Summary of - Shame, the Scourge of Supervision

Title of Original: Shame, the Scourge of Supervision
Authors: Valérie Perret
Journal: International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research & Practice, Vol. 8, No. 2, July 2017
DOI: https://doi.org/10.29044/v8i2p41

Why This Matters - Understanding and addressing shame in supervision fosters safety, authenticity, and growth—transforming hidden pain into professional learning and human connection.

Read Time - 5 Minutes

Valérie Perret explores the pervasive and often hidden role of shame in supervision, drawing on her own professional and personal experiences as both supervisee and supervisor. She examines how shame develops, how it can silently affect supervision relationships, and how supervisors can recognise and respond to it relationally and ethically.

The paper begins with Perret’s personal reflections on how shame inhibited her spontaneity, creativity, and professional growth. As she gained awareness and freedom from shame, she recognised how essential it is for supervisors to understand and address it in their work. Shame may surface subtly in supervision—often unnoticed by others—and can lead supervisees to withdraw, feel isolated, and lose confidence. Supervisors’ defensive or dismissive reactions may amplify the shame, reinforcing feelings of exclusion. The antidote lies in the supervisor’s capacity to attend empathically to the supervisee’s inner experience, restoring belonging and safety.

Perret recounts her experiences with various supervisors: some who induced shame through arrogance or criticism, leaving her feeling incompetent and silenced, and others who created an atmosphere of unconditional acceptance, enabling authentic reflection and learning. She describes the transformative impact of supervisors who could openly discuss shame, provide safety, and model mutual respect. Such supervision was not only educative but also therapeutic, allowing her to think freely, trust herself, and develop her professional identity.

Drawing on Erik Erikson’s developmental theory, Perret outlines how shame originates in early childhood (ages two to five), when autonomy and self-definition emerge. If caregivers are overly controlling, critical, or rejecting, the child internalises shame and self-doubt rather than autonomy. This early shame becomes embodied and preverbal—difficult to articulate—and remains a lifelong vulnerability. When adults experience humiliation, the old shame resurfaces, evoking deep pain and regression. Unlike guilt, which relates to actions, shame touches the sense of self and belonging: “If I no longer belong, what will become of me?”

Perret explains how chronic shame leads to an internal split: the child learns to protect themselves by adopting the belief “there is something wrong with me.” Over time, this can develop into self-criticism, denial of relational needs, or defensive “virtuous arrogance.” These defences maintain psychological stability but perpetuate isolation and inhibit authentic connection.

In supervision, shame may be reactivated easily, especially in learning environments that mirror early educational or familial contexts of humiliation. Supervisees, often unconsciously, limit their spontaneity and self-expression to avoid triggering shame. Supervisors may unknowingly recreate these dynamics unless they are alert to the affective undercurrents of shame and their own vulnerabilities.

Perret proposes that the treatment of shame is relational. Supervisors can help heal shame through their stance, sensitivity, and attention to the supervisee’s eight relational needs, as described by Erskine, Moursund, and Trautmann (1999):

Security – providing a space of emotional safety and non-judgment.
Validation and meaning – recognising the supervisee’s feelings and defensive reactions as meaningful.
Acceptance by a stable, reliable, protective person – offering a consistent, supportive presence that allows vulnerability.
Mutuality and shared experience – co-creating understanding and affirming the supervisee’s experience.
Having an impact on the other – acknowledging the supervisee’s influence and feedback within the relationship.
The other taking initiative – supervisors should name shame when it arises and invite open dialogue.
Definition of self – supporting autonomy, differences, and expression of disagreement without humiliation.
Expression of love – accepting gratitude and affection as natural and reparative aspects of the supervisory bond.

Perret illustrates these principles through a case in which two group members triggered mutual shame during supervision. By addressing it openly, contextualising the transference, and fostering group support, the supervisor transformed a painful moment into an opportunity for understanding and growth.

She also warns against “juxtaposition”—offering too much relational warmth too quickly—which can overwhelm supervisees whose earlier needs were unmet. Supervisors must pace their relational responsiveness so it can be emotionally “digested.”

In conclusion, Perret likens shame to mould: it thrives in the dark but dries up when brought to light. Supervisors have an ethical duty to recognise, name, and work with shame in themselves and their supervisees. Awareness of one’s own unresolved shame prevents its projection into the supervisory relationship and upholds the ethical principles of competence, authenticity, and relational integrity. By fostering secure and attuned supervisory relationships, supervisors not only enhance professional learning but also support personal healing and development.