Banner ID: Broken armchairs facing each other in a run down room with trees visible through the window behind them and text overlay

What to do when supervision goes bad? A guide to supervision ruptures and repair

Curt and Katie chat about what to do when there is a loss of trust in supervision. We explore what has already been researched (and the limitations there). We also look at what can make ruptures more likely, different types of ruptures, and how supervisors can mitigate the risk of rupture and then repair when ruptures inevitably happen. This is a continuing education podcourse.

Transcript

Click here to scroll to the podcast transcript.

In this podcast episode we talk about how to address ruptures in clinical supervision

Clinical supervision has the potential for errors and requires management from the supervisor to acknowledge, deal with, and repair from mistakes that could rupture the supervisory alliance. This workshop helps to identify the types of ruptures that can occur and offers a strategy on how to deal with them so that they are no longer a problem.

What is the focus within the research base on clinical supervision?

  • Most of the research on supervision is focused on clinical supervision without a consideration of the employment element of the relationship
  • There is not a lot of research on supervision, much less ruptures in supervision
  • Much of the research has been from the supervisee perspective, but that is shifting
  • Without supervisors being involved in research, there is a risk of supervisors dismissing it

What can make ruptures more likely in supervisory relationships?

“The power differential comes from the clinical experience, the career experience, the knowledge of agency or practice rules that makes most of what we’re talking about [ruptures in supervision], the supervisors responsibility to ultimately address.” – Curt Widhalm, LMFT

  • Power differential within the clinical supervision relationship may lead to supervisees feeling unable to talk about mistakes that supervisors make
  • Expectations of safety and confidentiality that are not discussed or are assumed to be greater than they are, with a lack of transparency
  • Supervisors are responsible to address ruptures, but may not know about them
  • Supervisors can fall into risk management and punishment or not allowing supervisees to do anything that may challenge their skill level

What can supervisors do to avoid supervisory ruptures?

“The piece that can get hard here is what is perceived as a rejection of an intervention…It could also be the responsibility that supervisors have to make sure that supervisees are not doing things that they should not be doing, because there’s a lot of (especially) social media information and those kinds of things that may be totally appropriate coming from lived experience, or they might be harmful, and supervisors have the responsibility to push back when a supervisee is trying to do something that is either ethically or clinically unsound.” – Katie Vernoy, LMFT

  • Acknowledge the fallibility of both the supervisor and the supervisee
  • Supervisors share when they don’t know something and learn what they need to learn to support their supervisee
  • Understanding the impact of each perspective on expectations (i.e., supervisors in agencies are also impacted by the expectations that they have on them from their own supervisors)
  • Identify confrontation versus avoidance rupture risks
  • Being more transparent on the process of supervision and about the supervisor’s competence and emotional responses
  • Understanding and assessing for cultural ruptures, microaggressions, etc.

Can supervisory ruptures also happen based on actions of the supervisee?

  • Yes!
  • Supervisees can misunderstand their role and not complete what is expected of them
  • Supervisees can fail to develop as a clinician
  • Supervisees may ask peers rather than their supervisor for what to do and do the wrong things

How can supervisors repair the ruptures that happen in clinical supervision?

  • Setting the stage for the most positive supervisory experience
  • Cultural humility
  • Pause, Consider, Reflect, Act (C.E. Watkins, Jr.’s work)

 

Receive Continuing Education for this Episode of the Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide

Hey modern therapists, we’re so excited to offer the opportunity for 1 unit of continuing education for this podcast episode – Therapy Reimagined is bringing you the Modern Therapist Learning Community!

Once you’ve listened to this episode, to get CE credit you just need to go to https://learn.moderntherapistcommunity.com/pages/podcourse, register for your free profile, purchase this course, pass the post-test, and complete the evaluation! Once that’s all completed – you’ll get a CE certificate in your profile or you can download it for your records. For our current list of CE approvals, check out moderntherapistcommunity.com.

You can find this full course (including handouts and resources) here: https://learn.moderntherapistcommunity.com/courses/what-to-do-when-supervision-goes-bad-a-guide-to-supervision-ruptures-and-repair

Continuing Education Approvals:

When we are airing this podcast episode, we have the following CE approval. Please check back as we add other approval bodies: Continuing Education Information including grievance and refund policies.

CAMFT CEPA: Therapy Reimagined is approved by the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists to sponsor continuing education for LMFTs, LPCCs, LCSWs, and LEPs (CAMFT CEPA provider #132270). Therapy Reimagined maintains responsibility for this program and its content. Courses meet the qualifications for the listed hours of continuing education credit for LMFTs, LCSWs, LPCCs, and/or LEPs as required by the California Board of Behavioral Sciences. We are working on additional provider approvals, but solely are able to provide CAMFT CEs at this time. Please check with your licensing body to ensure that they will accept this as an equivalent learning credit.

Resources for Modern Therapists mentioned in this Podcast Episode:

We’ve pulled together resources mentioned in this episode and put together some handy-dandy links. Please note that some of the links below may be affiliate links, so if you purchase after clicking below, we may get a little bit of cash in our pockets. We thank you in advance!

References mentioned in this continuing education podcast:

Eubanks, C. F., Muran, J. C., & Safran, J. D. (2018). Alliance rupture repair: A meta-analysis. Psychotherapy, 55(4), 508–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/pst0000185

Eubanks, C. F., Warren, J. T., & Muran, J. C. (2021). Identifying Ruptures and Repairs in Alliance-Focused Training Group Supervision. International journal of group psychotherapy, 71(2), 275–309. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207284.2020.1805618

Friedlander, M. L. (2015). Use of relational strategies to repair alliance ruptures: How responsive supervisors train responsive psychotherapists. Psychotherapy, 52(2), 174–179. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0037044

Watkins Jr, C. E. (2021). Rupture and rupture repair in clinical supervision: Some thoughts and steps along the way. The Clinical Supervisor, 40(2), 321-344. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2021.1890657

Watkins Jr, C. E. (2024). When supervisees rupture: Supervisor rupture reactions and repair — Further thoughts and steps along the way. The Clinical Supervisor, 43(1), 42–69. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2024.2329538

Watkins Jr, C. E., Hook, J. N., DeBlaere, C., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Owen, J., & Callahan, J. L. (2019). Humility, ruptures, and rupture repair in clinical supervision: A simple conceptual clarification and extension. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(2), 281-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2019.1624996

Watkins Jr, C. E., Hook, J. N., DeBlaere, C., Davis, D. E., Wilcox, M. M., & Owen, J. (2022). Extending multicultural orientation to the group supervision of psychotherapy: Practical applications. Practice Innovations, 7(3), 255. https://doi.org/10.1037/pri0000185

 

*The full reference list can be found in the course on our learning platform.

 

Relevant Episodes of MTSG Podcast:

The Burnout System

Addressing the Burnout System

The Clinical Supervision Crisis for Early Career Therapists: An Interview with Dr. Amy Parks

Bilingual Supervision: An Interview with Adriana Rodriguez, LMFT

Millennials as Therapists

Supervision in the Real World: Understanding what makes an effective supervisory alliance

Don’t Let TikTok Fool You – Being a Therapist is Hard Work: An interview with Sandra Kushnir, LMFT and Anita Avedian, LMFT

Should Therapists Admit to Making Mistakes in Therapy?

Topic: Diversity and Cultural Competence 

Topic: Supervision

 

Who we are:

Picture of Curt Widhalm, LMFT, co-host of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide podcast; a nice young man with a glorious beard.Curt Widhalm, LMFT

Curt Widhalm is in private practice in the Los Angeles area. He is the cofounder of the Therapy Reimagined conference, an Adjunct Professor at Pepperdine University and CSUN, a former Subject Matter Expert for the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, former CFO of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists, and a loving husband and father. He is 1/2 great person, 1/2 provocateur, and 1/2 geek, in that order. He dabbles in the dark art of making “dad jokes” and usually has a half-empty cup of coffee somewhere nearby. Learn more at: http://www.curtwidhalm.com

Picture of Katie Vernoy, LMFT, co-host of the Modern Therapist's Survival Guide podcastKatie Vernoy, LMFT

Katie Vernoy is a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist, coach, and consultant supporting leaders, visionaries, executives, and helping professionals to create sustainable careers. Katie, with Curt, has developed workshops and a conference, Therapy Reimagined, to support therapists navigating through the modern challenges of this profession. Katie is also a former President of the California Association of Marriage and Family Therapists. In her spare time, Katie is secretly siphoning off Curt’s youthful energy, so that she can take over the world. Learn more at: http://www.katievernoy.com

A Quick Note:

Our opinions are our own. We are only speaking for ourselves – except when we speak for each other, or over each other. We’re working on it.

Our guests are also only speaking for themselves and have their own opinions. We aren’t trying to take their voice, and no one speaks for us either. Mostly because they don’t want to, but hey.

Stay in Touch with Curt, Katie, and the whole Therapy Reimagined #TherapyMovement:

Patreon

Buy Me A Coffee

Podcast Homepage

Therapy Reimagined Homepage

Facebook

Twitter

Instagram

YouTube

Consultation services with Curt Widhalm or Katie Vernoy:

The Fifty-Minute Hour

Connect with the Modern Therapist Community:

Our Facebook Group – The Modern Therapists Group

Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide Creative Credits:

Voice Over by DW McCann https://www.facebook.com/McCannDW/

Music by Crystal Grooms Mangano https://groomsymusic.com/

Transcript for this episode of the Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide podcast (Autogenerated):

Transcripts do not include advertisements just a reference to the advertising break (as such timing does not account for advertisements).

… 0:00
(Opening Advertisement)

Announcer 0:00
You’re listening to the Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide, where therapists live, breathe and practice as human beings. To support you as a whole person and a therapists, here are your hosts, Curt Widhalm and Katie Vernoy.

Curt Widhalm 0:15
Hey, modern therapists. We’re so excited to offer the opportunity for one unit of continuing education for this podcast episode. Once you’ve listened to this episode, to get CE credit, you just need to go to moderntherapistcommunity.com, register for your free profile, purchase this course, pass the post test and complete the evaluation. Once that’s all completed, you’ll get a CE certificate in your profile, or you can download it for your records. For a current list of our CE approvals, check out moderntherapistcommunity.com.

Katie Vernoy 0:47
Once again, hop over to moderntherapistcommunity.com for one CE, once you’ve listened, woohoo.

Curt Widhalm 0:54
Welcome back, modern therapists. This is the Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide. I’m Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy, and this is the podcast for therapists about the things that happen in our practices, the things that happen in our field. And this is another one of our continuing education eligible episodes, and this one is by request from one of our listeners and friends, Julie Payne, wanting us to talk about, how do we handle supervision ruptures. And most of what I see online in the Facebook groups is coming from the pre license end of things, and what happens when we don’t agree with our supervisor? Got a lot of these questions from my students in the past, as far as well, they’re students, so it does come from kind of the student end of things when it’s like what happens when there’s disagreements with supervisors? I have done enough supervisor consultations or consultations on supervision that end up being able to look at some of these ruptures from the supervisory side, and we hope to address both of those in this episode. Looking at it from both sides and what can be done about it, but pulling from the research base, as continuing education episodes are required for us to do and also make it to where it’s not just us talking about our experiences on things, we also are going to acknowledge some stuff that the research base is just missing entirely when it comes to what it is that our practical experiences have brought into this. So Katie, when you hear about supervisory ruptures, do you get the same experience as me, that it’s a lot of times from the supervisee end, and…

Katie Vernoy 2:36
Supervision ruptures, I think can happen from both sides, but I definitely heard a lot about it from supervisees. I definitely felt it as a supervisee, and I think that there are ways in which the power dynamic, the systems, those types of things, can push towards some sort of rupture or loss of trust, or whatever that is. I think the big thing that has not been covered in research based on what we talked about before, the episode, is the way in which supervision happens frequently now, which is also within an employment relationship or a business relationship. I know a lot of the ruptures that I felt from as a supervisee or as a supervisor were based on the systems. And to give you an example, not being able to be completely transparent about what’s happening in the company or the organization, having productivity or business requirements or agency requirements overcome the the supervisory relationship, and pushing into those and having disagreements or or ruptures based on that. And so my hope as as we’re going through this is that we can, we can speak into the the evidence base, and we can talk through what is happening there, as well as bring it into the real world, where folks are bringing supervisees into their private practices. They’re working in organizations where not only do they have supervisees, but they also have supervisors and infrastructure that impact how they behave. Because it’s it’s such a complexity when we look at supervision in the real world that I hope that we’re able to do all of that justice.

Curt Widhalm 4:31
And so I think we’re acknowledging from the very beginning that the evidence base on a lot of supervision stuff is still very much in development. There have been some researchers for quite some time who have written well about things. There’s Borders is going to come up in a lot of historical writings about supervision. Friedlander is another name that comes up quite a bit. So these are people who’ve been spending decades and decades writing about it, but I don’t think it’s really been until about the last 15 or so years that supervision as its own skill set and own place within therapist development for both the supervisees as well as the supervisors, has really taken on a keen place in the research to be a focus of development. And because there’s not a lot of historical research on this kind of stuff, what you’re talking about specifically is almost completely avoided or ignored or just even not acknowledged as far as those intertwining roles. A lot of supervisory research is based on the idea that supervision is a place for a mentor or a clinically more responsible person to help somebody who is in their training to become more professionally developed, more skillful at the skills that they’re supposed to be developing for better client care. But because this is written in this fantasy world where there’s all of this time that it’s just a supervisor having these long walks on nature trails with supervisees, where they spend hours and hours talking about every single case. There’s a little bit of reading supervision research that’s just kind of fantasy. It’s almost you could go from like Lord of the Rings, and just here’s supervision, and here’s this, here’s Gandalf coming in every so often, just being and here’s some words of wisdom.

Katie Vernoy 6:37
Yes, for sure.

Curt Widhalm 6:39
So, it’s not to say that there isn’t a lot of research out there. It’s just that it’s still very much in its infancy or early childhood when it comes to what we have to pull from on this. Because there’s not a lot, we’re going to start with the dictionary as our first place on this. And…

Katie Vernoy 6:58
So we’re going to start by defining rupture.

Curt Widhalm 7:00
We’re gonna start by defining rupture. And I think that this is actually a not just a time filler piece of this episode. This is something that actually has a little bit of a purpose here. Because we have to look at rupture as both a noun and a verb. And in this whole aspect of what we’re going to dive into in this episode is that the rupture, the noun comes from a different Latin word than rupture the verb does. And I’m not going to spend a ton of time. I see you looking at me on this but…

Katie Vernoy 7:37
I just, I just slowly blinked my eyes, going, what are you doing Curt. We’re talking about the Latin?

Curt Widhalm 7:43
We are. You’re not stopping me now.

Katie Vernoy 7:47
Oh, go for it. All right, I’ll dig in. Here we go.

Curt Widhalm 7:50
So rupture, the noun comes from ruptura, which means to break or to corrupt. Rupture, the verb comes from Latin ruptus, which also means to break or but more in the concept of to burst, but it’s the ongoing effects, specifically more towards medicine as it was adopted by doctors throughout the Middle Ages. So looking at this as both a noun and a verb. Allows us to look at there are the specific acts that can be addressed. That is the noun action of it, and the verb is oftentimes the lingering effects that go along with it. So there are instances within supervision that we’re going to talk about where there is rupture the noun, where it’s a specific act that is to be pointed out, versus rupture the verb, where it’s the ongoing handling of the situation, that I think a lot of these complaints end up really being able to continue on and continue to end up being something that makes supervision less than a satisfactory experience.

Katie Vernoy 8:57
Okay, that sounds good.

Curt Widhalm 8:58
One of the things that I came across in preparing for this episode is there’s not just one, but there are two Friedlanders who have done quite a bit of supervisory research. One that I was quite familiar with and have referenced a lot in many of the supervision workshops that I’ve done is Carol Friedlander, and she has done a lot of work around making supervision good, working on supervisory alliance, kinds of stuff. The one that I came across for this episode is Mirna Friedlander and continuing into the supervision areas, this is somebody who has done a good job of looking at alliance ruptures in the supervisory process. And even as recently as 2015, I recognize that that’s nearly 10 years ago at this point, but Myrna Friedlander had pointed out that all of the research on supervisory ruptures up until that point seemed to focus solely on the supervisee’s perspective about what has happened in supervision. Now I can posit a couple of theories about this. Number one is that it seems to be people who are more likely to complain about supervision not going well are the people who have greater numbers in supervision. That and those people are more likely on their way to licensure or to becoming psychologists, who will later go into doing their own research around things that did not go well for them. And this is not to say that supervisors are completely unaware of supervisory ruptures from their end of things, but are probably also much more established in the things that they’re already doing and not moving into research themselves. So, it’s kind of up until that point, a little bit of a perspective that these are the people who are more likely going to write and research about the things that they know and that they’ve experienced. And what it has really done, though, in some of the supervision groups that I’ve been in in the past, of supervisors kind of looking at the research, being able to adopt it into the agencies or the practices that they had, is that a lot of the research on supervisory ruptures pre 2015 kind of got accepted by a lot of supervisors as these kids, they’re just complaining about a lot of things. Kids these days, they just they’ll grow up and they’ll see that things are different. And it’s felt very dismissive, especially when I was early on in my supervision experience of wanting to learn a lot more, to have kind of some of these conversations going on. And I can specifically remember some conversations, particularly around the perceived things like microaggressions that might end up happening in supervisory discussions. That supervisees would be interviewed for some of these research articles, and they would say my supervisor is using outdated language about a particular minority or oppressed group of people, and that’s something that either affects me or it affects the sibling that my, you know, family ends up being affected by, and my supervisor does not feel like a safe person that I can really be able to address and call them out on, that was some of the beginning things of here are microaggressions as a cause of supervisory rupture. So, I’m glad to see that there continues to end up being more research from both ends of this, and specifically some of the focus on aspects from what can be done and what are some of the responsibilities from the supervisor. Because we inherently have to start this conversation with acknowledging the power difference between a supervisor and supervisee.

Katie Vernoy 12:59
There’s the inherent power differential based on kind of mentor, mentee, those types of things. There’s also the power differential, you know, going back to what I was talking about before, that comes from employing someone or having evaluative responsibility over someone. And so to me, I’m guessing that the research that we’re talking about would come from more the mentor mentee modality, but I think that it makes sense to make sure that we’re also acknowledging that in the world today, people are not just in mentorships, in traineeships that they don’t need to make any money, they don’t need to have employment, and so it says pure supervisory relationship. When we’re talking about the power differential, I’m curious if there are ways in which how that power differential, that that risk can be mitigate, where there can be more of that open space, because if, if folks are feeling uncomfortable talking about some sort of a rupture or those types of things, they don’t see their supervisor as a safe place. Do is there space to be able to bring this up, and for supervisors to open that space to bring it up. I think there is. But I just was curious if that’s gonna be part of what we get to later.

Curt Widhalm 14:28
I think this episode is inherently gonna focus on rupture stuff, and while we will talk about being able to fix or do things well, I want to make sure that we’re staying kind of on topic through a lot of this episode. Yes, I agree. And good supervisors not only say but they also do things that make sure that supervision can be a place to be respectful and brave. Now I’m shying away from the word safe here a little bit, because safe is kind of a nebulous word when it comes to the definition of what’s one person’s safety versus another. Because good supervisors, and I’m now specifically referring to especially group supervision, have a lot more dynamics that they need to handle, and you can’t guarantee as a supervisor what one supervisee is going to say that is going to end up being perceived or actually offending another supervisee within the group. And so there’s a lot of being able to handle and manage what is happening in the dynamics of a supervision group in that kind of scenario, that’s quite a bit different than one on one supervision that ends up happening. And we have an example that’ll come from one of the research articles here a little bit later that talks about how that might come up and how it might be handled. But inherently returning back to a place of respect and safety is the ultimate goal in being able to handle this, and that does start with the idea that supervision has to have kind of a general expectation that is set up from good supervisors and supervisees, that they agree that what they’re moving into is a space that is respectful, and it is a space to be able to learn. But there’s not inherently a guaranteed safety in supervisory discussions because of what we’re going to end up talking about later.

Katie Vernoy 16:31
Yeah, I think there’s, there’s this other element, and I’ll move on after this, this other piece. But if, if a supervisor doesn’t create the space to bring up ruptures, they’re potentially not going to know that the ruptures exist. I think the other thing is that within a organization, especially, the ability to be safe or even confidential within supervision is not necessarily present. Because if I am supervising you and I have a supervisor, I may be required or encouraged or need to bring up what we you, and I have talked about to my supervisor. And so I think that when we look at breaches of trust based in that power differential, I think, and we’ll talk about this later, I think the transparency of how that communication happens and how you and I could create the space to fix a rupture needs to be a communication or a conversation between the two of us, versus something that either of us assumes that we know how to do.

Curt Widhalm 17:39
And I think that there’s a couple of things that you’re also talking about here that we need to address. Is that one of the things is developmentally, there’s something much different about supervising somebody who’s in the first stages of their practicum while they’re in grad school, versus the much more advanced, nearly licensed supervisees, where some of that inherent trust over long term supervision relationships may be explicitly spelled out, it may be something that is just kind of naturally gotten there, that also has to be a contextual factor that supervisors have to be responsible for. The other thing that you’re bringing up here is about the transparency about what the supervision relationship is. Unlike therapeutic relationships, there is not a legal responsibility for supervision to remain confidential. Now there’s plenty of stuff in our ethics codes that talks about supervisors responsibilities to maintain the trust about what supervisees bring up in supervision, client confidentiality still needs to be maintained, but as you’re pointing out, in especially like agencies where administrative supervisors and clinical supervisors may be different people, there may be treatment teams or maybe employment review kinds of things. Good, healthy supervision, transparency is this is how this information is communicated about your employment, about your clinical progress, if it’s grad students in schools. Here’s how evaluations are shared back and forth between the school and the clinical site. So yes, good supervision is going to structure that from the very beginning of supervision as far as here’s what your expectations are, and it is a place where some of the supervisory ruptures can be kind of brushed past or set up to be something that happens later.

Katie Vernoy 19:42
So, to kind of summarize that a bit, I think we want to set up good supervision. We want to make sure that there’s a transparency in how this operates. A creation of, if not, a safe space, a brave space, a place that that these conversations can happen. Not an assumption that as a supervisee you’re going to understand what you know, how confidentiality works in supervision, those types of things. So really trying to mitigate some of those really basic ruptures that can happen when a supervisee does not understand how supervision works.

Curt Widhalm 20:21
Correct.

Katie Vernoy 20:22
I think getting into some of the more common, harder to avoid supervisory ruptures, I think, is probably where we should go next.

Curt Widhalm 20:30
So, I just want to finish talking about the power differential here, is this might be the thing that spoils the entire episode for everybody here, but the power differential comes from the clinical experience, the career experience, the knowledge of agency or practice rules that makes most of what we’re talking about, the supervisors responsibility to ultimately address; and it’s to ultimately be respectful and recognize that in particular, for where supervisees are at developmentally, that there’s reasons to be able to mentor and educate about where people are in their field, why they might be responding in certain ways, and it’s a much slower process, and especially in very busy agencies, where I hear a lot of these supervisee complaints, is the time isn’t taken to be transparent about how things all fit together. For many trainee students, their education in classes is here’s theoretically how you would work with clients. Here are interventions. Here are steps that you may end up doing. That the trainee then goes into that workplace. They try to attempt to do these things, but it doesn’t fit within the model of how the agency may be operating. So it might be somebody who’s being trained in something like substance abuse and coming from, like, a strong 12 Steps kind of, you know, lesson plan out of a couple of weeks that goes into a very trauma informed agency. So they’re walking in with, Hey, I’ve got how 12 Steps fits within these meetings, and this is how this can end up, you know, helping a client that is completely at odds with an agency that is trying to come at things from a very trauma informed, sort of place that may not see a 12 step approach as being part of the client’s recovery. So in these cases, it’s the supervisor who has to be able to recognize and respond to those situations in a way that is transparent and delicate. But more often than not, what we see is potentials for ruptures, because there’s more of a risk management or a quick push to discipline, rather than kind of taking the time to be Gandalf in the trail in the forest for everybody to kind of get on the same page.

Katie Vernoy 20:32
I think you’re talking about being able to see the supervisee as someone who is trying their best and explore their understanding of it and fill the gaps. I think when you were talking there was a part of me that’s like, oh yeah, I remember how supervision felt like sometimes parenting a teenager. It’s like, I do know more than you, and I am I’m not perfect. So, there’s going to be stuff I tell you that may not be great, but give me a little bit of respect and trust as the person who is set to be your Gandalf, just for the moment, right? And I think that’s the hard part i that when we get to a place as a supervisor, especially if we’re overwhelmed and we’re burdened with lots of paperwork or too many supervisees, or whatever it is, I think we can get to this place of, if you are imperfect, you are messing up my job. There’s so much risk, and I don’t have time for you, so I’m going to just try to tell you what to do, or I’m going to try to, you know, like you said, get very disciplinary with you, to get you in line, versus actually taking the time to understand your perspective and make sure that I recognize where you are developmentally and what that means with: you’re fallible. I’m fallible. This is a process, right? I think it can be so scary, especially for new supervisors, thinking this is my license. This person is doing crazy stuff. I don’t like it. It’s there’s so much that happens there, right? And so I think the the piece of of being able to sit in that we are both humans in this space, tapping into our differential experience to help train you and and create a better product, so to speak, of therapy. I think can be really challenging in either burnt out or brand new supervisors.

… 25:08
(Advertisement Break)

Curt Widhalm 25:11
One of the things that I love about doing these continuing education episodes is diving into new research and finding new researchers that are my favorite, at least, my favorite of the month kind of things. And for this particular episode, my favorite researcher at least of the month, or the one that I’m relying on just very heavily for a lot of the more recent research for this episode is C Edward Watkins, Jr, who has done quite a bit of research, both solo and with some colleagues, especially around supervisory ruptures. There’s a 2024 article in The Clinical Supervisor that is a solo article by C Edward Watkins, Jr, “When supervisees rupture: Supervisor rupture reactions and repair — Further thoughts and steps along the way.” And this article starts with a line “fallibility provides the context within which this paper is situated.” So, speaking exactly to what you were just talking about, lines up exactly with where I was prepared to go with this episode, which is…

Katie Vernoy 26:24
Excellent.

Curt Widhalm 26:25
Supervisors have to acknowledge that fallibility is going to be present. Whether it be within themselves, whether it be within the supervisees, that there are mistakes that are going to be made. And part of the Supervisory theoretical models that are especially based on developmental tasks fully acknowledge that there are mistakes that are going to be made, and unfortunately, a lot of the way that that looks in practice as supervisors get to this place of like you’re not allowed to see clients with this complexity yet. It comes from this very much preservation safety sort of thing, that is, we shall not allow mistakes to be made, rather than being able to look at this might be a challenging case for you and here’s support that you might need. Good supervisors who are out there, who are listening to this and who are already doing that, good job. I’m not talking about you. But there are supervisors who get into this place where they’ll have associates or interns, kind of, those postgraduate people that they just don’t feel are ready for any of the clients yet that are kind of all right, you’re being assigned case manager roles rather than being allowed to actually see anybody. And so there’s already an inherent mistrust that is being communicated to the supervisee that I am so worried about you messing up that I’m making you mess up even by not allowing you to do anything. And this starts to erode away at that supervisory alliance. Because supervisees are coming in week after week, being like, I’m ready for clients. I’m ready for clients. And supervisors are putting them into that great Gen Z catch 22 which is, you don’t have any experience, so you can’t see these clients. And you can’t see these clients because you don’t have any experience. So, there ends up becoming this kind of place where, if we acknowledge that supervisees are going to make mistakes, and that becomes part of the supervisory process and the mentorship process that we’re looking for people to eventually learn how to evaluate for themselves. I am approaching clients that are very much overwhelming to me, I might not feel like I have the skill set, that supervisors tell and show that they’re responsible to the supervisee as well. That they’re able to help guide them along the path, rather than just being some arbiter of this is way above your pay grade here.

Katie Vernoy 29:05
I think that there is gatekeeping, and I’ve heard more around gatekeeping with supervisors who are in private practice. Nerves about, you know, complexity of cases or higher fee clients or those types of things. So, I have heard gatekeeping, and I think that does, like you said, transmit a I don’t trust you to do good work. On the flip side, I think that there’s this other element wth a lot of agencies that I’ve worked with, or talked, you know, talk to people who have worked in where there’s absolutely no gatekeeping. It’s here is your caseload of 25 clients that are excruciatingly complex and there’s so much risk, and I don’t have the time to even talk to you about all of those cases. And so in that way, I don’t know if you can do good work or not. That that’s not even being addressed there. It’s you can’t fail, and I’ve not set you up for success. And so it becomes this thing of, if I don’t figure it out, if I don’t take care of these clients, then I am failing. I’m going to get some sort of discipline or some sort of negative thing that happens in my employment, and I don’t have the skill sets to do this work. And so to me, I feel like it can. It can happen from both sides of it, where you’re not given any work, or you’re giving so much work that you can’t even learn how to do that work.

Curt Widhalm 30:40
And you’re bridging into the next part of this conversation is: supervisors who don’t recognize that they can be fallible as well, and making mistakes like the one that you just described. And this is the piece that I probably hear most complaints from most trainees and most associates or interns, depending on your jurisdiction, where supervisees bring up something new, they bring up a theory that might be being taught in grad school, that the supervisor, depending on how long they’ve practiced, haven’t had experience with that is just met by the supervisors: No, that’s not correct. It just becomes dismissed because it’s outside of the supervisor’s familiarity with things. I’ll hold that, in contrast to most supervisees or licensed people who here talk fondly about their supervisors, most will talk about good supervisors will have some sort of response around, hey, I’m not familiar with that. Let me look into that more. Or some sort of response that kind of boils down to, hey, I don’t know everything, and I’ll be the first to make mistakes, or I’ll be the first to admit when I make mistakes. That really does show that we don’t have to have this perfection, or this prescribed perfection that we need to have in the field. And I do hear a lot of complaints from supervisees around just there’s no explanation. There’s no transparency as to why something might be wrong. There ends up becoming kind of this doubling down from the supervisory end that takes the rupture noun into a ruptured verb, where it just creates that ongoing mistrust about how supervision can end up being. See that that discussion around the dictionary did end up coming back. It was important.

Katie Vernoy 32:31
Yes, of course, yes. I think the the piece that I found myself responding to which was very interesting, it was so visceral, so I want to go back to how you first responded to me, Hey, supervisors might give way too many clients and not set them up for success. Your response was, this was a supervisory mistake, and supervisors won’t necessarily admit it. In my mind, I’m thinking, that’s not a mistake, and I want to explain why I went there. Because in an agency, it may be something where this caseload is coming from above me, and so I am trying to navigate and manage that, and I have to make sure that all the clients have therapists, and all of the things happen. And so it feels like a result of a higher level mistake, so it’s not my mistake, right? And so I started thinking about it. I was trying to pay attention and think at the same time, so there might be some points we have to go back to. But I was thinking about how in agencies, especially supervisors, are caught in the middle with this, where they’re afraid to make mistakes because it’s their job, and so they’re rated on, are your supervisees meeting productivity? Are do we have too much of a wait list? Is this going on, is there risk? And so it becomes this, you know, kind of shit runs downhill. But I think there’s that element of supervisors may not feel able to correct mistakes because of the system or admit them because of their own supervisors. And so going back to this complexity of oh my goodness, fallibility across agencies should be acceptable and understood, and that’s the only way we move away from these systems where supervisees are not getting taken care of, supervisors are chickens with their heads cut off, and managers are just trying to sort through, how do I survive? And so it’s really interesting how these ruptures can be perceived from each angle, because my first reaction was: a mistake? And then I was like, Oh yeah, that is a mistake. If you don’t set your supervisor for success, that is a mistake. And it didn’t feel like the supervisor had control over it. Obviously, in private practice you would, so that’s a whole other conversation, but it’s just interesting where my my head went when you said that that was a supervisory mistake. It was so visceral.

Curt Widhalm 35:09
Totally not something that I was going to talk about on this episode. So I’m going keep this pretty short here.

Katie Vernoy 35:13
Sure.

Curt Widhalm 35:14
In some of my longer supervision workshops, I start with the idea it’s the seven eyed model of supervision, and it really does put into context a lot of the different ways that relationships can work out. And maybe we’ll do an episode just on The Seven-Eyed Model of Supervision. I know I’ve talked about it a little bit before, but a lot of supervisory research even going back to at least the 60s, talks about the parallel process that can happen between clients and supervisees that ends up showing up in supervision, between supervisees and supervisors. What you’re referring to is ripe for needing a new, invented name for what happens between supervision and then between the supervisor and the agency, kind of a hyper parallel process, or ultra parallel process. I’m coining both at this point, just to keep my options open in the future. But…

Katie Vernoy 36:13
There we go.

Curt Widhalm 36:14
But I’m glad to hear you, you pause and consider and reflect on this is how it fits with infallibility. Before we get back into fixing things. I do want to talk about the ways that ruptures can happen, and this, again, comes out of a lot of research from C Edward Watkins Jr, et all, and a couple of different…

Katie Vernoy 36:41
Your new favorite researcher.

Curt Widhalm 36:42
New favorite researcher. I am always open to listeners who may know the people that we reference. If you make introductions and we become best friends, I will, at least, you know, cite you as far as this is the start of our friendship.

Katie Vernoy 36:55
And we can interview them directly, which is always fun.

Curt Widhalm 36:58
We can. There’s a couple of different ways that supervisor ruptures can show up and they fall into two categories. One is confrontation rupture reactions. These are things that outwardly happen. They are direct things that end up coming up. They might end up being expressed directly to the supervisee. They might be things that are happening within an agency that are talked to, to whether it be the clinic director, the administrative supervisor, that are not as direct to the supervisee that contributes to some of the toxic work environment, kinds of things we’ll link to that episode in our show notes. Some examples of this are, for example, just complaining about the supervisee.

Katie Vernoy 37:46
Yeah, I think that that can happen both to the supervisee, when folks don’t have the spoons to be appropriate with constructive feedback. But it can also be something where it comes back to the supervisee, that the clinical supervisor has been complaining to the administrative supervisor or to another clinician that something’s going on with the supervisee. I think it can be, it can feel like high school, it can feel like bad parenting, like there’s just so many ways that this can happen, and it feels like a no brainer. But I don’t know about you, but I got so much of this in the agency work where I would hear from supervisees that they’re like, my supervisor is saying not so nice things about me, and it’s coming back to me, and I’m like, oh, that just seems like professionalism. It seems like a normal thing to do.

Curt Widhalm 38:45
Yeah, the next one on the list is rejecting supervisee interventions, either by dismissing or by pushing back. And this can happen quite a bit in especially newer supervisor situations where there’s kind of this like push to get the client fixed, push to get the client through the interventions, push to get them through the treatment plan. That’s more telling the supervisee what to do, rather than how to think or be able to evaluate how their ideas might end up playing out with with the clients. And so a supervisee might be showing up in supervision saying, Hey, I have a client who’s suffering panic attacks, and I’d like to teach them mindfulness in order to be able to be more aware of just kind of their internal state. And a supervisor being like, well, that’s not what the evidence base says. The evidence base says that you need to do X, Y and Z, and just kind of pushing back that’s dismissive in nature.

Katie Vernoy 39:51
I’ve also heard this based on cultural differences, especially with supervisees who are culturally similar to their clients, and the supervisor is not. And so I think the piece that I think we talked about this with Adriana, so I’ll link to her episode in the show notes over at mtsgpodcast.com, but it’s something where lived experience or knowing of the supervisee is dismissed as well. There’s also supervisors who have, let’s just say, old school knowledge, and there’s information that may be coming from the grad school program or other types of training that the supervisee is trying to bring in. And I think you talked about this earlier, where there’s this disconnect between what the supervisee’s training has said and what the supervisor or agency or whatever typically does, and there’s not a discussion. And so I think, I think we also talked about this in Millennials as Therapists. I think the piece that can get hard here is what is perceived as a rejection of an intervention, potentially as a rejection of the intervention. It could also be the responsibility that supervisors have to make sure that supervisees are not doing things that they should not be doing, because there’s a lot of especially social media information and those kinds of things that may be totally appropriate coming from lived experience, or they might be harmful, and supervisors have the responsibility to push back when a supervisee is trying to do something that is either ethically or clinically unsound.

Curt Widhalm 41:46
There’s a even more specific version of this that is when supervisors complain or express dissatisfaction or discomfort or disagreement with specific tasks of supervision, like role plays or in session tasks or homework assignments that, and again, this is something that I can see from supervisors who maybe over expect, especially student and newly graduated clinicians, to have more knowledge or more expertise or more of a skill set than what a fresh graduate might end up having. That can come across as: well, all you’re doing is giving clients homework, or all you’re doing is doing role plays in sessions with the client that well as a supervisee that that’s what I know how to do. Please teach me more.

Katie Vernoy 42:43
Yeah, I think that the challenge there is for a lot of new supervisors, they potentially became supervisors because they were good at being therapists. And that could be they were good at the job of therapy, meaning they got good productivity, they got their documentation in on time, those kinds of things. Or it could be that they’re strong clinically, and there’s this element of not knowing how to teach someone to do good work, but only knowing how to teach someone to do things the way that you would do them. And so when you were talking about complaints about the supervisee activities, I thought about when I was a new supervisor, and I had this tendency to want my supervisees to write their notes the way that I wrote wrote my notes. I would want them to put their schedule together the way I would put together my schedule. I feel like I quickly got out of that, and I was able to look more at where is their knowledge, what do they need to learn? And how do I teach them to be therapists or have a therapists job in a way that’s strongest for them? And I know that there are still times when anyone who is asking for my feedback, and it’s I have to go to the place of, is this good enough, or is this just not the way I would do it? And if it’s good enough and it’s just not the way I would do it, fine. If it’s not good enough that I can give feedback, and I have to figure out how to give that feedback in a way that’s, that’s teaching, and that is acknowledges the person’s skill set and knowledge who is in front of me. But it’s, it’s so hard, especially for new supervisors, because they may not have been trained on how to be a supervisor. They’re just supposed to teach people to duplicate them, and that’s not really realistic.

Curt Widhalm 44:49
And this is another emphasis on the point that supervision is a different skill set. It is one that is very much different than just do things the way that I do them. I do want to give credit for this list that I’m going through. This is in the chapter Repairing Alliance Ruptures by Catherine Eubanks, J Christopher Muran and Jeremy Safran. And this appears in the book by JC Norcross and MJ Lambert, Psychotherapy Relationships That Work Volume One, evidence based therapists contributions. And continuing through this list of other confrontation markers, supervisees expressing concerns about the parameters of supervision, scheduler agreements, supervisors that are one example is what you pointed out earlier about not being transparent about how supervision communications may be shared with other people in the agency. It might be supervisors who are constantly shifting when supervision is or how it might show up without really being flexible or respectful in that process. Supervisee complaints about the progress in supervision or that can be made in supervision, and this is oftentimes coming across as not enough time being allowed for being able to explore things. And this is particularly problematic, in like group supervision, where one supervisee might be allowed to really dominate a lot of time, especially those that are maybe more comfortable in speaking up first. And then all of a sudden, half of supervision is gone, and seven other people need to share the remaining half. So there’s just a few minutes left to get to everybody else. Another one is supervisee defends the self against the supervisor. This is needing to defend thoughts, actions, feelings, against what is perceived to be the supervisor’s criticism or judgment. Again, another one that boils down to not feeling a sense of respect or safety. And the last one on this list is the supervisee trying to pressure the supervisor. Supervisees pressure the supervisor to fix supervisee and therapy problems or issues quickly, or attempt to control the supervisor or the supervision session. Again, I think this one is more prime for like group supervision, kinds of things where there emerges to be somebody who’s kind of challenging the supervisor, and there becomes almost kind of this power struggle that can develop there.

Katie Vernoy 47:27
It’s interesting when you talk about some of these things, I think about it from another angle. I think about especially in agency work, that’s where a lot of the supervision that I’m familiar with happened. So, that’s where my examples come from. Where, whether it’s group supervision or individual supervision, supervisors will have a responsibility to set the agenda. And I think we did an episode on how to set up supervision, so I’ll link to all of our supervision episodes in the show notes over at mtsgpodcast.com. But when I think about supervisors that push deeply into administrative problems or documentation and take all of supervision time for that, and supervisees don’t have the ability to get their cases through, and they don’t feel like they’re getting the clinical support that they need. That can be another type of rupture that happens.

… 48:21
(Advertisement Break)

Curt Widhalm 48:23
The other category that ruptures can fall under are withdrawal rupture reactions. Now, these might not be as prevalent or as easy to identify, because they’re not outward complaints. They’re not things that are more in that noun version of rupture. They’re more in that verb version of rupture that can kind of linger and pull back. They may be a result of some of those noun ruptures. But this is where we’ll see like supervisors or supervisees disengaging and pulling back and not really having the confidence to be able to talk more, to do anything more other than just kind of check the boxes. It can show up as just kind of appeasement or only sharing what is absolutely necessary in a supervisory discussion about clients or about professional development or skill development.

Katie Vernoy 49:20
It seems like a protective mechanism, and it can be protective on both sides. I remember supervisory relationships where either the supervisee or the supervisor would come late, they would reschedule supervision or keep rescheduling, and it wouldn’t happen. And I know that that becomes different if folks are gathering hours or needing to have the supervision signed off on. But especially in agencies where people would have supervision passed when they were they were earning hours, you would start seeing folks not showing up, coming late, rescheduling all of those things. And then really the conversation would not really go anywhere. I think I’ve said this on the podcast before, but one of the supervisors I had really early on was, I think, fairly burned out, and just, I think, a little bit interesting in how he took things on. But he would come into group supervision especially, and he would say, I don’t want to talk about psychology. What’s the latest movie that we’ve seen? And would really make it about personal stuff, and it would be a quarter, a half of the way through supervision before we actually got to clinical material. Now I’m way beyond getting licensed, so I don’t have any concerns that they I won’t be able to count those supervision hours. So I feel perfectly free to say those things, but it was interesting that he would, he would start supervision, trying not to do supervision. And I think it was part of it, he was burned out. And he was also, I think, tired of all of these pre licensed folks coming in and not knowing stuff and having to teach them. So.

Curt Widhalm 51:05
In the list of examples here, you’re hitting on a couple of them. One is avoidant, topic shifting, just talking about anything else. Another one is just denial that it’s happening. One is minimal response to stuff, okay, you’ve talked good. You’re not gonna, you’re not gonna mess up a client. You can just move on kind of things. Yeah, another example is abstract communication, where it’s just kind of talking at like this, really, like, not in the weeds at all. The exact opposite, like, space shuttle level, like, all right, in the scheme of things and humanity and this kind of stuff that’s just not particular to the client whatsoever. One of the ones that I think really shows up, and this is for supervisors to pay attention to, and this has some caveats to it, but deferential and appeasing supervisees who have just kind of given up and are in the All right, I will just do whatever you say all of the time. Now I say this one has some caveats to it, because this is also getting to know where your supervisees have been in their previous jobs, in their previous life. One of the things that’s happened in my practice, and I’m very open about my learning process with this, not only with my supervisee, but also now everybody who listens to this podcast. But for the first time, I have been supervising a military veteran, and some of the aspects that come up in this relationship is how much I’m encouraging independent thinking and the ability to make decisions and be adaptable, which is the complete opposite out of chain of command, kinds of things that this particular supervisee had experienced being in the military of waiting for approval to do the next steps. And I’m glad that we’re able to talk about this, because without paying attention to this, it would look just very deferential like why are you only ever doing the things that I tell you exactly what to do?

Katie Vernoy 53:18
Yeah.

Curt Widhalm 53:18
And so as a supervisor, part of this is being able to address it, being able to address it in healthy ways. Another way that withdrawal ruptures can happen or can show up in supervision is in particularly self criticism. And this can happen again from both the supervisor side or the supervisee side. Supervisees sides can really be like, Well, I’m just not ready for things yet, or I’m not good enough, or I’m not prepared enough. But this can also happen from the supervisor end of things. And I have heard supervisees complain before, where supervisors have said things like, Well, if you’re just not getting it, maybe I’m not a good enough supervisor for anybody. That is something where it can happen on both sides of things. So all of these are signs of withdrawal rupture reactions.

Katie Vernoy 54:13
The self criticism one on the supervisor side is pretty interesting too, because I feel like there is a balance between self criticism or humility or those types of things, and pretending that you’re infallible. So some of these things are kind of a yes and or nuanced. And so I just wanted to acknowledge that.

Curt Widhalm 54:37
One place that does seem to come up quite a bit in the supervisory rupture stuff is around cultural ruptures. And this can happen with, as you mentioned earlier, either supervisees from a different cultural or identified background than from what their supervisor is. It can happen in the process between when a supervisor comes from a different background than where a client is coming from. There may be an alliance, as you mentioned, like with adriana’s episode, where clients and supervisee might share. There might be some of this that might show up between where the supervisee and the supervisor might share a different background than where the clients is coming from, where microaggressions or spaces to grow and exhibit cultural humility would really be rife for this. We’ve had plenty of episodes talking about cultural humility. I don’t want to get into the the specifics of that aspect here, so we’ll include some of those other episodes in our show notes for this. Where I want to focus this part of this episode, just so we can talk about how to how to respond to rupture within the the rest of our time here, as well as talking about supervisee ruptures, a little bit more specifically, is cultural ruptures that can happen when other group members in group supervision are the ones who are saying it, and supervisees who come into supervision with the expectation that supervision is a safe place. Going back to the beginning of the episode, where I was previewing this part of it, that sometimes supervision is going to have either other group members who are making microaggressions, either intentionally or not, or where it’s likely to come up most often, which is not necessarily with bad intention, but it’s directly quoting clients who are saying things that can be microaggressions or even aggressive actions towards any oppressed group of people.

Katie Vernoy 56:51
When we’re talking about microaggressions, I want to acknowledge that there are a few other ways that that can show up, and it’s the responsibility of the supervisor to take care of that, and I know you’re going to get to that. But I want to also express that in a lot of organizations they’re potentially serving, typically minoritized, marginalized, oppressed communities, and the way in which therapists talk about their clients, not necessarily quoting clients, I think that’s also a place that that can come up, but in the way that therapists talk about clients, especially when some of the supervisees in the group are of the same or share identities, those types of things. I think it can be difficult to always spot, especially when we get into kind of the hero complex, or kind of the patronizing tone that can happen even in when there’s not cultural differences, but disability differences or other types of demographic differences, there can be an inherent way that we discuss clients that can feel unsafe to folks in the room, either because they share those identities or because they recognize that it’s just not okay. And so to me, I feel like there’s, there’s a lot to discuss here on this. And like you said, we don’t have the space to talk about it here, but I want to acknowledge that even when we’re talking from a place of wanting to help our clients and all those things, if we put them in a one down position, that can feel in some ways like microaggressions or just it’s, it can be bad clinically, but it’s it’s something where recognizing how you’re looking at your clients and how you’re talking about your clients can be an element of these things, and is something that the supervisor should pay attention to.

Curt Widhalm 58:53
So, I want to point to an article. This is from 2022 it is titled “Extending multicultural orientation to the group supervision of psychotherapy: Practical applications” by C. Edward Watkins Jr. et all.

Katie Vernoy 59:10
Your favorite.

Curt Widhalm 59:12
And in this article, there’s a couple of things that I really love. One is an example of dealing with rupturing microaggressions in group supervision, and in this particular case, it was a supervisee who was directly quoting a client who had used a slur about the LGBTQ community that a client had said, and was repeating it in supervision as far as how to manage it. Another supervisee in the group comes from a family where they had a sibling who identified as part of that group, and the discussion ended up turning around to feelings of safety, feelings of how to address it. And in this particular article, the authors do go about highlighting a way for supervisors to be able to handle those ruptures well. Supervisors who don’t address what is happening in the room. There is a process that happens in those group dynamics that does need to be attended to, rather than it just being individual supervision with eight different people and kind of this spok and wheel, kind of supervisory process that a lot of us have suffered through that also needs to focus on being able to handle the expectations of what happens in group supervision, how things are going to be communicated. And this is one that I will really encourage that people go back through and read kind of how the supervisor in this situation handles this. This article also recommends that there be group supervision adapted ground rules based on cultural humility. And I’m not going to go through all 10 of them, but again, this is going to be in our show notes over at mtsgpodcast.com, and has things like: I will enter into each group supervision experience with an open mind and possess an attitude willing to explore new concepts. I will enter each group supervision meeting with a flexible and humble attitude and not allow my ego to impede the learning experience. I will support my supervision team members as we engage in discussions and learning. Just as three examples out of the 10 that I think helps to address this specifically within a multicultural orientation as it comes to group supervision.

Katie Vernoy 1:01:31
I think we might need a whole episode on group supervision, but that’s just me.

Curt Widhalm 1:01:35
I think so too. So we have talked about supervisee ruptures as well. I want to point out a couple of other ones that might show up. And this is a couple I want to point out a couple of other ones. One is misunderstanding aspects of the role of working in an agency and then acting on those misunderstandings. A lot of this comes in those agency type settings where supervisees enter in with the idea of, I’m going to be a therapist and I’m going to do therapists things and not recognize that they’re also entering into a workplace that has extra work tasks that aren’t necessarily clinical hours towards licensure or supervision or documentation. It might be things like staff trainings. It might be things like team building, kinds of aspects that don’t end up directly working, that are part of a job description but aren’t kind of the I am here to be a therapists aspects. Another thing that can be a supervisee rupture is just kind of not developing as a supervisee and staying within the safety of only doing very task oriented directives with their clients and not moving into more of the broader picture, kinds of abilities to look at things that go with kind of the ongoing, lived experience that we have as supervisor, as therapists, as being, oh, here’s the broader aspects of things beyond the questionnaire, the follow up questions that can be asked that might help validate clients more.

Katie Vernoy 1:03:15
The types of supervisee ruptures that I think I saw a lot of from kind of managing supervisors, where I would hear about these things later on, or from the supervisors, were when, especially newer clinicians to the organization, would come in, and they would talk to their peers about what to do, and they would ask questions from their peers on what to do, and would get into some pretty, you know, kind of gnarly situations, and would be asking their peers, and not their supervisor. And so then the supervisor would come back and say, Why are you doing that? And it would be because of the feedback they got from their peers and the fact that they did not necessarily feel comfortable to talk to their supervisor about it, because either the supervisor didn’t create the space for that, or the supervisee’s history suggested they could not trust the supervisor, or they could not make mistakes, and so they didn’t want to show the supervisor they didn’t know what they were doing. And so to me, that time that type of rupture could be a supervisor rupture, but I think there are times when it is definitely a supervisee rupture, where they find information about what they’re supposed to be doing for their job, and they do not verify it with their supervisor.

Curt Widhalm 1:03:15
Last part of the episode I want to cover, what do we do with repair and?

Katie Vernoy 1:04:19
Yes, yeah, how do we repair these ruptures?

Curt Widhalm 1:04:57
Getting, getting to this. So, according to Ladany et al, this is from 2005 rupture repair. The goal is to ideally resolve the rupture by both parties expressing an understanding of the impasse, a in a way that indicates they no longer experience the feelings aroused by the conflict, dealing particularly with the verb aspect of rupture. And the recommended process for this comes from C. Edward Watkins, Jr.

Katie Vernoy 1:05:27
Ah, your favorite. We gotta interview this guy, if anybody knows him.

Curt Widhalm 1:05:32
So recommends a process for supervisors that comes down to PCRA, pause, consider, reflect, act. And Katie, in her own way, did this earlier, when she was talking about her visceral response to the very tough situation that clinical supervisors and agencies find themselves sometimes in. That she took a pause. She considered some different aspects around it. She reflected on, where is this feeling coming from. And if she was a supervisor, would then choose a course of action to be able to communicate that, hopefully, to the supervisees, as far as, hey, here’s the broader context when we’re considering what everybody’s roles are within the agency. This inaction looks like within the context of the rupture, the supervisor clarifies a misunderstanding. Now a lot of this is going to come back to the supervisor’s responsibility to be able to handle this because of that inherent power differential that we talked about at the beginning of the episode.

Katie Vernoy 1:06:37
However, I think it is important to recognize that if a supervisee does not bring anything up and does a lot of that kind of withdrawal, it can be hard for a supervisor to know. And so yes, it is the supervisor’s responsibility, but supervisees you need to bring things up.

Curt Widhalm 1:06:56
Yes. Within the context of the rupture, the supervisor can consider changing the tasks or the goals. Now this may show up as different ways that approaches are brought into supervision, whether it be how case presentations are handled. It could be other work assignments, as it deals with working things through with clients. But being able to take that pause, consider, reflect on, are there tasks or goals that can and should be changed in order to help both the client and the supervisor, the supervisee. Within the context of the rupture the supervisor also provides a rationale for supervision, and this is kind of that being more transparent, pulling the curtain back. Here’s where I’m coming from, that is more than just kind of that confrontational rupture that can end up doubling down on itself. We’ll do it because I said so. Next is the supervisor invites the supervisee to discuss their thoughts or feelings in a respectful manner. So, this is respectfully as your supervisor, I want to hear you out on where you’re coming from on this. Within the context of the rupture, the supervisor acknowledges their possible contribution to the rupture. Hey.

Katie Vernoy 1:08:21
Own it.

Curt Widhalm 1:08:21
Own it. I’m feeling pressure from my boss to get everybody up to productivity, those kinds of things. Yes, this came across in a way that affected you. And within the context of the rupture, the supervisor discloses their internal experience of the supervisee, supervisor interaction. Supervisors have feelings too, and sometimes the way that things are challenged or brought up within a supervision is, and I see most of these examples in my consultations and my experience before as having happened, particularly in group situations, particularly where a member of a group supervision is somebody who’s distracting or kind of veering things off topic or the mood ends up becoming very disruptive to the other supervisee members. The supervisor responds to the rupture through validating the supervisee in any way. I see where you’re coming from. I hear you. Like these are things that, if you do it in a non genuine way, would be very patronizing. So you have to, as a supervisor, get to a way where you can validate where somebody is being able to bring this stuff up. And last but not least, the supervisor responds to the rupture by redirecting or refocusing the supervisee. And this is stepping in and being able to ask a supervisee to step back, consider the broader picture of things, engage in their own Pause Consider Reflect Act actions that sometimes as supervisors, we can develop really good skills of being able to pause ourselves, step back, look at the broader picture of things that when we look at the fallibility ideas that sometimes earlier career clinicians might be very excited about things, might be very focused on things, might lose the forest for the tree. So being able to pause, consider, reflect and act is really the way to handle ruptures when it comes to supervision.

Katie Vernoy 1:10:40
All right. So just to close up here, to give a practical example: as a supervisor and a manager, actually, there were times when there were huge numbers of clients who needed to be seen, and there were times we were short staffed. There were times when there were program responsibilities that required us to take clients as an agency or as a program. And so what I ended up doing is I would acknowledge, especially for newer clinicians who felt completely overwhelmed. Hey, I messed up. I put too much on your plate. I took my ownership there, and then I went through and this is, this is what I did a lot of. And so I don’t know that this is always possible for folks, but I brought the team together, so it was a particular program, or whatever it is, and I brought the team together, and I said, Okay, here’s actually what we’re facing. This is, this is the structure that we’re facing. There’s this many clients that we have to see. This is what we’re doing. This is what this looks like. What ideas do people have? How do we who has the capacity to take on some extra cases, or what do we need to do? And I worked on it as a team, and took ownership of the problem as a team, and recognizing it was my responsibility to figure it out, and came up with more ideas. So it goes to that critical thinking that you were talking about, where at some point, some folks were like, well, can we see these clients in groups? If we can see them in groups, it’s a more manageable caseload. We already are doing groups. We know how to do groups. This is a skill set we have. Maybe this helps us from having 40 clients a week or whatever craziness that had happened at that point. And so when folks were in it and they were able to say, Hey, I’m overwhelmed, this is, this is not where my skill set is, or this is not what I was expecting, bringing it back to the group, or back to individual supervision and problem solving together, I think, was the way in which I was able to do a little bit better, not always perfect, but a little bit better at trying to live with the system, while also trying to support my supervisees. So it’s imperfect, but that’s what I ended up doing. It was like, Hey, this is what it is. This is the context, and I want to respect your knowledge and learn from you and you’re you’re in the trenches doing this stuff. What can I do to help support us, given that these are the requirements that we have placed on us?

Curt Widhalm 1:13:13
You can find our show notes over at mtsgpodcast.com. Listen at the beginning and the end of the episode for information on how to get continuing education, and until next time, I’m Curt Widhalm with Katie Vernoy.

… 1:13:26
(Advertisement Break)

Katie Vernoy 1:13:26
Just a quick reminder, if you’d like one unit of continue education for listening to this episode, go to moderntherapistcommunity.com, purchase this course and pass the post test. A CE certificate will appear in your profile once you’ve successfully completed the steps.

Curt Widhalm 1:13:41
Once again, that’s moderntherapistcommunity.com.

Announcer 1:13:44
Thank you for listening to the Modern Therapist’s Survival Guide. Learn more about who we are and what we do at mtsgpodcast.com. You can also join us on Facebook and Twitter, and please don’t forget to subscribe so you don’t miss any of our episodes.

 

0 replies
SPEAK YOUR MIND

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *