Dilemmas
Turning to Skye, what drew them to peer supervision – and your group? Did the group approach them, was Skye recommended, or did Skye fi nd the group? Were they in a supervision group before, and if so what happened there? How is/was Skye’s individual supervision? Were Skye’s hopes, expectations and needs discussed, and did it seem these could realistically be met? Did Skye show intention that, alongside other members, they’d take responsibility for facilitating supervisory dialogue while also helping to manage group dynamics and deal with any di ffi cult situations? These enquiries may have unearthed clues as to what lay ahead. What’s been learned about recruiting members in future? Building and looking after any group so that it ‘works’ isn’t simple. Group dynamics can massively a ff ect what’s achievable. What happens may also be in fl uenced by our experience in the fi rst group most of us belonged to – our family of origin. Later experiences will also impact. If a member joins or leaves, the group takes on a new identity, no longer being the ‘old group’, plus or minus someone. Did the group grieve the loss of the member who left? Did Skye fi ll their ‘seat’ too soon, perhaps like a parent who, fi nding their child’s grief too hard to acknowledge or contain, quickly replaces a much-loved deceased cat with a lively kitten. How did the group prepare for a new member? The group’s been getting along fi ne for some time, but is it possible it could have lost some of its objectivity along the way, becoming a little ‘cosy’? Alan Dunnett, author of Good Practice in Action resource Peer supervision within the counselling professions , wonders whether sometimes, the ‘ties of loyalty might be all that bind the group together’. With no leader or facilitator the group must share power and fi nd its own way, sometimes over rocky terrain. How easy is it for everyone to exercise their own power while working with the power of others? As Emma Wilkinson in Peer supervision and collaborative power says, it’s ‘not enough to just turn up and expect that someone else will “take control” and lead the session. Every one of us needs to be ready
OUR ETHICS ADVISER AND THERAPY TODAY READERS CONSIDER THIS MONTH’S DILEMMA:
HOW CAN WE MANAGE OUR PEER SUPERVISION DYNAMICS?
I’m in a long-standing peer supervision group and have enjoyed and benefitted from it for many years. Recently one member left and we welcomed a new member. We have always informally divided up the time and it worked well, but this new member talks and talks and seems to have no awareness of leaving space for others. I have spoken privately with colleagues and they feel as frustrated as I do. Recently I raised the issue of ensuring we all get equal space to talk within the group but the new member seemed unaware and carries on dominating sessions. In our last session, they talked about how much they liked being part of the group. We were planning to ask them to leave but now feel stuck.
Karen Stainsby replies: You are acting responsibly by raising concerns about this di ffi cult situation. As much commitment and rigour is required during peer supervision as either individual supervision or group supervision with a leader or facilitator. I’ve a ‘haziness’ around your new member. Maybe that’s part of what’s going on in the group. Rather than call them ‘they’, I’d like to give them a name. I’ve settled on ‘Skye’, a Norse word for ‘cloud’. Before focusing on Skye, I’m wondering what might be happening among the other group members. The group’s been going for some time. In the Ethical Framework , Good Practice, point 65 says we’ll carefully consider ‘the undertaking of key responsibilities for clients and how these responsibilities are allocated between supervisor, supervisee and any line manager’. When the group began did you draw up a supervision contract? Maybe you’d all known each other and instead just got on with supervision – thinking or hoping there’d be no di ffi culties. A contract is important. If one doesn’t exist then now is an opportune time to draw one up. Skye’s involvement in its design could help with their chatty behaviour. If a contract does exist, did Skye agree to it? Maybe it’s time to check with everyone that it’s still fi t for purpose (usually done at least once a year).
Does the group frequently review how well its supervision suits the needs of members and, by extension, clients? Does it meet everyone’s hopes and expectations so that you work to professional standards? (Good Practice, point 65). Good Practice, point 69 requires us to discuss ‘not less than once a year’ how we apply the Ethical Framework to our work, and also ensure supervision amounts ful fi l any BACP requirements. The Good Practice in Action resource Introduction to supervision in the counselling professions describes supervision as ‘a formal but collaborative process’ where in peer supervision, ‘two or more people form a supervisory relationship with shared objectives about how to work together constructively to provide a safe, ethical and competent service to clients’. Would that describe how your group has been over the years? Have members met with congruence and authenticity? Issues of supervisory competence are, of course, important (Good Practice, point 62 and Supervision competence framework and training curriculum ).
Building and looking after any group so that it ‘works’ isn’t simple. Group dynamics can massively a ff ect what’s achievable. What happens may also be in fl uenced by our experience in the fi rst group most of us belonged to – our family of origin
54 THERAPY TODAY MAY 2024
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker