Group Supervision Session from the Person-Centered Perspective - Essay Example

Analyse one of your group supervision sessions from the person-centred perspective. Identify key moments and reflect on how they impact upon your personal and professional development. Demonstrate your understanding and integration of person-centred theory into practice. In this essay I will be analysing my group supervision session from the person-centred perspective the section was conducted for twenty minutes, where I was the supervisee I will be Identify the key moments and reflect on how they impact upon my own personal and professional development and I will also demonstrate my understanding and integration of person-centred theory into practice. The person-Centred Theory was developed from the works of a psychologist Carl Rogers (1902-1987). The theory was considered revolutionary because initially it was described as non-directive, it moved away from the presumption that the therapist was considered the expert on a theory that had trust in the actualizing tendency of every human being to find fulfilment of personal potentials (Prinz 2007, p. 22). Right from the onset, an aspect of psychological contact is evident in the session. In a psychological environment, according to Wilkins (2009), it is visible that the fulfilment of personal potentials involves the aspect of sociability, the need for other human beings and the desire to know and be known by other people. Although, at first, as a supervisee I felt uncomfortable, “I am not happy, I feel frustrated…it seems annoying…” but still I showed the willingness to be there and share my experience. This indicated that, even though, the thoughts of being unable to help those who are alcoholic addicts weighed on her shoulders; I still felt the urge to share my experience (Brown & Prout 2007, p.21). This is consistent with the person-centred theory’s first condition (PCT) as postulated by Rogers, according to which a client should feel welcomed and free to share his/her experiences. “… Now you should kick off…” was an opening statement from supervisor 1, through which she presented me with the opportunity to take the conversation to whatever direction I wanted to. This reflects Rogers’ postulation that it is only the client that knows what hurts most and, what is more, critical (Prinz 2007, p. 72). Further, it is consistent with Rogers’ theory that allows the client to have enough space to explore his/her experiences. Evidently, the supervisor 1 made me feel wanted, not alone and that the experiences that I was explicating during the sharing were a real and useful one. True to what Rogers (2004, p.18) indicated that real relationship had a unique way of being vital and meaningful, supervisor 1 enabled me to relive the experience I had while working with people who are victims of alcohol (Embleton et al. 2004, p. 68). Notably, the supervisor 2’s commitment to empathic understanding allowed her to walk into my subjective world and so enable them understand my situation. This evidently is a sign of consistency to one condition postulated by Rogers’ theory of counselling and therapy. Supervisor 2 did observe “... feel you are making the effort…However, they’re not…” This is an expression of empathic understanding, which is consistent with Rogers’ second therapeutic condition. The condition dictates that the supervisor understands the supervisee’s thoughts, feelings, and meanings from the supervisee’s perspective (Rogers 2004, p.38). True to the words of Carl Rogers, the supervisors were open to the way of life as I did experience it, and somehow they came into my world. They showed signed to empathize with me, and this made me develop confidence in myself to pour out my experience openly. Arguably, through this the supervisor can find a suitable therapy for the problems that a supervisee experiences (Rogers 2003, p. 75). Accordance with the conditions stipulated by Carl Rogers, during empathy, it is the sole responsibility of the supervisor to assume the internal frame of reference and so try to visualize the happenings and experience of the supervisee. This created a friendly atmosphere where I could communicate freely, and the supervisors could speak vividly the empathic understanding of what I have experienced (Cain 2010, p.105). As observed by Wilkins (2009, p.65) one central point in Karl Rogers’ personality theory, is the notion of self-concept, which basically is the organized, consistent set of perceptions and belief one have about him/herself. In this light the self is who we are as persons, that is to say it is one’s inner personality. According to Rogers, the self is influenced by the experiences a person have in their lives and the interpretation they give to those experiences (Rogers 2003, p. 69; Print 2007, p. 29). Consistent with this end, my self-esteem was reduced by the experiences I was having with the addicts. On the onset of the session, I did mention that I was feeling discouraged, demotivated and somehow felt bad about myself. This somehow affected my personality as an individual and more particularly in my professional development. In this light, supervisor 2 asked “… you said you are feeling bad about yourself…?” This might have been in reference to my feelings about the unlikely turn of events. This indicated elements of consistency to the theory postulated by Rogers on self-concept. Observably, the supervisor 2 wanted to determine how the experiences that I was sharing had impacted on my self-image and self-concept. Moreover, supervisor 4 also was consistent with this theory. When supervisor 4 asked whether I feel appreciated in the job of rehabilitation, verbatim, “….you feel not appreciated …” Obviously, she was trying to determine whether I was getting a positive evaluation from my clients or whether the clients actually appreciated my time with them. From the person-centred theory perspective, the supervisor has the duty of promoting the conditions for the change than doing things that are likely to bring specific changes in the supervisee (Cain 2010, p.100). While empathizing with me the supervisors left their frame of references and adopted my frame of reference. Supervisor 2 was showing signs of actually empathizing with me in my circumstances; she observed verbatim “…. Is taking you a lot to do the placement…cost of people…the lack manners…” Maybe in this context the supervisor felt that I might have been weighed down by my experiences. Furthermore, while sharing my disappointments with the addicts especially in regards to my fruitless efforts, supervisor 2 could see the situation right from my point of view. Again, she observed my feelings I had for the placement where I was able to bring into context the situation and experiences I was going through. Somehow, this is an evident sign of being consistent with the theory of Rogers. Similarly, supervisor 4 did ask, “… Do you feel appreciated …” as a way of determining whether I felt appreciated in my efforts to help the alcohol addicts? This also can be considered consistent with Karl Roger’s condition of empathetic understanding as illustrated by Merry (2000, 68). Through the session, Supervisor 4 indicated signs of walking with me through the bumpy journey of dealing with alcoholic addicts who are not willing to cooperate. “…you are scared of scaring people off…” Evidently, the supervisor 4 was evidently trying to determine whether my inner world was correct and experience in my situation was actually wearing me out (Cain 2010, p. 69). Observably, during the session, the supervisor 5 was more inconsistent with PCT since in a way the supervisor feared entering my world and becoming emotionally involved. Projectively, maybe, supervisor 5 felt that by allow himself into my world, he might have found it difficult after the session to leave my world. In which case he would start thinking and owning my problems. Evidently, supervisor 5 was not actively involved in the sharing except towards the end of the session. The supervisor felt it worth to follow simply the conversation. He only interjected when he asked “You feeling so bad choosing not to take that out than choosing to stay…” Somehow I was also afraid of taking the frame of their reference and so see the world from their perspective. This counts for the reasons of my failure to understand the complexity of the problem neither did I do background checks to see the reasons as to why they indulged in heavy drinking and consequently addiction (Cain 2010, p.107). Though, at some point I felt needless to blame the addicts since they were not in control of their situation, but I was quick to judge them for their slow response to the therapy and the rehabilitation program. Subsequently, I only ended up feeling a sense of devastation and discouraged owing to their uncooperative and effortless gestures. Further, towards the end of the session, supervisor 5 who had been keenly and intently following my sharing expressed empathetic understanding of the whole situation. This is because while I was sharing my fruitless efforts that I was injecting for the stability of the alcohol addicts, supervisor 5 posed a question that set me thinking. He stated, “…..you feel the effort is one sided…they’re not…why bother to help…” Evidently, this question showed that supervisor 5 had been keenly within my frame of reference and was thus able to see the world or situation from my subjective point of view. This is consistent with Karl Roger condition of empathetic understanding that involves unconditional acceptance of the supervisee’s frame of reference (Cain 2010, p. 93). Rogers (2003, p. 73) believed that empathy was in itself a healing agent, as it was one of the most potent aspects of a therapy since it releases, confirms as well as bring the most frightened client back into the human fold. Consequently, the commitment to supervisor 5 and his consistency with the theory of empathy, as the supervisee I felt a sense of security and belonging regardless of my many disappointments. “ … I do not want to go in…” showed my unwilling to go into the subjective world of my clients and so have their frame of reference. In a way, I was afraid to embrace their point of view of the world. From my outside, rigid standpoint could only push the clients through the rehabilitation and never willing to take them through it. This somehow ended up on shaky ground, giving me a view that I have literally failed (Print 2007, p. 31). From the professional point of view, instead of re-thinking my methodology, I started blaming the clients for not being cooperative and responsive towards rehabilitation program. This consistently might have been the provoking hot point for supervisor 3 to ask “… Are you feeling stuck…?” Evidently, supervisor 3 was consistent with this theory because as it all turned out she could see my outside position and unwillingness to take the frame of reference of the clients. Arguably, for the supervisor to ask such a question, she might have been within my very frame of reference and so could see me outside position. That is to say, supposing supervisor 3 was not within my frame of reference, she might have not realized that actually I was unwilling to take the point of reference of the clients and so guide them through rather than push them through the whole process (Embleton et al,. 2004, p. 71). What was the result of this? Only disappointments, discouragements and a sense of the waste of the whole lot of time. This somehow impacted on my personal and professional development since I learned always to take the empathetic understanding of the clients if I am to help them. In other words, the only sure way of helping alcoholic addicts was to be within their frame of reference and so view the reality of the world from their point of view (Prinz 2007, p. 55). It is only through this that I as their therapist could walk them through the rehabilitation and therapy rather than push them to go through it. Supervisor 4 stated, “… it sounds almost like challenging rules, beliefs and ideal…” This is a clear indication she was within my frame of reference and was viewing the situation through my lenses. Inconsistently with Roger’s psychotherapy sixth condition I seemed not to have achieved the perception of the supervisor positive regards and empathetic understanding. Evidently, towards the end of the session, I just left without receiving encouragements and supporting words from the supervisor (Worrall & Tudor 2006, p. 55). Additionally, the supervisors could have interjected encouragements especially while I was sharing the negative reactions from the addicts, which greatly impacted, on my professional development. The encounter with the uncooperative addicts somehow affected my self-esteem. Although I felt discouraged, the supervisors left me to fend for my own solution. This indicated their trust in my ability to actualize myself. Inasmuch, I do not blame the addicts because of their situation but humanly speaking they ought to have seen the efforts of those who seek to help them. In reference to Rogers’ condition of self-actualization, Merry (2000, p. 88) observed that through self-actualization an organism should moment by moment respond, maintain its wholeness, its feelings, thinking, and striving selectively towards the direction of keep itself. In this case, therefore, when supervisor 3 asked, “…does it seem really difficult to understand the internal processes…?” It was evident that somehow she might have realized that I was not able to allow alcohol addicts to actualize themselves. In other words, I was more concerned about the cooperation of the addict and my fruitless efforts that I aimed at the well-being of the addicts. Inconsistently, to this end I failed to recognize the actualizing capacity that was inherent in the addicts themselves (Cain 2010, p. 69). Professionally, this marked a point in growth since through the session I could now realize my role in guiding others through therapy. That is to say, the session impacted on my self-development and professional advancement as it enabled me see the potentiality and the ability of everyone to strive to self-actualize themselves without my input. In person-centred theory, as highlighted by Rogers, a supervisors positive responses, shows how much committed the supervisor in understanding my inner subjective world and then expressing the extent of that understanding (Worall & Tudor 2006, p. 60). This will enable the supervisor see the reality through my perspective and thus giving the supervisor the meanings and how to find solutions to the looming problems that I did present. Professionally this impacted negatively on my self-image. Consistently with the PCT as argued by Rogers experiences and evaluation from others have a lot to contribute to the development of self-image and self-esteem. Lack of appreciation by the clients to whom I did dedicate my efforts and time, made me feel bad about myself. Essentially, it affected my self-image and so my productivity. To this end, superior 3 observed that“ … you sound seem to have got a lot of mixed feelings… sounds like you go between…you want to help, but they do not…”. Further, owing to a lot of people showing signs that they need help while actually they need, the clients calling off their appointment nor returning the call are evident signs that they do not have value for my time and efforts. These professionally and on personal level affect my well-being and advancement. According to Rogers, the actualizing tendency is often regarded as positive. One aspect of enabling a client to actualize him/herself is to the therapist unconditional positive regard. Consistently with the theory of Rogers, the supervisors believed and had trust in my potentials to actualize myself (Worrall & Tudor 2006, p. 57). Towards the end of the session, no attempt was made to stop me. This indicated the level of trust that the supervisor had in me to self-actualize myself amidst the chaotic environment (Print 2007, p. 42). Karl Rogers believed that everybody must be regarded positively for them to develop the feeling of self-worth (Rogers 2003, p. 66). To this end, the supervisors were consistent to this theory as they made me feel respected, valued, and they never judged me during the session. According to the theory postulated by Karl Rogers, self-actualization is a lifetime process that does not come at once but through strenuous efforts. The placement session contributed greatly to both my professional development and personal growth. Rogers had observed that human beings have a social nature and so a basic directionality of the actualizing tendency that is towards the constructive social behaviour (Brown & Prout 2007, p. 84). During the session, it dawned on me that every individual have the capacity of self-actualizing, but it is a desire that must just spring from an individual on a very personal level. That is to say, professionally this hinted me that as a therapist and a supervisee, in this case, I was only to act as a guide to help the alcohol addicts but not force or coerce them to change. This aspect was also evident in the session since the supervisors seemed to have trusted my capacity to self-actualize. This is because none of them offered me a directional position I was to take in order to help the situation but after my sharing I was left to go (Worall & Tudor 2006, p. 70). Quite consistently with Karl Rogers’ postulation, the supervisors allowed me to realize my capacity to develop and actualize myself from the experiences that I had shared. Similarly, albeit I felt bad and discouraged by the behaviour of the addicts, I was obligated to trust in their capacity and potentiality to be self-motivated and so realize their self-actualization tendency by themselves. List of References Brown, D, & Prout, H 2007, Counselling and Psychotherapy with Children and Adolescents: Theory and Practice for School and Clinical Settings, John Wiley and Sons, New York Cain, D 2010, Person-Centred Psychotherapies, American Psychological Association, Washington DC Embleton, G, Mike, W, & Keith, T 2004, Freedom to Practice Volume 11: Developing person–centred Approaches to Supervision, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Merry, T 1995, Invitation to Person Centred Psychology, Whirr Printers: London Merry, T 2000, Learning and Being in Person-Centred Counselling, PCCS Books, New Delhi pg43 Print, J. J 2007, The emotional Construction of Morals, Oxford University Press: Oxford. Rogers, C 2003, Client-Centred Therapy: Its Current Practice, Implication and Theory, Constable & Robinson Limited, New York Wilkins, P 2009, Person-Centred Therapy: 100 Key Points, Oxford, Oxford University Press. Worall, M & Tudor, K 2006, Person- Centred Therapy: A Clinical Philosophy, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge Read More