Growth Behind the Mirror:, the Family Therapy Consortium's Group Process

Abstract

An earlier paper (Wendorf, 1984) presented the pragmatic aspects and theoretical model of The Family Therapy Consortium, a group set up to provide supervision and continuing education in family therapy. The emphasis was on the development of each individual therapist's competency, the isomorphic relationship between the supervisor, group, therapist, and family levels of the therapeutic system, and the legitimacy of the term “peer supervision.” Beginning under the leadership of an expert supervisor hired from outside the group, the Family Therapy Consortium has developed into a peer supervision group with a “floating,” rather than fixed, supervisory hierarchy. The present paper charts this development and explores the peer supervision process as it currently works in the Consortium. The focus is on the growth of the individual behind the mirror as therapist, person, leader and group member, and on the growth of the group as a “mature sibling subsystem” no longer in need of outside supervision. Individual and group development are seen as complementary aspects of the same growth process.

Team consultation: an indispensable tool for the progress of knowledge. Ways of fostering and promoting its creative potential

“…In our work we have considered it essential to commit ourselves to promoting increased collaboration within the team, based on the following criteria (cf. Cornwell and Pearson, 1981 ;and Wendorf et al, We shall now examine these criteria in detail. Equality certainly does not mean the unrealistic negation of individual differences, which ought to be fully recognized in order not to become the source of a dysfunctional game within the team.…”

Strength-Based Supervision: Frameworks, Current Practice, and Future Directions

“…The most prevalent to date involve the use of reflecting teams James, MacCormack, Korol, & Lee, 1996;Lowe & Guy, 1996), emphasizing multiple voices of the team members and thereby illuminating and transforming ideas, rather than criticizing or disqualifying. The reflecting team has been used to teach psychology interns systemic therapy (James et al, 1996), and its value for training and supervision in systemic therapy is widespread (Diethelm, Fentress, London, & McCarthy, 1992;Wendorf, Wendorf, & Bond, 1985). The narrative ideas of White and Epston (1990) have also been applied to supervision (Freedman & Combs, 1996;Neal, 1996;Roth & Epston, 1996) with an emphasis on externalizing problems, finding unique outcomes, and deconstructing problem-saturated systems.…”

On context and training.

“…We appreciate these authors' willingness to show their errors and their struggle to recover from them, although we bristled a bit at their seeming implication that it is permissible for therapists to use untruthful statements as a therapeutic tactic. Elsewhere (D. J. Wendorf & R. J. Wendorf, 1985; D.…”

“…Elsewhere (D. J. Wendorf & R. J. Wendorf, 1985; D. J. Wendorf, 1985) we have argued that this is a harmful policy, as it may seduce therapists into an arrogant belief in their own omniscience, leading them to further deceptiveness.…”

“…We feel strongly that peer and supervisor-led consultation / supervision/ support groups are excellent vehicles for the specialty training of family therapists at the postgraduate level and for continuing education beyond (D. J. Wendorf, 1984; Wendorf, Wendorf, & Bond, 1985). We all need outside feedback to see where we fit into the therapy context and continued skill development to cope with it.…”