Supervision in Transactional Analysis – Part 3
This post is a continuation of Marco Mazzettis’ article on ‘Supervision in Transactional Analysis’. If you’re just joining us, you might want to start at Part One.
Establish a Clear and Appropriate Contract
Rotondo (1986, 2003) claims that the contract is the aspect that probably best defines the practice of transactional analysis as compared with other forms of psychotherapy. The use of contracts is the operational expression of the basic values of transactional analysis (people are OK, everyone has the capacity to think, and people decide their own destiny). The contractual discussion is a procedure for understanding and explicating, that is, putting words to the supervisee’s needs, which leads to the establishment of a joint direction. At times, trying to obtain a contract may take up all of the supervision time, and in some cases a contract is not even achieved. For instance, the trainee may find it difficult to identify what he or she needs. However, understanding the discounted need or bringing to light the reasons for the trainee’s difficulty in making the contract can be, in and of itself, a good result of supervision.
Steiner (1974/1990) reminds us that in transactional analysis a sound contract is based on mutual consent, valid consideration, competency, and lawful object. I use Berne’s (1966/1994) original definition of a contract: “An explicit bilateral commitment to a well-defined course of action” (p. 362, italics added). At times contracts are not fully explicit: The supervisor and trainee discuss and agree on the issue, but they may not explicitly formulate a common aim, thus creating misunderstandings and hampering achievement of the final goal. In discussing the contract, the Bernean operations (Berne, 1966/ 1994) used most frequently are interrogation and specification; in my view, the last transaction must be a specification followed by an explicit response of agreement. For instance:
Supervisor: “So, what you want from this supervision is to understand why at the end of the session you felt irritated. Is that right?”
Trainee: “Yes, that’s right.”
Or:
Trainee: “So, what I want is to understand why at the end of the session I felt irritated.”
Supervisor: “Very well. I will work with you so that you can understand why you felt irritated at the end of the session.”
Only this type of explicit specification corresponds to Berne’s “explicit bilateral agreement” and can be effectively taken up again later. At times, confrontations and/or explanations may also be useful (Berne, 1966/1994).
In general terms, the techniques suggested for therapeutic contracts by Goulding and Goulding (1979), James (as cited in Stewart & Joines, 1987), Holloway and Holloway (1973), and Allen and Allen (2005) are also valid for supervision contracts, especially with regard to the statement being made in positive terms, being understood and specific (avoiding ambiguities or implicit aspects), and being framed in terms of a result that can be observed and achieved.
For the definition of the contract and the specifications that are necessary, it is preferable to repeat the trainee’s words and to avoid introducing new words. This reduces the risk of implicitly suggesting a contract (with the risk of encouraging adaptation). It is, however, sometimes useful to reformulate the trainee’s words, for instance, to use an active rather than a passive verb.
Trainee: “It has been some time now that this client has irritated me.”
Supervisor: “So, you are telling me that it has been some time that you have felt irritated with this client. Is there something that you are interested in getting in this regard?”
The technical rules that apply to therapeutic contracts are also valid in supervision: beware of suggesting a contract (because this may induce overadaptation) or of accepting requests that are potentially symbiotic. For instance:
Trainee: “I would like you to suggest some strategies I could use with this client.”
After a phrase like this, the supervisor might invite the trainee to become aware of the symbiotic con:
Supervisor: “Do you want me to suggest some strategies, or are you interested in finding them for yourself by using the supervision?”
However, such technical indications must not become a straitjacket. I comply with them strictly with intermediate and advanced trainees, but I am less strict with beginners, to whom I explicitly offer information and suggestions both for the diagnosis and for the therapy. With trainees who are just beginning, who may not be comfortable with their new professional role, and who may have a very critical internal dialogue going on, insisting excessively on the contract may be experienced as persecutory, for example: “I am not even capable of knowing what I want.” This is another reason for being flexible.
In general, it is not useful to agree on two contracts at once, or to set two goals, even though they may be linked, because the twofold possibility may prompt redefinitions. When faced with a double request, it is generally more effective to invite the trainee to choose one to begin with and then to address the other issue later.
Furthermore, the contract must not become too rigid. It is a direction one takes initially, not a one-way street. It may happen that, as the supervision proceeds, the trainee realizes that he or she is more interested in another route. It is quite all right to switch, provided that the change in direction is stated explicitly and agreed upon to avoid games.
Finally, I would like to point out that a careful and respectful discussion on the contract is a fundamental aspect of the supervisor’s ability to model the process and thereby to implicitly teach a style of intervention through his or her behavior.
