Supervision - for what?

I've been supervising for a long time. Before taking on the clinical and research supervision for D. Forens. trainees I was supervising the work of D. Clin. trainees and prior to that supervising the work of the Norwegian version of the D. Clin., the Cand. Psychol. At one point I taught people about supervision, as in what the purpose of it was, what their role in supervision could be, models of supervision, and even now suggest to my trainees that they need to start thinking about how they want to be supervised (and why) and how they plan to supervise (and why).

During all this time my view about supervision has, grandly, been altruistic, the goal to be to support the person in becoming better as a psychologist. Part of that is the real belief that that there is no point my trainees being as good as me, and certainly not to be worse than I am, because that's something I already get paid to do. The whole point is that they are better than me in every possible way. To stand on the shoulders of giants, even if that giant is a short king. It's a truism that the bar is fairly low, but then my experience of being supervised wasn't about making me better it was about me meeting a standard that meant I would be out of people's hair. The best supervision I have had has been by accident, when I volunteered for the NHS, and some of the people who supervised me were supreme. My PhD supervisor was old school, like an episode of Endeavour, a bottle of Scotch and a couple of crystal glasses, talking and thinking and debating. He didn't really supervise my work but the challenge of being in his company forced me to think and to think hard. My undergraduate supervisor didn't supervise my work but he saw the world in a way that I did not understand and found beauty in things that I had never noticed. My undergraduate years were literally spent in the library (or the glass dept. of Selfridges) searching for that understanding and that beauty. I don't think I found his but I hope I have found mine.

It's a hot, sunny Sunday and The Bear and I went out for a walk, searching for shade in the city. We're lucky that we live near the Park Tunnel and that always feels like an adventure. Walking down the stone steps into the dark and cold. The tunnel is short, is lit, and the sunlight from the Park end blows away the darkness. Above it, hanging onto the wall, is a Gothic mansion, with windows built into the tunnel. If you've seen The Sentinel that will give you an idea of what it looks like.

No idea what prompted the particular line of thought, but suddenly I wondered what the point of supervision actually is. Is it to make people better psychologists or is it to protect the profession and clients from danger (and idiocy)? Does it matter if we come at it from a different perspective?

Yes. Although there is still the same altruism, that altruism is better directed, at the vulnerable and at having a positive impact on society. Making someone a better psychologist gets them a doctorate and, a secondary gain, is potentially positive impact on society. I think it changes the requirements, it changes the focus and, from a selfish perspective, it changes how you view success. To have people who graduate and are going to be of benefit to the profession is wonderful, equally, protecting the profession from those who cannot (whether academically or morally) from graduating is equally a success. By adopting this approach you no longer have to feel guilt and pressure if people are not meeting the standards - not everyone is going to be better than me or as good as me, just as I am not as good as or better than many people. Acknowledging that people are not going to be safe, are not going to be supportive, are not going to find new, innovative ways to work, to thin, to create, to comfort, to push, to pull, to identify them before they do harm, that's a success.

I expect that no one is going to adopt this approach as it is a little Darwinian and every mother's son is brilliant and lovely, and should be allowed to do what they want. But even if they do it badly?