Quote:
Originally Posted by Echos Myron redux
In the UK the model of supervision may differ slightly from that in the U.S.
Here, personal issues can be explored in a boundaried way relevant to supervisory work - e.g. you might look at how the ways your issues overlap with your client's and how that might impact on the work.
Additionally, in the UK, most of the main models of supervision involve paying attention to what happens in the supervisory relationship and how this might bear parallels to what is happening in the corresponding therapeutic relationship as a means of understanding the transference dynamic. (If you are interested in this, look up parallel process in supervision).
That said, it is only relevant as it relates to the client work and not at all a place to work through your own issues. Remember, supervision is in service of the client, and your feelings and responses are relevant to explore as far as that exploration will help you be a better therapist to your clients. If the transference is actively getting in the way of the work of supervision, then it is an ethical imperative to either resolve that in personal therapy or get a new supervisor (or both).
|
Then, I understand why trainees in UK might develop personal feelings for supervisors.
With all due respect, I like our US approach better.
Of course, your personal issues are relevant to your work. I did say that supervisors here point out to your personal issues that they notice in you that might prevent you from doing good work. That entails looking at the personal dynamic between you and the client. That, however, is very different from analyzing those issues and trying to resolve them in supervision. That's personal therapy work, not supervisory work.
In order for me to explore my issues effectively, it has to be done in a relatively safe environment, where the person who is doing this work with me is "on my side" so to speak, meaning that they have my own, not my client's well-being a priority. And it is the therapist, who is in the position to do that, not the supervisor.
By the way, I see no conflict between the client's and the therapist's best interests. What is in my best interest's would also be in the best interests of the client. If I feel limited to help the client for whatever reason, for example, it'd be in both mine and theirs best interests if I refer them out. The same with getting personally involved with clients. Everyone is trying to paint it as a selfish behavior on the therapist's part, but, to me, the behavior is truly "selfish" if it's done in the best interests of the one who does it. If unethical therapists were truly "selfish", they'd never crossed the line they are not supposed to cross because that would not be in their best interests, as well as the best interests of the clients. So to me, this rule of not letting one's issues interfere with one's work has nothing to do with sacrificing anything of yourself.
All that is to say that the only way for someone to effectively work with their issues IMO is only when they do it with utmost self-compassion a.k.a "selfishly", which means that the only reason why they are doing it is for the sake of their own, not their clients' or anyone else's well-being (and those are, "paradoxically" go hand in hand). Supervision is not a place where such "selfish" exploration is possible.
It's always funny to me to see how therapists often judge each other harshly for not "working on" their "issues", as if this mutual blame would really motivate anyone to "work harder", and how they call for self-sacrifices for the clients' sake supposedly. I've learned that the harsher people are on themselves and others for not doing their emotional work, the less work gets done. But this element of judgment and the implicit (or not so implicit) urge to get the "work" done as fast as possible for clients' sake is always present in supervision. That's why supervision is not a good place to do one's personal work, because it's not safe enough for that kind of work to be effective.