20 The Professional Counselor | Volume 14, Issue 1 They typically framed the idea of receiving various feedback as a way to gain ideas and then make their own informed decisions. Molly shared this positive perspective when she stated, “I like coming to [my differing supervisors] with different issues I have with different clients because I feel like they both have valuable experience, but in different ways.” In contrast, Hailey identified multiple perspectives as being “really difficult,” and Diana noted they were “more frustrating than beneficial” and confusing. Similarly, Hailey stated, “My supervisors are all very different, so they give me different feedback, and a lot of times it conflicts with what the other one has said.” The supervisee’s framing of discrepant feedback impacted their overall perceptions with simultaneous supervision. Supervisees either valued or were confused by the feedback. Generally, participants spoke of times when multiple perspectives were beneficial and difficult, but it appeared all participants were left with the task of making sense of multiple perspectives while receiving simultaneous supervision. Safety Net vs. Minefield Making sense of multiple perspectives was described as creating a safety net of support, while others found the experience to be a minefield that increased confusion, ambiguity, and isolation. Emma and Molly characterized their experience as providing support in an often overwhelming profession. Molly articulated, “I feel like if I didn’t have that good support, that good foundation, I don’t think I could do it because it’s just so much.” She later added, “I feel like getting those different perspectives, getting that support, getting those encouragers is beneficial because I don’t feel as overwhelmed, even though it’s overwhelming.” Participants also perceived their simultaneous supervision as a minefield wherein they believed they were in double binds. Hailey reflected on an experience when her supervisors contradicted each other and expressed, “It just sucked because I was doing what my supervisor told me to do and suggested I do, and then I was told everything I did was wrong.” Diana echoed that discrepant feedback felt like a constant dilemma needing to be managed “carefully.” In reflecting on contradicting supervision, Diana said, “It’s hard because everybody has their own thing. . . . You just kind of have to appease everyone.” In the face of conflict, it was easier to placate than resolve. Participants’ cognitive framing was a major element of the phenomenon. Whereas making sense of multiple perspectives focused on the cognitive elements of receiving feedback from different supervisors, the next theme focused on the behavioral elements. Orchestrating the Process Another theme that emerged in our data analysis was that of supervisees orchestrating the process of simultaneous supervision. This theme revolved around action-oriented steps in supervision. The essence of this theme was captured when Hailey acknowledged the need for “checking her motives” on what she shared with different supervisors. She asked herself, “Am I sharing this with this [supervisor] because I feel like they’re going to answer in the way that I feel like . . . they should answer, because it’s easier for me?” Hailey acknowledged the difficulty in this, countering with, “Or am I just going to them because it’s that person that I’m supposed to see?” Hailey recognized that having options when it came to approaching supervisors meant that disclosure needed to be intentional rather than straightforward as it is when CITs only have one choice. Participants were aware of their process as they picked and chose what to share with whom, through seeking out a preferred supervisor and through managing the practical aspects of having multiple supervisors. The subthemes of picking and choosing, seeking a preferred perspective, and managing practical considerations were a part of orchestrating the process.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1