J O U R N A L O F

FAMILY THERAPY
Journal of Family Therapy (2010) 32: 436–439
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6427.2010.00525.x

Six aspects of supervision and the training of

supervisors

Barry Masona

Arising out of a perceived contradiction in the implementation of a

second order perspective, this article suggests a practice framework for
inclusion in the training of systemic supervisors. Brief feedback from
trainees is also presented.

Keywords: supervision; systemic; training; practice.

Context and setting

The ideas expressed in this article have emerged out of the advanced
training programme in the supervision of family and systemic
psychotherapy at the Institute of Family Therapy (IFT) in London.
This programme is both part of, and separate from, a doctoral
programme (in collaboration with Birkbeck College, University of
London) in family and systemic psychotherapy that was established in
1998. The ideas highlighted here have been part of the curriculum
since 2007.

Rationale
The paradigm shift in family therapy that took place in the late
1970s to early 1980s was a shift towards a second order perspective
(Hoffman, 1985). It embodied the view that we could no longer play
the role of detached observers; the act of observation influences that
which is observed (Heisenberg, 1962; Von Foerster, 1990). This shift
implied that we needed to start asking questions of ourselves, and to
consider our place in the therapy, in addition to the ideas and
questions we may have about, and discuss with, our clients.
a
Chair, Advanced Diploma in Supervision, Co-Director, Doctoral Programme in
Family and Systemic Psychotherapy, 24 Stephenson Way, London NW1 2HX. E-mail:
b.mason@clara.co.uk.

r 2010 The Author

Journal of Family Therapy r 2010 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice. Published by
Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden,
MA 02148, USA.
 Six aspects of supervision and the training of supervisors 437
In my role in the training of supervisors at IFT I have visited many
clinical teams in the UK. What I have become increasingly struck by
over the last 11 years is that although, in the main, practitioners would
indicate that they were coming from a second order perspective, the
pre-session and post-session team discussions almost exclusively
involved discussion of the clients. I began to form the view that calling
oneself second order (whether supervisor or therapist), but only
tending to address the clients, was a contradiction. Other aspects
needed to be addressed.

The six aspects

As a way of being more consistent with a second order perspective
trainee supervisors have been asked to keep in mind the following six
areas of the supervisory task. This has become a central part of the
training and trainees are assessed in their practice as to the attention
they pay to these six aspects. Further, the supervisors in training are
also encouraged to not only show their expertise through being
curious in their addressing of these areas in the supervision they
give, but also to show their expertise by introducing knowledge of
ideas and research – their own and others. This is consistent with the
fostering of ‘a culture of contribution’ (Mason, 2007, p.17). The
supervisor, just like a therapist, is not a vehicle that only has one
gear – curiosity. Thus, the trainee supervisors are encouraged to be,
both, curious with the supervisee, and have ideas and suggestions that
they may share with them, about:
1. The clients and the issues they present. For example, curiosity and ideas
about hypotheses, and sharing ideas about the specific difficulties
clients are presenting – such as one family member with a chronic
illness.
2. The clients’ relationships with help. It is a responsibility of the supervisor
to ensure that the supervisee addresses with the clients, the history of
the idea of coming or being referred for help (Reder and Fredman,
1996). My experience of supervising is that therapists often do not
address this aspect of the therapeutic task in enough detail.
3. The therapeutic relationship. Given the importance of the quality of
the therapeutic relationship in contributing to good therapeutic
outcome (Hubble et al., 1999), the supervisor needs to address this
with the supervisee as part of the supervision process. Sometimes it
is useful to start with the therapist’s dilemmas rather than go

r 2010 The Author

Journal of Family Therapy r 2010 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice.
438 Barry Mason
immediately to (1) above. This might allow the supervisor to
address a dilemma – for example, a struggle around race and
culture – in the work with a family. The problem about always
starting supervision with discussion of the family is that it can often
be harder to get beyond the family if one always starts there.
4. The self of the therapist. I have suggested above that the self of the
therapist has to be addressed to be consistent with a second order
perspective. But a mandate needs to be obtained from the group
members for this to be part of the supervisory contract. Addressing
self in individual supervision has often been found by trainees to be
easier than in the group context.
5. The supervisory relationship. This may include asking supervisees
about their expectations about supervision, and regularly review-
ing the supervisory agreement and the usefulness, or otherwise, of
supervisory input in relation to specific work with clients. Explor-
ing this aspect should also include addressing the supervisee’s
relationship with help.
6. The self of the supervisor. In what ways, for example, might super-
visors’ relationship with authority, the ownership of expertise and
relational risk-taking (Mason, 2005) influence the way they super-
vise? What might supervisors be pulling back from addressing and
how do they understand why they may be doing this? How might
family and culture of origin and gender scripts aid or constrain, or
both, the supervisor’s ability to address these areas?

Evaluation and impact

There has been no formal research evaluation of this relatively recent
development in the supervisory training at the Institute. However, the
present cohort has given the following feedback:
 The learning curve of becoming an effective supervisor was
enhanced by having such a structure in that it gave permission
to address the six aspects as part of the contract for supervision.
 The structure kept trainees focused on the supervisory task. At first
trainees tended to feel self-conscious about using it but, over time
and with practice, it became a natural part of their supervisory style.
 A number of trainees highlighted the importance of trying to
ensure that they helped supervisees explore in detail the clients’
relationships with help, something that they had previously

r 2010 The Author

Journal of Family Therapy r 2010 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice.
 Six aspects of supervision and the training of supervisors 439
tended to skim over. There was also a view that addressing this
area helped supervisors and supervisees think about addressing
racism in terms of how the clients might be viewing the contact
with the agency. A connection was also made by one trainee, and
agreed by others, that the structure enabled Social GRRAAC-
CEESS (gender, religion, race, age, ability, culture, class, educa-
tion, employment, sexuality and spirituality) (Burnham, 1993) to
be explored across all six aspects.
 Initially, trainees expressed concern that there was an expectation
that you had to address all six aspects in all supervision sessions. It
would be unrealistic, in terms of the time available, to discuss all
six, but not unrealistic in terms of the supervisor holding all of
these areas in mind during supervision.

Acknowledgement
This article is dedicated to two dear friends and colleagues (both of
whom were exceptional supervisors and trainers) – David Campbell
(1943–2009) and Anthony Yeo (1948–2009).

References
Burnham, J. (1993) Systemic supervision: the evolution of reflexivity in the
context of the supervisory relationship. Human Systems, 4: 349–381.
Heisenberg, W. (1962) Physics and Philosophy. New York: Harper and Row.
Hoffman, L. (1985) Beyond power and control: towards a second order systems
therapy. Family Systems Medicine, 3: 381–396.
Hubble, M., Duncan, B. and Miller, S. D. (eds) (1999) The Heart and Soul of Change:
What Works in Therapy. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Mason, B. (2005) Relational risk-taking and the training of supervisors. Journal of
Family Therapy, 27: 298–301.
Mason, B. (2007) Working across difference: A case study. Context, 89: 16–17.
Reder, P. and Fredman, G. (1996) The relationship to help: interacting beliefs
about the treatment process. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 1: 457–67.
Von Foerster, H. (1990) Ethics and second order cybernetics. Paper given at the
International Conference on Systems and Family Therapy: Ethics, Epistemol-
ogy, New Methods. Paris, 4 October 1990.

r 2010 The Author

Journal of Family Therapy r 2010 The Association for Family Therapy and Systemic Practice.