Ask The Supervisor: 1
This is the first in what is intended as a series in which a panel of students identifies issues that supervisees encounter that have the potential to offer lessons to them and their supervisors. In responding to these issues, the experts are intending to frame the issues and to invite conversation about them.
Student Contributors: Meri Lubina (Universidad del Valle de Guatemala), Ana Alicia Cobar Catalan (Universidad del Valle de Guatemala), and Sarah Hatcher (University of Memphis)
Supervisor Experts: Dr. Heidi Hutman (Temple University) and Dr. Mike Ellis (University at Albany)
This is the first in what is intended as a series in which a panel of students identifies issues that supervisees encounter that have the potential to offer lessons to them and their supervisors. In responding to these issues, the experts are intending to frame the issues and to invite conversation about them.
Student Contributors: Meri Lubina (Universidad del Valle de Guatemala), Ana Alicia Cobar Catalan (Universidad del Valle de Guatemala), and Sarah Hatcher (University of Memphis)
Supervisor Experts: Dr. Heidi Hutman (Temple University) and Dr. Mike Ellis (University at Albany)
Q: My supervisor made an inaccurate assumption about an invisible cultural identity that I hold in supervision today. They are not aware that I identify with this group. What should I do?
A: First and foremost, we regret that supervisees have to endure experiences such as that which has been depicted here—they are disquieting at minimum, and likely quite painful or even harmful. Multiculturally competent supervision necessarily involves supervisors actively and explicitly initiating ongoing discussions about cultural identities, both visible and invisible. And yet, the unfortunate reality is that this supervisee’s experience is not uncommon and it puts the supervisee in a very difficult situation with multiple layers of issues to consider. Specifically, as we pondered the supervisee’s predicament, we wondered about the following:
a) Where is the supervisee regarding to his/her/their identity development for this particular group membership?
b) To what extent are others in his/her/their professional world aware of his/her/their identity?
c) What feelings and issues did this encounter bring up for the supervisee?
d) What are the supervisee’s and supervisor’s multiple intersecting identities and how do they interact?
e) What is the nature, quality, and strength of the relationship between the supervisee and supervisor? In other words, did they have a relatively solid relational foundation prior to this experience?
f) Relatedly, how safe does the supervisee feel with the supervisor? Have they effectively worked through any conflict before?
g) Keeping in mind that we are all at various levels of competence and self-awareness with regard to our different identity statuses, how does the supervisee perceive the supervisor in terms of their cultural competence overall? Is this behavior consistent with how the supervisor approaches cultural and identity issues in supervision and training in general?
h) To what extent has the supervisee’s program provided training on and support for addressing cultural and identity issues, areas of oppression and privilege, etc.? and
i) Does the trainee have mentors with whom he/she/they feel safe to be his/her/their whole selves?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, attempting to give specific advice and counsel to the supervisee seems risky and problematic. In short, as with much of our field, our answer to this situation is quite simply: “it depends.” Nonetheless, we proffer the following for readers to consider.
In more ideal circumstances, the supervisee is in a training program that actively supports and trains its students to address cultural identity issues and faculty are exemplary role models in this regard. Assuming the supervisee has access to one or more mentors who are (a) aware of and affirm his/her/their multiple intersecting identities and (b) with whom he/she/they feels relatively comfortable, and, (c) that the supervisory relationship is generally positive: we recommend that the supervisee consult with that mentor or mentors to discuss the pros and cons of addressing the supervisor’s transgression, and role-play potential ways that the supervisee may respectfully broach the issue.
We would also hope that the mentor would normalize the supervisee’s experience and support him/her/them in moving forward in a way that feels most comfortable. If the supervisee decides it is worthwhile to address what happened with the supervisor, we would encourage him/her/them to approach it from the place of how they felt and feel with recognition that the supervisor likely did not intentionally make an erroneous assumption but its impact remains. Hopefully, the supervisor would respond non-defensively, take the supervisee’s concerns seriously, and even thanking him/her/them for having the courage to share and promoting continued learning on the supervisor’s part.
We recognize that these more ideal circumstances may not reflect reality for this and other supervisees. Namely, the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee may already be tenuous and the supervisee may decide, with the support of peers and mentors, that it is not in his/her/their best interest to address the issue with the supervisor. Given the inescapable power differential in clinical supervision, the consequences for addressing this kind of concern with a supervisor who is insensitive, among other things, could be pretty significant both personally and professionally. In this case, we would hope that the supervisee would know that they are not alone, be supported in mourning the loss of a supervisor with whom they could be their whole selves, and be encouraged to engage in self-care. We encourage supervisees to make their training directors aware of such situations so that they can use their positions of power to protect trainees and to the extent possible, prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.
We also encourage supervisees to empower themselves by familiarizing themselves with the literature in this area.
Further Reading:
American Psychological Association. (2014). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-supervision.pdf
Ancis, J. R., & Ladany, N. (2010). A multicultural framework for counselor supervision. In N. Ladany & L. J. Bradley (Eds.), Counselor supervision (4th ed., pp. 53-94). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, M. V. (2017). Clinical supervision consent and contract statement. The Clinical Supervisor, 36, 145-159. doi:10.1080/07325223.2017.1321885
Inman, A. G., & Ladany, N. (2014). Multicultural competence in psychotherapy supervision. In F. L. Leong, L. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural training (pp. 643–658). Washington, DC: APA.
Kangos, K. A., Ellis, M. V., Hutman, H., Berger, L., Corp, D., Gibson, A., & Nicolas, A. (2018). American Psychological Association guidelines for clinical supervision: Implications for supervisees. The Counseling Psychologist, 46, 821-845. doi: 10.1177/0011000018807128
Soheilian, S. S., Inman, A. G., Klinger, R. S., Isenberg, D. S., & Kulp, L. E. (2014). Multicultural supervision: supervisees’ reflections on culturally competent supervision. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27, 379-392. doi:10.1080/09515070.2014.961408
Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74, 128-142. doi: 10.1037/amp0000296
A: First and foremost, we regret that supervisees have to endure experiences such as that which has been depicted here—they are disquieting at minimum, and likely quite painful or even harmful. Multiculturally competent supervision necessarily involves supervisors actively and explicitly initiating ongoing discussions about cultural identities, both visible and invisible. And yet, the unfortunate reality is that this supervisee’s experience is not uncommon and it puts the supervisee in a very difficult situation with multiple layers of issues to consider. Specifically, as we pondered the supervisee’s predicament, we wondered about the following:
a) Where is the supervisee regarding to his/her/their identity development for this particular group membership?
b) To what extent are others in his/her/their professional world aware of his/her/their identity?
c) What feelings and issues did this encounter bring up for the supervisee?
d) What are the supervisee’s and supervisor’s multiple intersecting identities and how do they interact?
e) What is the nature, quality, and strength of the relationship between the supervisee and supervisor? In other words, did they have a relatively solid relational foundation prior to this experience?
f) Relatedly, how safe does the supervisee feel with the supervisor? Have they effectively worked through any conflict before?
g) Keeping in mind that we are all at various levels of competence and self-awareness with regard to our different identity statuses, how does the supervisee perceive the supervisor in terms of their cultural competence overall? Is this behavior consistent with how the supervisor approaches cultural and identity issues in supervision and training in general?
h) To what extent has the supervisee’s program provided training on and support for addressing cultural and identity issues, areas of oppression and privilege, etc.? and
i) Does the trainee have mentors with whom he/she/they feel safe to be his/her/their whole selves?
Without knowing the answers to these questions, attempting to give specific advice and counsel to the supervisee seems risky and problematic. In short, as with much of our field, our answer to this situation is quite simply: “it depends.” Nonetheless, we proffer the following for readers to consider.
In more ideal circumstances, the supervisee is in a training program that actively supports and trains its students to address cultural identity issues and faculty are exemplary role models in this regard. Assuming the supervisee has access to one or more mentors who are (a) aware of and affirm his/her/their multiple intersecting identities and (b) with whom he/she/they feels relatively comfortable, and, (c) that the supervisory relationship is generally positive: we recommend that the supervisee consult with that mentor or mentors to discuss the pros and cons of addressing the supervisor’s transgression, and role-play potential ways that the supervisee may respectfully broach the issue.
We would also hope that the mentor would normalize the supervisee’s experience and support him/her/them in moving forward in a way that feels most comfortable. If the supervisee decides it is worthwhile to address what happened with the supervisor, we would encourage him/her/them to approach it from the place of how they felt and feel with recognition that the supervisor likely did not intentionally make an erroneous assumption but its impact remains. Hopefully, the supervisor would respond non-defensively, take the supervisee’s concerns seriously, and even thanking him/her/them for having the courage to share and promoting continued learning on the supervisor’s part.
We recognize that these more ideal circumstances may not reflect reality for this and other supervisees. Namely, the relationship between the supervisor and supervisee may already be tenuous and the supervisee may decide, with the support of peers and mentors, that it is not in his/her/their best interest to address the issue with the supervisor. Given the inescapable power differential in clinical supervision, the consequences for addressing this kind of concern with a supervisor who is insensitive, among other things, could be pretty significant both personally and professionally. In this case, we would hope that the supervisee would know that they are not alone, be supported in mourning the loss of a supervisor with whom they could be their whole selves, and be encouraged to engage in self-care. We encourage supervisees to make their training directors aware of such situations so that they can use their positions of power to protect trainees and to the extent possible, prevent such occurrences from happening in the future.
We also encourage supervisees to empower themselves by familiarizing themselves with the literature in this area.
Further Reading:
American Psychological Association. (2014). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from: http://www.apa.org/about/policy/guidelines-supervision.pdf
Ancis, J. R., & Ladany, N. (2010). A multicultural framework for counselor supervision. In N. Ladany & L. J. Bradley (Eds.), Counselor supervision (4th ed., pp. 53-94). New York, NY: Routledge.
Ellis, M. V. (2017). Clinical supervision consent and contract statement. The Clinical Supervisor, 36, 145-159. doi:10.1080/07325223.2017.1321885
Inman, A. G., & Ladany, N. (2014). Multicultural competence in psychotherapy supervision. In F. L. Leong, L. Comas-Díaz, G. C. Nagayama Hall, V. C. McLoyd, & J. E. Trimble (Eds.), APA handbook of multicultural training (pp. 643–658). Washington, DC: APA.
Kangos, K. A., Ellis, M. V., Hutman, H., Berger, L., Corp, D., Gibson, A., & Nicolas, A. (2018). American Psychological Association guidelines for clinical supervision: Implications for supervisees. The Counseling Psychologist, 46, 821-845. doi: 10.1177/0011000018807128
Soheilian, S. S., Inman, A. G., Klinger, R. S., Isenberg, D. S., & Kulp, L. E. (2014). Multicultural supervision: supervisees’ reflections on culturally competent supervision. Counselling Psychology Quarterly, 27, 379-392. doi:10.1080/09515070.2014.961408
Sue, D. W., Alsaidi, S., Awad, M. N., Glaeser, E., Calle, C. Z., & Mendez, N. (2019). Disarming racial microaggressions: Microintervention strategies for targets, White allies, and bystanders. American Psychologist, 74, 128-142. doi: 10.1037/amp0000296