Subordinate theme three: A sense of all the different perspectives

“sense of all the different perspectives” title comes from P2 and their experience that highlights the multiple viewpoints on offer in group supervision settings. The setting of the supervisory space was a recurrent theme that seemed to be poignant and moderated participants experience of supervision. Many supervisees described several different settings and often a variety of settings for each participant, whether that be split between coaching and counselling practice and between private or NHS work. It seemed that the comparison between one-to-one supervision and peer or group supervision was

particularly important. The extracts explored below portray the variety of experience of these differing settings and both the positive and negative phenomena felt within both settings. P5 delineates group supervision with ‘peer’ supervision and explores the topic of structure below.

“I think in terms of the peer supervision group sometimes I find that’s really useful. I think we, it might be quite nice if we structured that a bit differently. I really like the Thinking Environment approach to supervision because it has a structure that I think is really useful, that helps the supervisor not to come in too

quickly. So the structure of, shall I talk about that structure or is that . . .?” P5, line 502

There seems to be a conflicting experience of P5 in the experience of group supervision as “really useful”, but also that it can be “structured a bit differently”. In advocating for a model of supervision that helps the supervisor not come in “too quickly” I wonder if there is significant frustration with interruption and advice giving from the group dynamic.

“Erm, I think it’s helpful in the sense that we’re all on a journey and being involved in something that’s a bit different. Er and so it’s really good that we have that kind of shared sense of the virtue of working in an integrated way and erm have some shared understanding about that.” P5, line 800

Further on in the extract above, P5 goes on to explore the upsides to group/peer supervision and sharing in the group’s “journey”, based on their integrative experience.

This “shared understanding” seems to be in opposition to the earlier criticisms, but I wonder if both a frustration at the directedness of the group and the appreciation for the shared experience of the group coexist.

“Erm, and actually there’s something else about erm almost being witness to other people’s journeys as well. So yea, and that’s a really er, beautiful part of it actually, that we’ve all started together erm, and we’ve all started at slightly different levels. You know, so from people who’ve had lots of experience previously in coaching or whatever to people who’ve come in from a different career, so actually to see everybody move up together is really nice and actually there’s something really erm. . .And what I really like about group supervision as opposed to individual supervision is that sense of all the different

perspectives and being able to pick up what other people are doing,” P2, line 546

P2 also highlights being “witness to other people’s journeys” and the ‘felt’ sense is one of a beauty and a joy to experience these phenomena. The range and diversity of experience at the start of the group is outlined as significant in comparison with current times and perhaps there is an awe at the progression of the group. The integrative and pluralistic nature of the group’s beginnings and journey is commented on and perhaps there was an expectation from P2 that there is some surprise that the group’s pluralistic identity has been fostered and has added to their own practice.

“Erm (long pause), my experience of supervision when I first started coaching was really very positive. Erm and I, what I realise now that I didn’t realise then was that it was very person-centred. So, it was group, we’d meet over Skype, erm and erm, it wasn’t as regular er as er the counselling supervision I’d had,

so maybe once a month we would spend a couple of hours and we’d all bid in and er you know with the things we’d talk about and then people would present in turn and the supervisor would always ask about “oh what do you think about this situation, what might you do?”, then ask all of the others and we’d have a supportive and held conversation, but only really from advice giving until there was that request, ok we’ve exhausted all these things so Deb, my supervisor Deb, said well what do you think? From your experience what would you do?”

P3, Line 444

P3 compares their supervisory experience chronologically, first noting the positives and the particular favouritism of a particular model: person-centred therapy.

They note the pragmatic differences, but emphasise the turn-taking and the holding back by the facilitator/supervisor of offering any supervisory intervention too early. P3 seems to very much approve of this approach and goes as far to mimic the supervisor’s voice to display the nature of this experience. They name this a “held conversation” and here the reader can view the similarities between the earlier themes in superordinate theme 2

‘line of sight’ and subordinate theme ‘carrying the person’, specifically the safety and containment of feeling held in the supervisory space where integrative and pluralistic work is valued. By comparing this earlier supervisory group and stating how positive this experience was, the reader is compelled to see an implication that P3’s current or later supervisory experience in other groups has been less positive and not so “held” or integrative. Again, the omission of one-to-one supervision experience here implies that P3 feels more comfortable in a group, particularly an integrative group where many minds can “bid in” as opposed to the singular thinking of one supervisor.

Summarising the participant accounts of group supervision in comparison with one-to-one supervision, supervisees seem to experience each group differently

depending on the dynamics and how able they are to bring the material and their unique integrative style to the supervision. Some noted that witnessing the developmental journey of the group and other individual’s growth was a positive experience.

Additionally, they seemed to think that this type of experience could not be encountered in one-to-one supervision because of the very nature of the setting. The multiple

perspectives on offer seem to be an important factor in building practitioner identity as coach-therapists.

4.4.4 Subordinate theme four: Integrative supervision – it would be utterly