NAVIGATIONAL SUPERVISION: SUPERVISOR AS REFLECTIVE RUDDER (1999) Kenneth E Jennings, D Litt et Phil*

This paper reflects the author’s unique supervisory experience in an agency that introduced family therapy as one of its services to the community. Supervision is likened to a navigational process in which issues on the therapist, team, family and agency levels are encountered and then addressed. The supervisor is considered to be the reflective rudder in the process. Social constructionist theory, together with the Taoist philosophy of “non-action” provided the supervisor with a “way of being” that ensured that the subterranean issues could emerge through open and respectful conversation. Co-evolved actions came to the fore without “force” or prescription.

A Request for a Supervisor About a year ago, I was approached by the Director of a Therapy and Assessment Centre** to help supervise the family therapy sessions of a group of therapists. I would consult for an afternoon on a weekly basis and work in a team setting behind the one-way mirror. At our first meeting, I learnt that the four therapists working at the Centre came from a variety of different theoretical backgrounds. While they were all confident in their work with individual clients (both children and adults), they usually felt overwhelmed by the complexity of information that emerged during family meetings. The group members also felt “underqualified” to consult with families due to the nature of their professional training and lack of experience in the field. Although the group considered me to be an “expert” in family therapy, I did not want to (a) “force” a particular way or model of working with families, and/or (b) “teach” strategic family therapy techniques. Instead, I wanted to encourage the group to adopt a working philosophy that would allow for every member in the team to feel comfortable in the way they functioned when consulting with families. I therefore felt that I needed to evolve a workable model with the team that would pull together the diversity of theoretical ideas regarding therapy that existed in the group. In this way, each member’s voice could be heard. This was not going to be easy, since I was an outside consultant that was perceived to be more knowledgeable than the therapists working in the Centre.

* Psychologist in Private Practice. P O Box 651564, Benmore, 2010. South Africa. E-mail: [email protected]

2

** Bryanwood Therapy and Assessment Centre, Johannesburg, South Africa. My Guiding Philosophy I had to consider my own ideas regarding therapy in order to develop some guiding principles of how we could go about constructing a therapeutic team that enhances individual learning and development. Social constructionism and the philosophy of Taoism formed the basis of my therapy work (Jennings, 1993, 1997). The work of Anderson and Goolishian (1988, 1992) on “therapeutic conversation” guided the methodology of my therapy. As I ventured into this way of consulting, however, I became aware that a certain type of therapeutic attitude was necessary in order for the therapeutic process to unfold. Adopting the “not-knowing” approach to understanding and creating interpersonal space to “talk” about the “unsaid” were not strategic techniques; but were rather a consequence of a therapist’s “way of being” in therapy. “Therapeutic conversation” requires a reflexive and collaborative stance that is based on a partnership where there is trust and an equity in regard to participation (Hoffman, 1991). I have found that the way that I function in the therapeutic context has also been influenced by my practise in tai chi (a soft, internal, slow moving martial art). Tai chi has helped me to feel more comfortable in adopting a “non-action or wu wei” stance when consulting. According to Dreher (1990), “wu wei” has four attributes, namely (a) harmonious action, (b) non-violent attitude, (c) paying attention to the unfolding process, and (d) trusting the process. Besides these attributes, non-action is considered to be spontaneous action that “fits” the “conditions” that are prevailing in a situation at any given point in time. “Fit” indicates that timing is of importance, while “conditions” reflect the nature of the situation that one is involved in. Non-action requires that one should be sensitive to the “vibe” or “energy flow” in a particular situation and refrain from going “against the grain”. The concept of non-action is often misunderstood: (a) it should not be interpreted as “no-action” or passive acceptance of the problem situation that one may be involved in, and (b) does not exclude “confrontational” action if this is what is called for. Of significance, is that there is no intentionality in trying to change things when adopting a non-action stance. In translating the Tao Te Ching, Page (1989, p.60) states: The universe is sacred. You cannot improve it. If you try to change it, you will ruin it. If you try to hold it, you will lose it.

Taoists also believe that if “there is an interference of the [energy] flow, sickness occurs” (Liao, 1990, p.28). During my consultations with clients, I am very sensitive to the “flow” of the interpersonal process. During my consultative journey with a client, my fundamental objective is to help dissolve the “obstacle” being encountered in the therapeutic context. I have found that my most useful navigational tool when encountering a “block” is to share “meta-reflections” in a tentative and respectful manner. As I navigate through issues that emerge in the therapeutic process, a more harmonious and “liberating” feeling starts unfolding within the therapeutic system. This provides the connective intimacy that gives the client the opportunity to talk about anything that is dear to the heart and/or soul. Supervision: Setting the Tone for a Working Philosophy Dealing with the Dilemma of Hierarchy Bobele, Gardner and Biever (1995) assert that social constructionist philosophy will pose a dilemma of hierarchy for the supervisor. While the supervisor may be reluctant to

3

guide or direct the interactive process, he/she will have to accept that the nature of the supervisor/supervisee relationship has been defined or constructed in a “hierarchical” manner. If the supervisor goes against this expectancy, a consultative “obstacle” may emerge. With this in mind, I realised that it was my responsibility to set up some guiding principles of how we were going to work. I had to provide some structure and support for those who were inexperienced in the field. In a team meeting, I shared the following ideas regarding the co-evolving of a therapeutic reality: ! A client/family has come to us to tell “his/her/their story”. This is a personal story. A story may be filled with sadness, despair, anger and other feelings. It will be a story of their experiences that will be described to you in words. ! Try and adopt a “not-knowing” stance in the process where you are always moving towards understanding, yet never fully grasping the story of the client (Anderson & Goolishian, 1992). ! Give the client the “space” to talk about the “unsaid” by creating an atmosphere of cooperation and respect in the way that you listen to what is being spoken about (Anderson & Goolishian, 1988). ! Be curious about the uniqueness of the client’s issue/dilemma (Cecchin, 1987). Follow your own intuitive curiosity in the conversation with the client and trust this. During the conversation, hook onto what is meaningful for you; using your own unique experiential and/or theoretical background. ! Be uncertain and ask tentative questions that create an openness for participation (Reschke, 1994). One could also make tentative “meta-comments” about the unfolding process, asking the family members to reflect on your “meta-comments” (Jennings, 1997). ! Listen carefully for key phrases/words that are used. Link onto these in the way you talk. Use the client’s language. In this way, you will be joining with the client (Minuchin & Fishman, 1981). ! Listen for ”unique or unusual” outcomes that are mentioned; which may point the way to a solution or the re-authoring of relationships (White, 1989). Express intrigue at these events or outcomes; questioning/conversing on how these had occurred. After presenting these ideas, I was curious to ascertain whether these ideas could “fit” into their existing theories of psychotherapy. In our conversation, the team seemed excited about the ideas and I had a sense that each individual felt comfortable and confident to still function in his/her own way in the therapeutic process. This was encouraging. While there was an acceptance of the “theory”, we would need to see how these ideas transformed themselves in reality. Curiosity Guides the Process I felt that we needed to be led by the ideas of the therapist who was working with the family. Before the start of each session the therapist who was going to consult with the family was given the opportunity to share his/her “curiosity” with the team about any aspect of the upcoming session. I considered this curiosity to be the “connection” between therapist and the family and would guide the therapist during the session. The team needed to carefully listen to the therapist’s unfolding story without suggesting solutions. Team

4

members were encouraged to respond to the therapist in the same way as the therapist was being encouraged to work with the family (see the guidelines). This helps every member of the team adopt a way of being that facilitates a “conversational” mode of therapy. Telling the Therapy Story According to Anderson and Swim (1995, p.1), “supervision is collaborative conversation that is generative and relational through which supervisees create their own answers, and in doing so experience freedom and self-competence”. I needed to create an interpersonal context where the therapist could tell his/her story about how he/she experienced the unfolding therapy. This story usually focuses on how the “helper” attempts to “help” a family in “need”; coupled with all the ensuing difficulties and complexities of going about this task. From my doctoral research, I was sensitive that this story invariably involves a “personal issue” that needs to be dis-solved (Jennings, 1997). While the therapy with the family seems to activate this “personal issue”, the supervisory process should encourage the therapist to adopt a reflective stance regarding the “personal issue” so that more selfawareness is promoted. Evolving Truths I needed to ensure that the team feels comfortable with multiple evolving truths (and contradictory ideas) regarding the unfolding therapeutic process. No ideas should be excluded, and there should also be no pressure or need to try to get consensus in the team regarding the way the therapy should progress (Bobele et al 1995; Cantwell & Holmes, 1995). While this philosophy reflected that there is no one right way to do therapy, there is a tendency in therapeutic teams to try to formulate a definite hypothesis of the problem and then to “suggest” interventions for the therapist. There is a natural eagerness to help from those “watching” a therapeutic process. I needed to be aware of this enthusiasm since the therapist who is consulting with the family may feel overwhelmed and/or confused by the complexity of ideas that emerges in the team’s talk. The Work Begins I did not have any definite expectations regarding our effectiveness as a team. My supervisory focus was on how to create an interpersonal context with our team (and with the family) that would be conducive to intimate conversation. I had to trust that our therapies with the families would be meaningful for those who were consulting with us. As with all processes that I get involved with, I viewed the supervisory process as one in which “obstacles” needed to be dis-solved in order for a more harmonious energy flow to occur between those involved in the therapy. This required that I address certain issues/concerns that were emerging on four different levels, namely (a) the therapist’s concerns, (b) the involvement of the team in the therapeutic process, (c) a recurring pattern of interaction in the therapy setting that challenged us in the way we were working with the families, and (d) a potential clash in epistemology between my constructionist philosophy of consulting and the psycho-diagnostic type thinking that became evident in the agency. Dealing with the Therapist’s Concerns While the theoretical guidelines were readily accepted by the team, the “pragmatics” of the therapy seemed to activate a number of questions that needed to be reflected on.

5

Is this therapy? One’s epistemology will determine how therapists understand the process of therapy (Bateson, 1980). According to Goolishian and Anderson (1992, p.9) one’s theoretical perspective influences “the issue of strategy and intervention versus nonintervention, including whether it is even an issue”. In our team, there was a great deal of conversation about the fundamental differences between social constructionist thinking and the type of professional training that the therapists had undergone which had emphasised the role of the therapist as an instrumental change agent. This resulted in the group doubting whether the respectful and co-operative way of engaging the family in conversation without intentionally trying to “change” the family could be termed therapy. Are we doing it right? If a therapist is told to “learn” a certain technique then self and others can always check to see whether it has been executed correctly. As a supervisor, I came to realise that “conversational” therapy does not offer the therapist any security (or directionality) when working with families. The constructionist stance does not forward any suggestions regarding the “correctness” of therapy. For the inexperienced therapist, this may prove to be unsettling since there is “nothing” to hold onto in the process. In my supervision, I had to constantly offer reassurance that the therapist’s “self” (together with the family) would guide the process. “Doing it right” means presenting oneself in a honest and open manner so that an intimate connection could occur between self and the family. The application of strategic techniques could “hinder” this “connective” process. Engaging the “self” in therapy. Adopting a social constructionist philosophy when consulting with others, requires the therapist to become more aware of his own unique way of constructing meaning around the events of his/her involvement in therapy. This selfawareness helps to move the therapist into engaging his/her own “personal issue” (Jennings, 1997). This tends to challenge the most fundamental tacit assumptions, beliefs, and/or prejudices of a person. This is an experiential process, since a transformation of “self” only becomes possible when one realises (and has experienced) that all meaning (including perceptions of self) are “self-constructions”. This may prove to be unsettling, since “walking the talk” of social constructionist philosophy can activate an existential crisis (Rademeyer, 1997). People are often unwilling to share their most sacredly held prejudices because to do so may threaten their most intimate relationships. One’s prejudices, however, reveal themselves, whether we mean to or not, sooner or later in our words and actions - in how we live our lives...Becoming aware of ones own prejudices and developing an ability to use this awareness is not always easy, and often follows an elusive path...The interaction of prejudices within and among each of us is the bread and butter of interaction and, of course, of therapeutic relationships. (Cecchin, Lane & Ray, 1994, p.14)

Being in “touch” with one’s own idiosyncratic patterns of thinking and behaving seems to be a prerequisite for a therapist to embrace the level of “connective intimacy” that is demanded when consulting with families. During the supervision process, it became clear to me that social constructionist therapy required the therapist to be “selfless” (or empty) when conversing with families. “Adopting a perspective in which self has no fixed, distinguishing characteristics can resolve many difficulties and create a dimensionless point where self and system, individual and family, therapist and client can meet without hindrance” (Rosenbaum & Dyckman, 1995, p.21). The therapist has to give up the notion that “self” exists. In this way, the therapist can become a “free-flowing conduit that reflects” (Jennings, 1997, p.199). Ideas come and go, nothing is permanent or fixed. The therapist can then “become” what the situation demands of him/her since he cannot (or does not) hold onto anything. Our Team Adopts a Reflecting Position

6

In the initial stages of our work. The therapist used to leave the family and join the team behind the one-way mirror to discuss issues pertaining to the therapy. This was a time when the therapist could get new ideas from the team. Hypotheses were constructed and once satisfied, the therapist would again join the family. The therapist would then share some of the team’s ideas with the family and further conversation would unfold around these ideas. While I thought that the above process of working with therapist and team would best suit “inexperienced” family therapists, I became uncomfortable with the “effects” of this approach. Firstly, leaving the family to come and talk about the family is “secretive” (and can be construed as being manipulative). This was not in line with the collaborative relationship that we were hoping to establish with the families we worked with. Secondly, our way of talking about the family whilst behind the one-way mirror tended to reflect a judgmental and evaluative manner. It seemed as if there was too much “psychological talk” regarding inferences about who was doing what in the family. Thirdly, a competitiveness was appearing between team members regarding the “rightness” of the hypotheses being forwarded in the group. This resulted in a tendency to defend one’s ideas during the team discussion. Fourthly, a fragmentation/separateness between therapist and “team behind the mirror” was becoming evident. This resulted in team members offering advice about how to “tackle” the issues being encountered. In the process, the therapist was being “swamped” with too much information. Unfortunately, this led to uncertainty and/or confusion on the part of the therapist. As an alternative to the above, there were times when I joined the therapist during the session to reflect on the unfolding story of the family in order to open up the “interpersonal space” for conversation about the “unsaid”. This action was usually activated by my own insecurity when I noticed that the therapeutic system seemed “stuck”. I also felt uneasy about this process, since this accentuated my “expertness” in the team’s eyes. My way of conversing with the family was being evaluated by the team as being the “right” way. Becoming more collaborative. As I reflected on the above mentioned dilemmas, I realised that Andersen’s (1987) model of the reflecting team offered us a way of working that could “transcend” the difficulties that we were experiencing. I had also sensed that there was a need for everyone to feel actively involved in the therapeutic process in a meaningful way. Reflecting teams are particularly helpful in translating social constructionist theory into the practice of psychotherapy...[They] put into action ideas such as: 1) there are multiple descriptions and explanations for any event, 2) ideas are generated and changed through conversation, and 3) that clients are the best judge of what is useful for them. (Biever & Gardner, 1995, p.47).

At one of our group meetings, I suggested that we should try to work in a reflective mode. The idea of working in this way simultaneously intrigued and “frightened” the team. The biggest concern was; “so what must we talk about” when we are with the family/therapist. In response to this, I offered the team some guidelines in how to operate in a reflecting team (Merl, 1995): 1. Reflect only what you have noticed, seen and felt in the ongoing session(s). Be careful of giving interpretations. It is useful to reflect on what you had “connected” to while observing the client. Talk about this in a personal way.

7

2. Reflect about it in a hypothetical, tentative way, leaving room for doubt or rejection. Try and avoid definite/authoritative statements. 3. Reflect about it in a benevolent manner, always looking for underlying good intentions even if outcomes are “bad”. 4. Give credit to clients for what appears useful in the direction of a desired outcome and praise them for their achievements. Our procedure of working. Since we do not have a reverse sound system, the team joins the family/therapist in the consulting room at a convenient time. The reflecting team sits in a circle, separate from the family and engages in a group conversation about perceptions of the family’s story. In addition, tentative comments about the unfolding therapeutic process are shared with the therapist/family. The therapist and family listen to the unfolding conversation. No “conversation” between the reflecting team and the therapist/family is entered into, since this could result in too much diversity of ideas being unleashed. The therapist never leaves the family or converses with the reflecting team during the session. Instead, the therapist is encouraged to listen carefully to the reflecting team’s perceptions and to use whatever ideas emerge in his/her own particular way. The therapist’s own curiosity will determine what he/she hooks onto. The therapist also encourages the family to respond to the team’s perceptions. Our reflecting team does not “reflect” in the first session. We are respectful of the joining process that occurs in the first meeting between therapist and family. In addition, the therapist does not leave the family in this session. Instead, therapist and family are left alone to develop their own unique “connective fabric” that is essential for the narrative process to unfold in a meaningful way. After each session (after the family has left), the reflecting team spends 10-15 minutes reflecting on the session, with particular focus on the therapeutic process and the way the therapist had “connected” with the family. During this conversation, the therapist is encouraged to listen to the perception of the team members. After the period of reflection, the therapist is asked to link onto whatever ideas are meaningful. A natural conversation then starts unfolding with the therapist usually “steering” the direction of the conversation. In this way, interconnecting feedback loops of “learning” evolve between team members and therapist. This process becomes the “supervision”. Reflecting on the changes. Once the team adopted this way of working the following became evident: 1. During the session, there was little or no talk between the team members while sitting behind the one-way mirror. It seemed that everyone of us was “connected” to the unfolding process. 2. The team members utilised their own unique experiences and theoretical backgrounds to direct their conversation in the reflecting group. This process empowered the team members and helped enhance the diversity in our group. “Psychological talk” (which often classifies and objectifies the person/family) was replaced with “talk” that reflected a “unique personal connection” with some aspect of the family’s story.

8

3. The therapist found him/herself in an empowered positioned in which he/she was given more “freedom” to link onto the team’s ideas in whatever way he/she decided. Since the therapist did not have “access” to the team during the therapeutic process, there was no possibility of team members “prescribing” ideas/actions to the therapist. 4. We all enjoyed our involvement in the process. There was a great deal of enthusiasm in the team; with everyone feeling a valuable part of the therapeutic process. 5. There did not seem to be a “separation” between team and family. Instead, there seemed to be a “wholeness” in the therapeutic system as “reflecting team” and “family/therapist” conversed with each other in a respectful manner. The “conversational” process was openended, with ongoing, interconnected reflections of perceptions of team and family being shared. A Therapeutic Issue Surfaces After about six months of working, we started to experience a number of family cancellations. In addition, the number of families we were seeing seemed to decline. This worried me and activated me into reviewing our work more closely. In doing this, I noticed a recurring pattern of interaction between “therapist/reflecting team” and the family. This pattern of interaction posed a dilemma for me and the way we were going about working. In brief, the dilemma can best be outlined as a “contrast” or dynamic between the following: 1. The clients that we worked with had been intrigued by our “reflecting team”. We had provided each of our clients with open and honest feedback in a respectful manner. In the process, we maintained our neutrality. We did not argue with our clients or give any advice or guidance. Instead we tried to reflect their dilemmas back to them. From my perspective, I felt that the families benefited from our feedback (this is my subjective opinion). I had witnessed significant “shifts” in the way family members spoke and related to each other in this process. Space had been created for the family to engage each other in a way that facilitated new meaning regarding behaviours/perceptions in the family. 2. Despite the above, I noticed that there was always one member in the client system that tried to “pressure” us (therapist and/or reflecting team) into taking more responsibility for solving the problem that was being presented. It appeared as if each family has a “process controller” who attempted to manoeuvre us into a position of “expert” or “authority”; thus trying to “force” us to (a) “solve” the presenting problem, and (b) deviate from our working philosophy(?). I felt that a dynamic between “holding onto our therapeutic philosophy” and becoming more “direct and controlling” with the families was starting to surface. It felt as if we were being challenged in the way we were working with the families. This created pressure in our therapeutic team. In response to this dynamic I sent the team a formal written reflection in which a number of questions were posed that needed further exploration by our team. ! What were the client’s expectations of us as therapists? ! Can we still maintain our philosophy of “not knowing” and “curiosity” and still be able to “deal” with the therapeutic dynamic of being pressured into taking on more responsibility for trying to “solve” the family’s problem?

9

! What are we doing/not doing that may “activate” the process as described above? ! How should we go about “connecting” with this “unhappy” or “demanding” family member? The referral process: “We” may be creating our own difficulties? These questions activated some interesting discussion in our team but did not seem to bring us any nearer to resolving the issue till the conversation “unintentionally” found its way to the topic of the “referral process”. Of particular significance was that our own Centre was the referring agent. The recommendation for “family therapy” was usually activated by a psychoeducational assessment on a child. This was given at the “feedback session” where the psychologist “spoke” to the parents about the “diagnostic” findings of the assessment. In listening to the team members talk about the “feedback”, it appeared as if the “assessment process” had created a “diagnostic” type of expectation for the family when they entered into the “family therapy process”. Due to this experience, the family may be entering the first session with a certain mindset that “restricts” us from adopting the “not-knowing”. From another perspective, the family has to deal with two totally contrasting experiences in the same Centre. On the one hand, the family experiences the psychologist to be the “expert” giving diagnoses and recommendations on how to solve their problem, while in the family therapy session a tentative, curious approach is adopted with very little or no definite statements being made by the therapist. The issues surrounding the referring person that a therapist may expect to deal with have been previously documented (Selvini-Palazzoli, 1985; Selvini-Palazzoli, Boscolo, Cecchin & Prata, 1980). The referring person is considered to go through three stages in his/her “helping” relationship with the family. In brief, the gratitude that is felt in the first stage of his/her involvement with the family gets replaced with a growing sense of discomfort and uneasiness as efforts to help are “rejected”. Finally, pushed to exasperation and seeking some solution, the family is referred to a family therapist. While we were not dealing with a referring “person”, the members of the team (who are also involved in the psychoeducational assessments) identified interpersonal pressures that were being “imposed” on them by the family during the “feedback” session. This resulted in the therapist suggesting that the family needed to consult with the “team” in order to solve their problem. As the team members became more sensitive to this issue, the team’s conversation centred on how one should “talk” about family therapy as a means of solving the interpersonal issues that may have been “identified” by “objective” psychological tests. A Clash of Epistemologies? The Centre offers a range of psychological services to the community, specialising in psycho-educational diagnostic assessments and individual therapies (both adult and child). While the introduction of family therapy was considered to be another service offered, my way of working in the Centre may have “challenged” the fundamental “functioning” of those involved in the Centre. I started to realise that two fundamental contrasting epistemologies, namely the “rules of mechologic” versus the “principles of ecologic” (Auerswald, 1990), may be at the source of the difficulty that we were encountering regarding family drop-outs and decline of families needing family therapy. At present, my supervisory role has changed slightly. The Director of the Centre (who is also a member of the reflecting team) and I have been conversing about whether it is possible to follow a philosophy of constructivism in our family sessions (for one afternoon

10

a week), if the over-riding philosophy of the Centre is embedded in Newtonian mechologic. Despite this concern of mine, the Director felt that the family therapy sessions were a time of “convergence” for the therapists to be together to share ideas. According to her, the group had derived a great deal of value and meaning from the process so far (despite the decline in the number of family therapy cases). The following points emerged from the conversations with the team and the Director: 1. The therapists are starting to think more in terms of ongoing processes. The distinction between “feedback session” and “family therapy session” is starting to blur. While the therapists are going to take a closer look at the referral process, they are realising that the “feedback session” is an important time for them to open up “conversation” with the family regarding the test information at their disposal. 2. I should continue to meet with the team on a weekly basis (even if there are no families). More discourse is necessary about the philosophical aspects and pragmatics of social constructivism. While on the surface the theory seems simple and easy to comprehend, it does seem to require a quantum leap in the “way” one “thinks” and “acts” in therapy. We may need to take a more careful look at whether a harmonious co-existence is possible between social constructionist theory and other schools of psychotherapy. While I believe that social constructionist theory “embraces” all ideas that exist in an interpersonal context, I have also come to understand that a person has to be “ready” to fully embrace this philosophy (Jennings, 1997; Rademeyer, 1997). Embracing this philosophy requires that the therapist questions his/her most fundamental beliefs and prejudices about self, life and “therapy”. This is an existential exploration process that one cannot force. Supervising the “Feedback Session” At our first meeting after the two month Christmas break, a member of the group felt that it would be useful if the team could reflect on a “feedback” session that was going to be given to a family whose adolescent son was assessed. The reason for bringing this to the team was that there was a “not sure of” type of feeling regarding the information that was obtained during the diagnostic process. Our team was asked to see whether we could “create” a conversational context for the parents to “help” fill in some of the uncertainty that existed around the diagnostic results that were obtained in the assessment. The request to bring a “feedback” session to our team surprised and excited me. I had not considered this an option of supervision. By asking the team to reflect on the “feedback” session, a convergence between our way of working and the formal psychometric feedback was going to occur. As time unfolds and more families are seen for the “feedback” session, a follow-up paper will be forwarded to outline some of the issues that are likely to surface as these two contrasting philosophies merge in the therapeutic context. Conclusion The supervisory process can be likened to a navigational process, in which issues on the levels of therapist, team, family and agency need to be addressed and resolved. The supervisor is considered to be the reflective “rudder” in this process. Taoists are sensitive to interpersonal contexts that are not harmonious (Liao, 1990). As issues emerge in the consultative process, the supervisor should engage those involved

1 1

in the issue in a tentative and respectful manner. In this way, the supervisor enters the subterranean world of the therapeutic system (which is embedded in the agency). Interpersonal issues are considered to be “obstacles” that “block the energy flow” (Jennings, 1997). Social constructionist philosophy offers the supervisor/consultant a “way of being” that can facilitate the “dis-solving” of the “obstacle”. Therapeutic conversation becomes the vehicle of this process in which courses of action evolve naturally without “force” or prescription. After sharing this manuscript with the team, the director formally reflected the following message back to me: Captain’s Comments: As director, I had to choose the “crew” and ensure the boat left the harbour!....Our “rudder” went to great lengths to ensure that each “crew” member developed a “style” of family therapy that he or she felt comfortable with and at all times therapists were encouraged to “go with their intuition/gut feeling”. This helped tremendously to allow for congruence, harmony and a feeling of authority and respect for the families. Life is a journey and this “crew” continues to navigate through storms but also to enjoy the quiet waters from time to time.

12

References Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical work. Family Process, 26, 415-428. Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H.A. (1988). Human systems as linguistic systems: Preliminary and evolving ideas about the implications for clinical theory. Family Process, 27, 371-393. Anderson, H., & Goolishian, H.A. (1992). The client is expert: A not-knowing approach to therapy. In S. McNamee, & K. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp.25-39). London: Sage. Anderson, H., & Swim, S. (1995). Supervision as collaborative conversation: Connecting the voices of supervisor and supervisee. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(2), 1-13. Auerswald, E.H. (1990). Comparing paradigms: Mechologic and ecologic. A workshop presented at the University of South Africa, Pretoria. Bateson, G. (1980). Mind and nature. Toronto: Bantam. Biever, J.L., & Gardner, G.T. (1995). The use of reflecting teams in social constructionist training. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(3), 47-56. Bobele, M., Gardner, G., & Biever, J. (1995). Supervision as social construction. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(2), 14-25. Cantwell, P., & Holmes, S. (1995). Cumulative process: A collaborative approach to systemic supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(2), 35-46. Cecchin, G. (1987). Hypothesizing, circularity, and neutrality revisited: An invitation to curiosity. Family Process, 26, 405-413. Cecchin, G., Lane, G., & Ray, W.A. (1994). Influence, effect and emerging systems. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 13(4), 13-21. Dreher, D. (1990). The tao of peace: A modern guide to the ancient way of peace and harmony. London: Mandala. Goolishian, H.A., & Anderson, H. (1992). Strategy and intervention versus nonintervention: A matter of theory? Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 18(1), 5-15. Hoffman, L. (1991). A reflexive stance for family therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 10(3), 4-17. Jennings, K.E. (1993). Mind in sport: Directing energy flow into success. Kenwyn: Juta. Jennings, K.E. (1997). Towards a model of mental preparation in elite sport. Unpublished doctoral thesis: University of South Africa, Pretoria. Liao, W. (1990). Tai chi classics. Boston: Shambhala. Merl, H. (1995). Reflecting supervision. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 14(2), 47-56. Minuchin, S., & Fishman, C.H. (1981). Family therapy techniques. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. Page, M. (1989). The tao of power: An eastern way to a greener world. London: Merlin Press. Rademeyer, G. (1997). The action researcher: Change agent or changed agent? Paper delivered at the 4th World Congress on Action Research, Action Learning and Process Management & the 8th World Congress on Participatory Action Research, Cartagena, Columbia. Reschke, D. (1994). Radical trust and uncertainty - Hallmarks of reflexive therapy. Journal of Systemic Therapies, 13(4), 31-38. Rosenbaum, R., & Dyckman, J. (1995). Integrating self and system: An empty intersection? Family Process, 34, 21-44. Selvini-Palazzoli, M. (1985). The problem of the sibling as the referring person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 11(1), 21-34. Selvini-Palazzoli, M., Boscolo, L., Cecchin, G., & Prata, G. (1980). The problem of the referring person. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 6(1), 3-9.

13 White, M. (1989). The externalizing of the problem and the re-authoring of lives and relationships. Selected Papers. Adelaide: Dulwich Centre Publications.