Reflections on Supervision and Becoming a Supervisor

“Supervision is a meeting place of equals, where the supervisee sits cross-legged on their life experience, and in relationship with the supervisor, moves deeply and reflectively into their work.” – Michael Carroll

Käll Kruusmägi shares in Häälekandja (spring 2026, no. 5), the journal of the Estonian Association of Music Therapy, how her training expanded her understanding of supervision.

For me, supervision is above all a creative and non-judgmental learning space where my experiences, reactions, and contextualisation of situations can freely intertwine to create new meanings and thereby change. Conceptualising cross-sector supervision brought about a clear paradigm shift for me. While previously, based on my experience, I focused primarily on clinical interventions and the therapeutic relationship created in the room, a broader systemic view opened up—how my role, position, and impact function in an organizational or cultural context as well. The question was no longer just about what I do as a therapist, but also how I participate in the system as a whole.

I feel that only when experiencing the role of the supervisor myself did I realize how deep, creative, and multi-layered a process it is, and how much there is still to experience and learn to discover the full potential of the field. On the other hand, I sensed how much my long training and work experience as a music therapist already support and enrich me on this path.

Throughout my studies, my overall understanding of cross-sector supervision certainly expanded, as well as the realization that supervision never serves just a single function, but can encompass various dimensions—relational, educational, advisory, reflective, evaluative, consultative, or administrative. Which of these emerges most or becomes the focus during a session depends largely on the supervisor's own training and school of thought. Therefore, it is always important to explore together what function supervision should fulfill for you at that moment and whether your chosen supervisor is prepared to meet your expectations.

Drawing on my experience, I can share that the most exciting processes have been meetings with supervisors whose work experience and background lie in an entirely different field—such as business or management. At the same time, a supervisor in the psychosocial field brings their competence and readiness to address even the most complex (and discipline-specific) client cases.

“I cannot teach anybody anything. I can only make them think.” – Socrates

Cross-sector supervision – what is it really?

In ISCI's approach, professional or cross-sector supervision is described as a systemic counseling process focused on the mutual interaction and interplay between an individual, their work tasks, and their employer. The word “counseling process” sounds slightly paradoxical to an alumnus, as one of the first things we learned was to consciously refrain from giving direct advice to the supervisee. I acquired the attitude that the core of supervision is not providing answers, but developing and supporting the supervisee's capacity for reflection.

The metaphor of a helicopter view is also often used to describe supervision—an opportunity to rise above the midst of one's work for a moment and view situations from a broader, non-judgmental, and more systemic perspective. Such a perspective helps to notice not only an isolated case, but also the patterns and influences surrounding it.

A clear framework for understanding the multi-layered nature of the process is provided, for example, by Shohet and Hawkins' 7-eyed model of supervision. Drawing on this model, the supervisor does not hold attention solely on the supervisee's client or interventions, but moves dynamically between the client relationship, the therapist's inner world, the supervisory relationship, and broader systemic factors. Investigating these different “eyes” very deliberately during training processes has been an incredibly exciting challenge.

The Meaning of Supervision in Different Traditions

Supervision practice in Estonia has largely developed under the influence of the German tradition and ANSE, where the emphasis is on a reflective, developmental, and extra-institutional approach. Here, supervision is not viewed merely as a management tool, but as an independent field of professional practice that supports a specialist's awareness, responsibility, and quality of work, as well as their mental health.

Examining the history of supervision a bit more closely helps us understand why the practice's meaning varies so much across countries. Approaches differ depending on the historical development of professions as well as cultural context—often drawing a distinction between Anglo-American and German traditions. Historically, supervision was by no means the non-judgmental space for development as we understand it locally today. Rather, it carried an administrative and monitoring function—placing emphasis on work organization, quality control, and directing resources within institutions.

Only with the development of psychoanalysis and other therapeutic modalities did supervision begin to shift from instruction toward deeper reflection. It was no longer merely a place to analyze what a specialist does, but a space to explore who they are in the relationship.

A thought from one of my teachers has often accompanied me in light of this topic: not to get stuck at the level of interventions for too long as a supervisor. The choice of techniques and methods is important, but deeper changes rarely stem from there. They take shape when we examine the specialist's position, their impact, and what is actually happening in the relationship at that moment.

In literature over the last decade, supervision is also discussed as a practice of organizational reflection, supporting psychological safety in teams, or collective learning. Team supervision, organizational or network supervision, and systemic coaching have brought collaboration patterns, burnout prevention, role clarity, and leadership culture into sharper focus. In Estonia as well, supervision is no longer exclusively a practice for the “helping professions,” but a supportive and developmental service across any field.

In the Estonian context, however, the primary focus should still be on systematically supporting specialists who have chosen a helping profession—something that also prompted me to undertake a long training program. Regular supervision for psychosocial practitioners—therapists, social workers, counselors, and educational professionals—has become an increasingly self-evident part of professional hygiene, as well as a crucial aspect of maintaining mental health in the workplace.

The Role of Supervision in Music Therapy

Until as recently as the last two decades, music therapists often turned to professionals from other fields for supervision—primarily psychotherapists and psychoanalysts—as both the clinical practice of music therapy and its supervision were still emerging (Odell-Miller & Richards, 2010). This helps explain why psychoanalytic concepts such as transference, countertransference, and free association became deeply rooted in the conceptualization of music therapy supervision.

Today, music therapy supervision has developed into an independent and evolving field of practice worldwide. In many countries, it is an integral part of training and tied to professional qualification, ongoing professional development, and maintaining standards. In Estonia, music therapy supervision is available in both individual and group formats, but because the number of practicing music therapists is small, the circle of supervision providers is inevitably limited.

A small professional community creates a close-knit and well-functioning professional network, yet it brings challenges—roles may overlap, and a colleague might simultaneously be a partner, trainer, supervisor, or evaluator. In this context, cross-sector supervision can provide the necessary additional space by introducing a more neutral perspective and helping to address broader systemic issues and roles.

After all, today's music therapist rarely works in isolation. Most often, they are part of a rehabilitation team, school system, hospital, NGO, or private organization. Therefore, supervision is not limited to analyzing individual clinical work; it increasingly encompasses systemic questions: In what context does the work take place? What roles, expectations, and loyalties influence the therapist's actions? How are organizational culture and institutional frameworks reflected in the client relationship? and so on.

What I Took Away from Supervision Training

The most important learning takeaway has been becoming aware of my own impact—how my presence, tone of voice, or way of reacting influences the process. Second, tolerating uncertainty—understanding that not all processes are linear or quickly solvable.

I also learned to clearly distinguish the nature of questions—that there are questions that can be answered, and questions that shake up thinking and open up entirely new ground. In supervision, value rarely lies in the answer itself, but in how the question evolves, deepens, shifts perspective, or breaks paradigms during the process.

I am also aware that supervision is not a comfort zone for me. It is a learning process, and learning inevitably involves uncertainty and encountering what one does not yet see or does not want to see. I have experienced that feelings of discomfort often signal to me that something important is shifting. Yet even I tend to forget in those moments that growth does not happen in comfort, but in the willingness to remain present even when things are not easy.

As a final key nuance, I would highlight the topic of agreements in supervision. At the beginning of my studies, I was genuinely surprised by how long one can work on this topic. Only later did I realize that agreements are not merely a formality or a one-off activity at the start of a process, but a living, dynamic document that evolves over time alongside the relationship. A mutual understanding of roles, expectations, and boundaries does not only create a safer foundation for collaboration—it also distributes responsibility across the relational dynamics.

In Conclusion

The field of supervision is multi-layered and rich in topics—extending from clinical reflection to organizational learning, touching upon professional identity, systems, and human presence alike. The deeper one delves into this field, the clearer it becomes that it is not a static method, but a continuously evolving practice. It is precisely this breadth and constant movement that make supervision a domain in which one can grow throughout an entire professional life.

A FEW READING RECOMMENDATIONS

Carroll, M., & Gilbert, M. C. (2011). On being a supervisee: Creating learning partnerships. London: Karnac Books. Shohet, R. (2011). Supervision as Transformation. Hawkins, P., & McMahon, A. (2020). Supervision in the Helping Professions. Shohet, R., & Shohet, J. (2020). In Love with Supervision. Lahad, M. (2000). Creative Supervision. Butté, C., & Colbert, T. (2022). Embodied Approaches to Supervision.