I was talking recently with a supervisor who had been through one of the more distressing experiences of her professional career.
I suspect many supervisors should take that invitation more seriously than they realise.
An employee had made a complaint about her.
On the face of it that doesn't sound all that remarkable. Complaints happen. Employment disputes happen. People disagree with management decisions every day. But this one had an additional layer of complexity. Because the complainant wasn't just an employee.
She was also their supervisee.
I've been thinking about that conversation ever since, particularly in light of the Psychology Board's new Code of Conduct and the increased emphasis on dual relationships.
When most of us think about dual relationships, we think about the risks to the client (and in this case supervisees). That's where the literature goes. That's where the ethics discussions go. If I'm your employer and your supervisor, can you really speak freely? If I control your income and your progression toward endorsement or registration milestones, are you genuinely able to disagree with me? These are important questions.
What struck me though was that nobody seems to spend much time talking about the risks to the supervisor.
The supervisor I was speaking with wasn't some unethical practitioner blurring boundaries for personal gain. Quite the opposite. She had taken on supervision because she was trying to support a bunch of developing psychologists within her practice.
What she hadn't fully appreciated was that by adding supervision to an employment relationship, she had also added an entirely new avenue through which conflict could emerge.
If an employee is unhappy about their pay, workload, contract, performance review or workplace conditions, we generally know where those disputes belong. Employment law is built for exactly that purpose. Contracts exist for a reason. There are industrial processes, workplace policies and dispute resolution pathways.
But supervision changes the equation.
The moment you become someone's supervisor, you are no longer simply a business owner, manager or contractor. You are also acting on behalf of the Psychology Board. The relationship now sits within the Board's jurisdiction as well as the workplace.
That's not a criticism of the complaints process. Nor is it an argument that supervisees shouldn't raise concerns. Sometimes complaints are entirely justified. Sometimes they are not. That's true of every complaints system ever created.
The point is much simpler.
Many supervisors enter these arrangements without fully considering the additional risk they are taking on themselves.
In private practice, particularly smaller practices, it is incredibly common to wear multiple hats. Employer. Contractor. Practice owner. Mentor. Supervisor. Sometimes all before morning tea.
It feels efficient.
It feels supportive.
Often it genuinely is.
Until one day the employment relationship deteriorates and you discover that what you thought was a straightforward workplace disagreement is now being examined through a professional and ethical lens as well.
Reading Section 4.9 of the new Code, I found myself wondering whether many supervisors will see themselves in it.
The section is clearly aimed at protecting supervisees from the risks inherent in dual relationships. That is entirely appropriate. But I think there is another reading available.
Sometimes the person who needs protection from a dual relationship is the supervisor.
Not because the supervisee is malicious. Not because the complaints process is flawed. Not because anyone has necessarily done anything wrong.
Simply because combining roles creates complexity.
Complexity creates ambiguity.
And ambiguity creates risk.
The lesson I took from that conversation was not "never supervise your employees." Sometimes that's unavoidable, particularly in regional settings or smaller organisations.
The lesson was that we should stop thinking of dual relationships solely as an ethical issue and start thinking about them as a risk management issue.
For both parties.
The supervisor I spoke with gave me permission to share the broad outlines of her experience because she felt blindsided by a risk she had never really considered. My suspicion is that she won't be the last.
The new Code asks us to think carefully about dual relationships.
I suspect many supervisors should take that invitation more seriously than they realise.