there’s a creative way to help everyone understand what’s happening. Having an agenda may not have felt necessary in the past but it could help to keep things fl owing. Dividing up supervision time might also help. The practice of rotating peer supervisors gives all ‘a go’ at being supervisor, and members could take turns being timekeeper. Emergency situations would be accommodated – the risk being that Skye encounters more than most! If the group thinks it made a mistake recruiting Skye or assesses that this member’s behaviour won’t change, it may again decide to ask them to leave. A sensitivity to Skye’s ‘expectations and concerns’ is important (Good Practice, point 39), and the ending should be treated like any other therapeutic ending with referral discussed. Candour, care, courage, empathy, fairness, humility, integrity and respect would be important to remember. I don’t imagine this ending would be straightforward with everyone feeling relieved and picking up where they left o ff – nor should they. A range of feelings such as relief, anger, guilt, remorse and regret may need to be aired. The group’s power to psychically ‘kill o ff ’ a member could have an impact. Potentially it could stir up uncertainty about everyone’s place in the group and even resurrect childhood memories or fears of being cast out of the family. An alternative to asking Skye to leave is that the group invites a consultant to facilitate group discussion. Ideally it would be the group members themselves, including Skye, who would begin to engage authentically, congruently and courageously with each other, hopefully enabling everyone to move beyond the impasse. This process would involve some honest talking and possibly a verbal ‘wrestle’ between members. But if insights are gained, the group might well bene fi t from that struggle. Karen Stainsby MBACP is senior accredited as both counsellor and supervisor and
This is speculation but I’m curious as to whether Skye feels overwhelmed, perhaps by workload or the clinical material. Might they feel nervous, competitive, want to show expertise or control the group, be overcompensating or are they just being overly helpful. Are they testing the boundaries of the group or wondering if it can contain them? Instead of hearing less from Skye, maybe everyone would bene fi t from hearing more from them – but a di ff erent ‘more’. During supervision we’ve a responsibility to consider ‘how di ffi culties or concerns are being addressed’ (Good Practice, point 68). You’ve raised concerns within the whole group, which included Skye, following the advice of Peer supervision within the counselling professions , which says, ‘As a participant in the gate-keeping process, peers have a responsibility to bring their ethical concerns to the attention of the supervisee where the latter has not shown su ffi cient (if any) awareness of these.’ Unfortunately this hasn’t helped. Perhaps being even more ‘open and honest’ with Skye is what’s needed (Good Practice, point 72). People who won’t let others ‘get a word in’ can sometimes be viewed as frustrating as the person in a group who doesn’t speak. However, just as the silent member’s behaviour has meaning, so it is for the person who monopolises. We’re trained to listen, to encourage others to speak, and maybe brought up not to interrupt, but members may need to interrupt. Does everyone see themselves as passive bystanders? If the group, again including Skye, feels it’s too di ffi cult to have a frank exchange then maybe
to hold responsibility or, at the very least, be willing to try.’ 1 But you raised the issue of Skye in seeking help for this ‘dilemma’. Maybe you’re the most fed up with Skye’s behaviour, or the group nominated you as the ‘most experienced and con fi dent practitioner’? Is it possible that you, or they, see you as a leader fi gure, reluctant or otherwise? Perhaps you helped begin the group and, like a parent, feel overly responsible for what happens to the ‘family’? Could Skye be holding something for the group or be being scapegoated? Has the group stopped collaborating and started colluding, particularly around its ‘problem with the new member’? A subgroup has emerged – there’s the ‘main group’ that includes Skye, and a breakaway group talking about Skye. I can imagine how this might have happened, but it introduces issues of splitting, inclusion and exclusion. Where’s the transparency? Skye likes being part of the group, which may be about belonging needs. Ful fi lment of these needs is important, but is client work also bene fi tting? Skye ‘talks and talks’ – is this about their own clients, commentary on others’ work or even lots of chat about seemingly irrelevant things? All will have a di ff erent meaning and provide clues as to how the group might manage this situation. As supervisors, we agree to demonstrate ‘management of personal boundaries’ (Good Practice, point 68). Does Skye focus more on the normative, formative or restorative function of supervision, or a mixture? With their constant talking, are they showing competence in ‘relationship building’ (Good Practice, point 63)? Do they let clients speak?
practises in Surrey. She also provides various professional services to BACP.
This column is reviewed by an ethics panel of experienced practitioners. REFERENCE 1. Wilkinson E. Peer supervision and collaborative power. Therapy Today 2015; 26(4): 33-35.
MAY 2024 55
THERAPY TODAY
Made with FlippingBook Online newsletter maker