Supervisory countertransferences and impingements in evaluating readiness for graduation: Always present, routinely under‐recognized

Abstract

Utilizing detailed, in-depth material from supervisory hours from around the world (explored in End of Training Evaluation groups), this paper shows that supervisors are subject to multiple, diverse and, at times, ongoing intense countertransferences and impingements on their ability to evaluate candidates' progress. Multiple external and internal sources of these impingements are explored. It is suggested that supervisory countertransferences and their manifestation in parallel enactments remain under-recognized, their impact underappreciated, and the information they contain underutilized. It is argued that the recognition, containment, and effective use of the parallel process phenomena and supervisory countertransferences are essential in order to evaluate candidates' progression and readiness to graduate. Common signals of such entanglements in the supervisor's evaluative function are identified. Three remedies, each of which provides a 'third,' are offered to assist supervisors in making effective use of their countertransference: self-supervision, consultation, and institutional correctives.

Constructions and their Amendments in the Supervisory Process

“…Articulating the supervisors' constructions empathically and tactfully is especially important when referring to the supervisees' sensitivities and vulnerabilities, stemming from a gap between their ideal self and their experienced self (Gill, ). The supervisors need to adopt a similar stance when forced to confront the supervisees with the limitations of their capacity to understand and to help certain patients (Ehrlich et al ., ). Furthermore, the supervisors' constructions are effective and applicable to a variety of new developments in the supervisory field when reflecting a balance between clarity and flexibility.…”

Fostering the educational value of candidate evaluation

“…In reviewing detailed supervisory session process notes of many supervisor‐supervisee pairs – followed by the supervisor's articulation of his bases for evaluating the candidate's readiness for graduation – Ehrlich et al . (in press) found that it is ubiquitous for “emotional processes (conscious, pre‐conscious and unconscious) in the supervisor's mind [to] intrude on his or her evaluation of candidate progression”. These intrusions arose from multiple sources and their combinations: external institutional demands and personal strivings, the supervisory triad, parallel processes, and a variety of countertransference responses to the candidate and/or patient (e.g., idealizing transferences to the supervisee, and identification with the patient).…”

“…The major corrective to impingement upon supervisors’ evaluative functions recommended by Ehrlich et al . (in press) is one or another type of ‘third’ that, in essence, provides consultation on the supervision. Earlier, Gediman () noted the absence of “scrutiny” of supervisory work, and Szecsody () commented, “[S]upervision can become confidential without being secretive” (p. 379).…”