The Ruptured Supervisory Alliance and Its Repair: On Supervisor Apology as a Reparative Intervention

Abstract

In what ways do supervisors repair the ruptured supervisory alliance? In this article, that question is considered, with focus given to one rupture repair intervention: Supervisor apology. Apology/ forgiveness theory and research are integrated with current thinking about supervision alliance rupture and repair. Using the recent conflict transformation research of Kirchhoff and colleagues (Kirchhoff, Strack, & Jager, 2009;Kirchhoff, Wagner, & Strack, 2012) as a building block, the 10 elements of apology are examined vis-à-vis the supervisory situation, and the applicability of the concepts of simple and complete apology for supervision alliance rupture repair are presented. Eight statements that link apology and forgiveness with supervision alliance rupture and repair conceptualization are proposed, and a case example that communicates the reparative effectiveness of supervisor apology is described. Supervisor rupture identification and repair is viewed as being an important competency that involves a supporting knowledge base, skill set, and values core.

Immediacy in supervision: Supervisees’ perspectives on positive and negative events.

“…These negative IM events, then, were at least in part characterized by unresolved ruptures in the supervision relationship. Supervisors appeared unresponsive to supervisees’ needs (Friedlander, 2015) or values (Dunn et al, 2017), and often seemed not to engage in potentially reparative behaviors (e.g., open discussion and collaborative processing of rupture; evincing humility and apologizing for their contribution to the rupture; Watkins, 2021; Watkins et al, 2015, 2016, 2019).…”

Parallel process in psychodynamic supervision: The supervisor’s perspective.

“…They used their feelings (e.g., deadness, frustration, or sadness) to engage their curiosity and generate hypotheses about unconscious processes and/or enactments. Such humility is associated with rupture repair in psychotherapy supervision, especially in multicultural contexts (Hook et al, 2016; Watkins & Hook, 2016; Watkins, Reyna, Ramos, & Hook, 2015). In effect, there are many interventions that can be used depending on the needs of the supervisee at the time.…”

“It Felt Like Such a Closed Door”: Supervisory Cultural Rupture & Humility

“…One danger that may result from inadequate attention to culture in supervision is that supervisors may contribute to or fail to adequately repair “cultural ruptures.” Much supervisory relationship literature is founded on “reasoned analogy” to better-established findings about the nature of the therapeutic working alliance (Milne, 2006; Watkins et al, 2015). That is, in order to generate hypotheses about the supervisory relationship, researchers frequently draw on what is known about the the therapeutic relationship (while reflecting critically on the similarities and differences between therapy and supervision).…”

“…Although ruptures can be repaired in ways that preserve or strengthen relationships, this requires awareness that the rupture occurred and a willingness to engage in discussion about the rupture (Hook et al, 2016). In sum, alliance ruptures are critical events in supervision that can weaken SWA if neglected or strengthen SWA if recognized and appropriately repaired (Bordin, 1983; Watkins et al, 2015).…”