle, are:

Providing personal counselling sessions for the supervisee.
Encouraging the supervisee to discuss personal problems unrelated to work during the course of supervision.

Before leaving this page it may be worthwhile considering the following:

What difficulties in supervision do you experience?
How do you deal with them?
What in the content of this web-page challenges you to learn other ways of dealing with difficulties?

References and Recommended Reading

Berne,E. (1964) Games People Play, Harmondsworth, Middlesex, Penguin.

Gresham Supports Page's Comment. (24 November 1995). Manawatu Evening Standard, p.7.

Harris,T., and A. (1985) Staying OK, London, Arrow Books.

Itzhaky H, and T, (1996) The Therapy - Supervision Dialectic, Clinical Social Work Journal Vol 24, No 1, pp 77-89.

Kadushin, A. (1992) Supervision in Social Work 3rd Edition, New York, Columbia University Press.

Karpman, S. (1968) Fairy tales and script drama analysis. TAB, 7, 26, pp39-43.

Morrison, T, (1993) Staff Supervision in Social Care, An Action Learning Approach,
Harlow, Longman.

Proctor, B., and Inskipp, F. (1988) Skills for Supervising and Being Supervised, St Leonards on Sea, Sussex, Alexia Publications.

Strean, H. (1996) Psychoanalytic Theory and Social Work Treatment. In Turner, F. (ed) Social Work Treatment 4th Edition, New York, Free Press.

Home Page

Dated: 4 February 2001

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws