by Danielle Keenan-Miller, PhD, and Sarah Thompson, PhD
Much has been written on the importance of building a supportive, trusting supervisory relationship. However, inviting authentic, vulnerable disclosures from supervisees is a significant challenge. The inherent power imbalance within supervision and the need in most settings to conduct a formal evaluation of supervisees’ performance create significant barriers to disclosure.
To encourage more open and vulnerable discussion, try broaching.
What is broaching in supervision?
Broaching refers to explicitly naming relevant identities and inviting discussions of identity and culture (Jones et al., 2019). Similar to broaching issues of identity, culture, and diversity in therapy, broaching in supervision helps establish norms and begin the supervisory relationship knowing something about your supervisee while allowing them to know a bit about you.
In our practices, we create intentional space for reflection on the identities of both supervisor and supervisee at the outset of each supervision relationship.
Sarah typically begins by asking her supervisees to complete a self-reflection worksheet that includes questions about who they are, past clinical training experiences, current training goals, and how supervision can be most helpful. In the first meeting, supervisees are invited to share whatever they like from this worksheet regarding their personal, professional, or cultural identities and background.
In a similar fashion, Danielle invites supervisees in the first meeting to reflect on their identities by sharing core values as therapists and learners. This conversation also includes reflection on what identities and experiences inform these values, and what it might be like to work with clients who share or differ in their own key values.
The benefit of broaching
One key advantage of this approach is that it invites disclosure but does so in a way that gives supervisees freedom around what and how much to share.
We have received all kinds of responses to these inquiries. Some trainees provide a primer around various identities, such as their gender, age, race/ethnicity, sexual orientation, and religious background. Others talk about where they grew up, how they entered a mental health field, or what they hope to do in their career. Some share their cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds, while a few shrug and say there isn’t anything they want to share.
Some trainees want to be known by their supervisor and others do not. Many see their values, identities, and cultural backgrounds as inherent to their work, while others are not sure how these factors are relevant. This uncertainty also provides important information regarding their current level of professional development.
These discussions are only the start of an ongoing conversation. Some trainees are understandably wary of disclosing “too much” to a supervisor, especially in a first meeting. That’s fine. Supervisees do not have to tell their supervisor everything about themselves right away.
Instead, this discussion establishes an understanding for our future meetings: it’s okay to talk about our identities, values, biases, and how they impact our work. In fact, this is a critical conversation.
Bridging the gaps
In broaching discussions, we typically respond to disclosures by:
- Reflecting what supervisees have shared,
- Validating their perspective,
- Asking a few questions about their experiences, and
- Thanking them for sharing.
The goal is to help supervisees feel heard and to express appreciation for their willingness to consider the impact of these variables on their work with clients and in supervision.
We also share a bit about ourselves in these conversations, including key visible (and sometimes invisible) identities and how we think about our identities as psychologists and supervisors. If there are notable differences or similarities between ourselves and our supervisees, we try to highlight those and reflect on how these factors might influence our work together in supervision.
For example, if there’s a generational difference between you and the trainee, you might discuss this by saying something like:
“It sounds like we have a lot of similarities, although one area where there is an important difference between us is our ages. I imagine that could lead to different perspectives on some of the issues your clients are bringing in, especially when you’re working with clients who are also part of Gen Z.
So, as we work together, I’ll really be interested to discuss our differing viewpoints and hear how you see things as similar to or different from me. I think our unique perspectives will give us a lot of great material to talk about and hopefully improve the interventions we’re able to offer your clients.”
Differences are especially important to observe, and a broaching conversation also serves as a chance to invite supervisees to disclose if/when we have demonstrated limited understanding of their experiences or identities, including microaggressing against or offending them in some way.
Occasional misunderstandings are inevitable in close work between two people, and our goal as supervisors should be to address those difficulties—including moments that are genuinely hurtful, offensive, or discriminatory—with honesty. This approach also models how supervisees can approach their own work with clients.
Overcoming anxiety about broaching
Broaching isn’t easy. We almost always feel anxious beforehand and during the conversation, mostly because it can feel taboo to talk openly about issues of identity and discrimination.
Even more taboo is acknowledging one’s own mistakes in this domain, particularly when you hold one or more privileged identities. As white women, acknowledging the potential of microaggressing against supervisees feels anxiety-provoking, and it would certainly be easier to avoid talking about it in the hopes it won’t occur.
And yet, there is something freeing for both parties in acknowledging the possibility of mistakes, rather than pretending they will never happen. A pluralistic society will inherently involve some degree of misunderstanding in interpersonal relationships because everyone has different experiences. The history of oppression, racism, and unexamined privilege present in our society and inherent to the development of many mental health professions can also be replicated in supervision.
Even those with the best of intentions will sometimes make mistakes.
It’s hard to acknowledge that you are not perfect and may contribute to a harmful experience. And yet, clinical work and supervision offer the opportunity for us to go beyond typical societal norms.
Broaching creates a context for an authentic supervisory alliance, establishing values and norms that we can draw on in the future, including if the supervisory relationship or the supervisee’s work with clients becomes challenging.
Having such a conversation early in supervision allows supervisees to begin our work together with a greater understanding of where we are coming from, a sense that sensitive conversations are welcome, and the recognition that identity, culture, and personal values are essential aspects of clinical work.
Want cutting-edge strategies for more effective supervision? Join Innovations in Clinical Supervision, starting February 6! This training goes beyond the basics to explore emerging best practices and practical strategies for today’s most pressing supervision needs. Gain tools for systematizing feedback, supporting diverse trainees, and addressing real-world challenges unique to today’s therapy landscape so you can confidently guide the next generation of therapists.
Reference
Jones, C. T., et al. (2019). Broaching as a strategy for intercultural understanding in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 38(1), 1-16. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2018.1560384