{"id":1897,"date":"2018-09-14T15:24:29","date_gmt":"2018-09-14T07:24:29","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/darylchow.com\/frontiers\/?p=1897"},"modified":"2019-05-03T12:45:29","modified_gmt":"2019-05-03T04:45:29","slug":"how-do-you-grow-as-a-clinical-supervisor","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/darylchow.com\/frontiers\/how-do-you-grow-as-a-clinical-supervisor\/","title":{"rendered":"How Do You Grow as a Clinical Supervisor?"},"content":{"rendered":"

[note: if you are reading this from your inbox, please view in your browser<\/a><\/span>\u00a0in order to watch the video below]<\/span><\/p>\n

We sometimes over-extrapolate the idea of “parallel process.”[1] Maybe we think that therapists often recreate, or parallel the client’s problems by way of relating to the supervisor. Or maybe we think that we learn to be a good supervisor from our role as psychotherapists, and re-model that in the provision of clinical supervision.<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

While there may be similarities at the level of engaging another person in promoting growth, there is another level of challenge here.<\/span><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

In therapy, we create a climate for change with the person in distress. In supervision, we are trying to effect change through the therapist. Even though the clinical supervisor is two steps removed from the client, we hope that the supervisor-therapist conversation leads to better outcomes by osmosis. Yet, in spite of our faith in the supervisory process, the current evidence based on our default approach is bleak. Traditional clinical supervision has not led to improved client outcomes.[2]<\/span><\/p>\n

Here’s the second-level problem: While we spend time putting out the fires or disentangling from “stuck” cases, therapists are not improving in their overall outcomes.[3] What’s more, when we surveyed therapist’s before our workshops, even though therapists endorse supervision as the primary mode of learning, we found that less than 10%<\/strong> of participants expressed being “very satisfied” with their current experience of clinical supervision.<\/strong>[3] (Though the majority were “neither dissatisfied nor satisfied, there were close to 10% who were “moderately dissatisfied”<\/strong> as well. My suspect is, their supervisors don’t know about this experience. For some, there don’t get to choose who their supervisor is in the agency.)<\/span><\/p>\n

Let’s say we take a moment to consider the consequences of continuing our business-as-usual practices in supervision. Chances are, we are going to keep getting what we are getting: Continuous faith, coupled with stagnant results on both client and therapist levels.<\/span><\/p>\n

The issue isn’t a lack of will, but a lack of access to improve our supervisory skills. Maybe it’s not just “skills” per say, but also a better way to design personalised learning environments for their supervisees.<\/span><\/p>\n

Supervisors too need to find a better way to design learning environments for themselves. At this point, we have to face the somber reality that our past attempts haven’t been translating to better outcomes. (Click here<\/a><\/span> for more about the inherent issues about clinical supervision).<\/span><\/p>\n

I argue that in order for things to change, we need to not only coach for performance<\/strong> (i.e., improving client outcomes, one client at a time<\/span>), but also coach for development<\/strong>\u00a0(i.e., promote individualised learning based on therapist’s current baseline, one therapist at a time).<\/span><\/p>\n