Being relatively new to the experience of supervision the session could be overly basic and my role drastically altered. The candidate could also have a reluctance to open up through the fear of repercussions given we work for the same youth board. Other fears could manifest themselves throughout the session if not addressed beforehand. I believe it was essential to tackle most of the concerns (from both parties) before the session within an initial meeting. I do however feel most if not all issues were tackled, debated and explained within the initial meeting and the contract we agreed upon.
The meeting was a productive affair in were both parties left with a lot of clarity as to what the meeting would entail. A key development which was established was a contract defining both aims and from the session. I was keen to establish a contract as it outlines what is expected from me as well has incorporating a level of accountability into the process. The arguments for this were also strengthened after reading theory around the issue. Proctor (1988) cited Hawkins et al., (2006 pg 64) writes.
“ If supervision is to become and remain co-operative experience... clear - even tough – working agreement needs to be negotiated. The agreement needs to provide sufficient safety and clarity for the student or worker to know were she stands: and it needs sufficient teeth for the supervisor to feel free and responsible for making the challenges” (Hawkins 2006).
This theory clearly underpins the benefits to both parties. I wanted to highlight this point to the supervisee in a more informal way thus making a short hand written contract with both signatures. However given the benefits of the initial meeting there was however some important concerns within the organisation and location of it.
Despite the best efforts of both parties to attempt to carryout the session in a public place, such as a coffee shop or cafe busy work schedules from both parties otherwise hindered this. The meeting was always going to have issues around legitimacy. I was very anxious about this and attempted to make the session more formal by having the meeting around a table. Although this wasn’t ideal I believe this initiative was a conscious attempt to legitimise the process. However in spite of this in hindsight it was simply too informal and was realistically a meeting arranged around busy schedules between university and work. Other time concerns lay in timing of the meeting which had to be condensed to just over an hour which I believe removed a lot of the benefit and usefulness of having such a meeting. However did agree an agenda. Firstly was agreed that the session was strictly going to be one session despite the outcome of the session. Also agreed on the location of the session, agree that it was to be a local coffee shop. Initially I was bit reluctant believed the session should be carried out in a more “professional” location. However I was encouraged to try something different outside my comfort zone.
Finally we agreed on three issues to talk about doing the supervision, workload and time scale, Young people’s attitude to projects and establishing a more professional relationship with his youth tutor. Considering the main purposes of the initial meeting the session could have been deemed a success, in terms of achieving the required completion of tasks. However to what extent this was achieved in regards to the process is hard to predict. Naturally studying the time constraints around the meeting raises concerns that this process wasn’t completely achieved. However assessing my own feelings after the meeting I recall a feeling of optimism, confidence and anticipation from the initial meeting and for the supervision session. The supervision meeting was scheduled for the following week.
The structure of the meeting was planned for the morning (beginning at half 9) due to meet in a local coffee shop the following week. With the structure aside the meeting went ahead the following section of this writing will study and analysis the developments of the session and critical analysis my own performance throughout it. Firstly I believe it’s essential to study some of the main issues that arose throughout the meeting.
Arguably the main issue of the meeting was in my inability to consider several keys areas of my performance such as giving clear constructive feedback and my own quality of presence. These areas naturally have a large bearing on the success of a supervision session. Giving clear and constructive feedback was a major issue that I struggled with. The importance of this is a key objective of learning to the supervisee and my failure to deliver removed some of the learning that could have occurred. In studying theory around feedback applying the idea of CORBS (Clear, Owned, Regular, Balanced and Specific) to my own performance would be the most beneficial. Taken regular out of the summary due to the session being a one of session and Specific due to it not presenting itself throughout the session.
Clear- I don’t think my feedback was clear throughout parts of the session I found given my lack of knowledge around certain areas. I used terms such as ‘I think you did OK’ and ‘You were good but you could have been better’. This lack of clear, constructive feedback throughout the session makes me question my own competence of been a supervisor.
Owned- I believe this was an arena I carried out with some degree of success I found myself using terms such as ‘When you said... I feel you could have’. I found that I seem to do this without been aware that I was. I’m encouraged by this factor although I would be expectant this could move into conscious awareness.
Balanced- Again this is an area I struggled with. Given negative feedback is an area I struggle to tackle assertively. I found throughout the sessions times were I could have given simple constructive feedback I found myself consciously avoiding the issue or making attempts to enable them to see a different approach themselves. In attempts to understand why this is the case studying Hawkins et al., (2006 pg.133) writes
“Giving and receiving feedback is fraught with difficulty and anxiety because negative feedback restimulates memories of being rebuked as a child and positive feedback goes against injunctions ‘not to have a big head” (Hawkins 2006).
I believe this writing very much reflects my own feelings around the issue of feedback. This failure to handle this with a degree of competence is a worrying factor that is concerning when put in the role of a supervisor. Applying the CORBS idea to giving feedback provides me a theoretical framework in which to work to and improve in and around this area.
Other concerns arose throughout the supervision session. I found myself overwhelmed at times with information and found it difficult to respond at times. At one point doing the meeting I had to simply admit that I had ‘screwed up’. I believe this feeling of being overwhelmed could have been helped if I had taken notes. Throughout the session there was a lot of information and I sometimes found it difficult to respond effectively at times.
In terms of the structure of the meeting was both positives and negatives. Having the session in a public place was an area which I had original apprehensions around. However I found the experience an encouraging encounter something I would be keen to implement in my future career. However there were some issues around time of meeting. The meeting was held early and was almost rushed through due to schedules of work and university. I found that the supervision was almost reduced to a ‘watch- watching activity’ throughout the last 10 minutes of the session. Believe this removed some of the benefit from the experience.
Notwithstanding the negatives that were raised throughout the session there were a lot of positives that I have taken from the session. Arguably the most encouraging aspect of the experience is how I professionally responded within the session. How I handled the situation was can apply to Heron’s Model of six categories of Intervention. I believe being aware of the different interventions I’m using was a major success of the session. I believe the style I adopted most was his Catalytic style. Throughout the session I believe I tried to facilitate the supervisee own learning and experiences throughout questioning such as ‘Could you do anything differently’. Believe this was well received and challenged the candidate to empower their own thinking.
Also attempted to adopt elements of Herons supportive intervention Believe with regards to the supervisee’s current thinking and structuring of his issues I offered a degree of support to aspects of his thinking that was accurate and logical. Using terminology such as ‘I think you’ve got that square on’. To what use this was to the supervisee is difficult to say. Although been giving support is a human want and need.
I found at times that all styles creped in to some degree. Believe my awareness of the 6 styles was always on the forefront of my mind. Believe this was essential to the limited success of the supervision session. Although there was negative elements at times, believe I was too aware of Herons categories and was too conscious in attempting to avoid being overly confrontational. Arguments can be made that this contributed to the several obvious mistakes and hesitations talked about earlier. Other positives were present throughout the session equally as pleasing as the intervention skills was my active listening skills.
My listening skills were essential to keeping the conversation flowing at certain times of the session. I believe that the most encouraging aspects from the session were my use of paraphrasing and body language. I believe through my accurate listening that I enabled the supervisee to assume responsibility for the session. I believed that using the taught active listening skills aided in removing some of the initial defensiveness that seemed to be present at the beginning of the session. Other more indirect benefits have become clear through reading theory around the importance of active listening. Nelson-Jones (2007 pg82) underpins how active listening can maintain the working alliance through trust he writes
“Trust is a major issue throughout any relationship...Trainees can expedite the process of establishing trust and dissolving mistrust by listening carefully to clients and showing them that they understand them on their own terms” (Nelson-Jones 2007).
Developing trust through active listening is an integral part of managing the initial reluctance and improving the working alliance between the supervisee and myself. Confident that through promoting dialogue that the session flowing more successful. This can also be “indirectly supported” through some of the responses in the evaluating of the session.
In assessing my overall performance in the role of a supervisor conclusions can be made in measuring my performance against a theoretical model. Applying my level of execution against the ‘Four –Level Development Approach to Supervision’ (See Appendix) can be an accurate tool for assess. The four stages of (starting with the least moving in competence) Self-Centred, Client Centred, Process Centred moving into expert status with Process in Context Centred. When studying my own level of competence I believe I still have a lot of development and currently see myself “hovering” between Self Centred and Client-Centred. Reasoning behind this conclusion can be attained due to my level of anxiety around stepping into the role of a supervisor. I tend to put a large emphasis of the supervisor in having experienced a high amount of struggles and scenarios within which they have developed and learnt. Currently I feel a real lack of such experiences and therefore still see my-self with the need to have a supervisor to aid my own development. However I’m encouraged by my own approach to some of the elements involved. I believe I have displayed a less didactic approach than that which is suggested in stage one therefore creating a gap in both confidence and competence around the role. Using this model I can understand where I need to develop and what some of my long goals need to be.
The area which needs the most improvement is my experience not just in given supervision but life experiences in youth work. Again believe to give successful supervision I need to have lived through and experienced more than I have believe this is important to increase both my confidence and competence in giving supervision. Other areas I need to improve removing my anxiety around the whole process. Not confident in the idea of fulfilling the role of a supervisor at this current point of my career. I’m under the impression that I still have a large amount of development to go through myself before I can begin to help others. Believe when being forced into a role I’m not ready for anxiety will always be an unwelcome reality. However in conclusion I believe that been aware of these issues can only increase my determination to grow and develop into a competent Process in Context Centred Supervisor. To achieve this aim however I’m aware of the hard-work and the knowledge gap that I will need to address.
Bibliography
Carroll, M (1996) Counselling Supervision: Theory, Skills and Practice London Continuum Publishers
Egan, G (2007) The Skilled Helper: A Problem-Management and opportunity Development Approach to Helping, Pacific Grove, CA: Brook/Cole.
Hawkins, P and Shohet, R (2006) Supervision in the Helping Professions, Open University Press, London
Nelson-Jones, R (2007) Practical Counselling and Helping Skills, Sage Publications, London
O’Donovan, D and Loughry, R (2000) Supervision; Practitioners in a Social Context, Irish Youth Work Centre, Dublin