IJSP Number 2, 2020

18 Listening to self (or self perspective) —the supervisor’s own supervisory self- experience or subjective experience, separate though never entirely separable from the supervisee and client. It involves asking and trying to answer the questions: What am I experiencing now? Apart from my thoughts and feelings about the supervisee and patient, what is going on with me now in this particular supervisory situation? Sources : Watkins [74], [75], [76]. Pan-theoretical markers. Analogizing from Constantino, Boswell, Bernecker, and Castonguay’s [77] marker framework, I believe that we can identify “repeated concerning scenarios occurring across systems of supervision that require cross- system supervisor responsiveness” [36, p. 37). Table 10 identifies four such scenarios, causes of common concerning the supervisory situation. Change ambivalence reflects the normative, developmental approach-avoidance conflict with which supervisees typically struggle on their way to becoming a therapist [34], [67], [68]. The other three concerns, though often less frequent supervision occurrences, can still prove highly problematic and, thereby, readily require supervisor attention post-haste. Table 10 Pan-Theoretical Markers Indicating Need for Supervisor Response Low outcome expectations — limited belief in supervision’s efficacy; supervisee has serious doubts about the supervisor or planned program of supervision Change ambivalence —supervisee wanting yet threatened by the possibility of change; experiences approach-ambivalence about therapist development process Problematic self-strivings — supervisee needs for self-enhancement and self- consistency in conflict; change ambivalence overlaid by far more problematic doubt, negativity, and defensiveness Alliance ruptures — a deterioration in the supervisory alliance, manifested by a disagreement between the supervisee and supervisor on supervision goals, a lack of collaboration on supervisory tasks, or a strain in their emotional bond [after 78] Source : Watkins [36]. Summary comments about Part I. I contend that supervision is a world awash in commonalities and is best understood with that foundational frame in mind. We as supervisors all begin with and operate from a commonalities framework. Being foremost informed about that framework and its impact on our practice would seem of paramount importance. The common factors, common processes, common practices perspective provides one such vision of supervision, a trans-theoretical way of supervisory seeing and doing. I have proposed an extension of that perspective here, (a) updating those earlier-identified commonalities [1] and (b) identifying additional areas of common supervisory concern (e.g., [2], [36], [74]). If commonalities do indeed provide our supervisory infrastructure [10], then let us work to articulate and appreciate the all-affecting specifics of that infrastructure.