22 The Professional Counselor | Volume 14, Issue 1 to see multiple supervisors: “Honestly, I just give the other supervisor little things because I know I have to talk to him . . . and it’s more, like, checking a box.” Finally, Emma captured how this time commitment was epitomized in documentation: “And the paperwork got exhausting, too, because I had to do everything in triplicate sometimes.” She further talked about the additional mental labor: “And now what are we gonna talk about since I just talked about all of this with [a different supervisor] and feel like I found good solutions, you know?” Supervisees had to manage their time and fit more supervision into their schedules. Simultaneous supervision added complexity, and participants needed to orchestrate this process to manage it efficiently and effectively. Supervisory Relationship Dynamics Supervisory relationship dynamics was determined to be a superordinate theme as it reflected on the connecting and disconnecting elements of the supervisory relationship. This theme was broken into three subthemes. The subthemes of vulnerability, power dynamics, and systems of supervision illustrated the relational dynamics within simultaneous supervision. Vulnerability In supervisory relationships, feelings of safety and vulnerability influenced interactions with different supervisors. To illustrate, Hailey noted: There are certain supervisors I feel more safe with. And so those are the ones that I share more with . . . versus some of them I feel less safe with . . . I don’t share as much with them that is vulnerable, or that makes me vulnerable. Participant experiences highlighted how vulnerability dictated what and how elements were shared in simultaneous supervision. Power Dynamics The determination of safety occurred within power dynamics. Diana commented that multiple supervisors serving as evaluators and gatekeepers can create “this weird relationship where you don’t want to be too vulnerable because this person is also your boss and can decide if you are going to stay in that position or not.” Diana and Hailey noted feeling disempowered and disengaged from supervision, referring to supervisors as “bosses” throughout their interviews. When participants perceived their supervision as a firmly directive process, discrepant directives were especially distressing. Diana rephrased this sentiment: “I guess the best thing to compare it to would be if you have more than one boss, but they all give you a different, ‘I want this, I want this, I want this.’” Emma’s experience was more accordant, and she specifically expressed at one time, “None of [my supervisors] are really super bossy either.” Participants identified power dynamics as salient aspects of how they experienced supervision and with whom they connected. Working with more than one supervisor sometimes resulted in characterization of “good” and “bad” supervisors, making individual supervisory relationship dynamics crucial. Systems of Supervision Participants conceptualized the phenomenon as broader systems of supervision in which individual supervisors were interacting with each other. Emma noted, “The two faculty supervisors work very closely together and I assume talk all the time.” Emma and Molly provided multiple examples of supervisors working together to best serve clients, thus bolstering supervision through their combined
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDU5MTM1