Getting Along with Early Career Psychologists

[Hope4Grad]

I am soliciting advice from people who have successfully worked under early career psychologists and early career psychologists themselves. However, this is specifically for people who have had problems getting along with early career psychologists, or people who have been or are or are around early career psychologists who recognize they are especially hard on students. I am going to lay it out here...I acknowledge that this is a generalization, but it has been my experience. If this has not been your experience and you think early career psychologists are wonderful, please don't bother responding because your 100% awesome experience won't help me solve the problems I am having. That caveat aside...

My experience with early career clinical psychologists has been terrifying. Today, I spoke with another student who said she has had similar experiences. Perhaps it is because of their inexperience and/or insecurity/worry about their own positions. They seem to make sweeping (negative) judgements about students quickly, are prone to gossip, and have an "itchy trigger finger" for making their students lives miserable. In a clinical realm, they seem much less likely to give a student a break by talking a concern or issue through, and instead sound a bunch of alarms across various systems before directly speaking with students. They come across under an imperious guise of "protecting" the student and patients, but don't trust students to handle feedback and make necessary changes.

Given this description of early career psychologists, what is the best way to allay those fears and get through a Practicum smoothly without ruffling feathers?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[erg923]

They seem to make sweeping (negative) judgements

Do I need to point out the obvious?

 

[Hope4Grad]

Yes, I think I admitted/covered that in the original post. Please respond if you have other, additional constructive advice or can relate to the original post.

 

[WisNeuro]

I don't think this is an "early-career" psychologist problem. Sometimes you will have supervisors who are hard to work with. Sometimes us supervisors will have students who are hard to work with. Honestly, it's hard to make an accurate read with one side of the story, and it somewhat hyperbolic.

That aside. Try being open, some times people take constructive criticism as "devastating" feedback, when most would not interpret it that way. You are there to learn, by people who have more experience than you, early, mid, or late career. Just try to take it all in and let the other stuff go, it's temporary. Also, be willing to take a look in the mirror and see if you are a variable in this equation that can be changed.

 

[erg923]

Yes, I think I admitted/covered that in the original post. Please respond if you have other, additional constructive advice or can relate to the original post.

I would hope that pointing out the exaggerrated nature of your percepetions helps temper your reaction, and thus, the problem you feel to be present. This is quite constructive, IMO.

 

[Hope4Grad]

Agreed. Open to other feedback and opinions as well.

 

[Justanothergrad]

Two possibilities stand out.

1. There are all types of supervisors. There isn't a lot of training that folks get about how to be a good supervisor. It takes time to learn to be good or how to communicat that, like anything else.
2. Perhaps not all the issue is with them

 

[transplant1290]

I have had similar incredibly negative experiences and after doing everything on my own to deal with it I have turn to psychologist/psychiatrists I trust outside of the job for opinions. The best they could give me is to keep my head down and work, which was my first assumption. However, I have not had good experiences actually resolving any of those issues. In one case I actually left for a different position while the other I dealt with it albeit miserably and tried to get as much face time with the PI as possible

 

[Chalupacabra]

I would echo WisNeuro's sentiments, and also add that having a critical supervisor may be better than one who is a yes man/woman in the long run. Having had the experience of having much of my work "rubber stamped" during one placement and receiving minimal constructive criticism from a supervisor, this can also be frustrating in its own way.

I would also add that while I was not always a fan of the most critical supervisor I had when I was still working with them, a year out from the experience I've grown to appreciate their high standards and how they helped me to be more critical of my work product. It was far more constructive than someone just telling me I was "doing fine" whenever I asked for input on my performance.

 

[erg923]

I have supervised multiple students. I think I am probably lax about somethings and probably very vigilant about others. If there is anything at all to your perception of a pattern here, I would offer that its combination of inexperience and hypervigilance about training and their license. I do not think there is anything truly malignant or malicious going on here in the vast majority of cases.

 

[Therapist4Chnge]

I think most of it is probably personality style and some of it their level of comfort as a supervisor….or maybe the ECP'ers (myself included) haven't had time to properly mellow. There are also considerations of team dynamics and politics, which the student/intern/fellow may not be privy too, often by design.

I'd also like to offer in response to the "ECP's are especially hard on students…"…sometimes that is what is needed! I've seen some supervisors in my past that really didn't do a very good job of training and mentoring their people. Letting a student go do an intake, write a note, and not get much feedback may feel like everything is great…but in reality it could be the supervisor mailing it in. I'm not saying that happens everywhere, but often times when a supervisor is hard on someone it is because there is one or more areas that need to be improved to have proficiency.

One of the biggest responsibilities I feel to my supervisees is to prepare them for the next step of their career. If they have a weakness it is my responsibility to make sure they know and we try and address it. In some cases it is a soft skill (e.g. recognizing when they are being too judgmental) and other times it is a technical deficiency (e.g. weak differential diagnosis). I do them a disservice if I let that slide because I want them to be my buddy.

 

[cara susanna]

I think the only issue I've run into with ECPs is that, because they haven't supervised as long, they may not have as broad experiences with regards to supervisee clinical styles and developmental trajectories. For instance, I had a problem with an ECP supervisor who had a very different orientation than I did, and this supervisor thought that my clinical approach should be like theirs.

 

[UnknownPsych]

I switched faculty mentors during my Ph.D. program, and both of them were fresh off postdoc at their first faculty positions. The first was a very smart and driven person who was all about the business of publishing. He was very successful at that goal, but would not even think of discussing anything outside of academics with me (I knew he was getting married soon, but he referred to his fiancee as "my roommate" or "the person I'm living with"). We never had problems per-se, but it was clear to both of us that it was not a good fit. The next year I started working with a different mentor and had a much better experience. We were able to get along professionally and personally (she was much more comfortable discussing life outside of grad school/campus clinic), and I ended up being much more productive under her supervision. My focus has always been more clinical than research production, so that may have played a role too. However, I ended up with 0 pubs with mentor #1 and 5 peer-reviewed pubs with mentor #2.

I think the importance of fit, not just research-wise but interpersonally, turned out to be incredibly important for me. I have the utmost respect for my first mentor, but he and I just did not work well together. To the OP's original point - I think part of the reason for that is that he was overly cautious about being perceived as anything other than productive and professional.

 

[deleted343839]

I think the only issue I've run into with ECPs is that, because they haven't supervised as long, they may not have as broad experiences with regards to supervisee clinical styles and developmental trajectories. For instance, I had a problem with an ECP supervisor who had a very different orientation than I did, and this supervisor thought that my clinical approach should be like theirs.

This is a very good example of how the issue can go both ways. On one hand, I agree that a supervisor's attempt to rigidly impose her or her orientation and style can make for a bad training experience (and this actually happened to me once in grad school while I was being supervised by an intern). On the other hand, I have also seen trainees use their "therapeutic style" as a cover for various skill deficiencies and become so defensive that it's hard for them to be open to learning.

Perhaps ECPs are a bit biased to see the trees rather than the forest, so to speak, but I would think that they are also biased to trying harder as supervisors because there probably is more at stake for them. A highly experienced psychologist who gives vaguely positive but minimal feedback might just be mentally writing you off after deciding you're not worth the effort.

My faculty mentor was an ECP when I started grad school. Though we will never be best friends, we got along pretty well and worked very efficiently together. I agree with UnknownPsych that interpersonal fit is crucial.

 

[Pragma]

I think it is more of an individual issue rather than an ECP issue. Some ECPs are awesome right out of the gate and supervise well. Some very experienced supervisors are overly rigid or displaced from the experience of being a student. I think a lot of it has to do with your perspective-taking skills and then intentionality about applying a strategy to supervision. I think supervision contracts can help - it at least leads the discussion about expectations and feedback mechanisms in case there are problems.

 

[futureapppsy2]

Tbh, I find APA's recent focus on ECPs (first 10 years post-PhD) sort of baffling. I'm sure that new professionals benefit from some (slightly enhanced) degree of support and mentorship, but it feels a tad like extending the "trainee" period in a field where we already have 4+ years of pre-internship grad school, a year of internship, and 1-2 years of supervised post-doc. At some point, we do actually become competent professionals, don't we?

 

[futureapppsy2]

The first was a very smart and driven person who was all about the business of publishing. He was very successful at that goal, but would not even think of discussing anything outside of academics with me (I knew he was getting married soon, but he referred to his fiancee as "my roommate" or "the person I'm living with").

That's just really, really strange, regardless, tbh.

 

[deleted343839]

Tbh, I find APA's recent focus on ECPs (first 10 years post-PhD) sort of baffling. I'm sure that new professionals benefit from some (slightly enhanced) degree of support and mentorship, but it feels a tad like extending the "trainee" period in a field where we already have 4+ years of pre-internship grad school, a year of internship, and 1-2 years of supervised post-doc. At some point, we do actually become competent professionals, don't we?

I don't think of it as extending the trainee period at all. Considering trends in grant funding I think it is entirely reasonable to extend the early career period to 10 years. It is also congruent with the NIH's definition of "early stage investigators." See: http://news.sciencemag.org/funding/...h-congressmans-plan-make-nih-grantees-younger

This is less relevant to people in more clinically oriented positions. In general, I have seen ECPs move up the career/organizational ladder more rapidly in clinical roles than in research or traditional academic roles.

 

[DoctorWorry]

To the OP, I don't mean to be offensive, but I wonder how much of this is yours to blame. I looked through your past posts on here, they are primarily about not getting along with your cohort (calling them "mean girls") then about being on probation and potentially being kicked out for problems in your practicum and being late, and now this is about not getting along with supervisors. I wonder when you will turn the mirror towards yourself- this is an important thing to learn as a psychologist, to find your faults instead of blaming them on others. Just an idea, and again I do not intend harshness.

 

[psych844]

To the OP, I don't mean to be offensive, but I wonder how much of this is yours to blame. I looked through your past posts on here, they are primarily about not getting along with your cohort (calling them "mean girls") then about being on probation and potentially being kicked out for problems in your practicum and being late, and now this is about not getting along with supervisors. I wonder when you will turn the mirror towards yourself- this is an important thing to learn as a psychologist, to find your faults instead of blaming them on others. Just an idea, and again I do not intend harshness.

Depends. I've worked in some "professional" work environments where people were downright cruel to people with some physical shortcomings/disabilities. Sometimes people are just really mean.

 

[DoctorWorry]

Depends. I've worked in some "professional" work environments where people were downright cruel to people with some physical shortcomings/disabilities. Sometimes people are just really mean.

Yes, that's what I meant. People CAN be cruel- but if everyone seems to be out to get you, sometimes you might stop to consider what the constant is in each situation.

Als0- I do not know that OP mentioned physical disabilities? This would be another story, as of course modifications would need to be in place for special needs, though the cohort would not necessarily have known this.

 

[psych844]

Als0- I do not know that OP mentioned physical disabilities? This would be another story, as of course modifications would need to be in place for special needs, though the cohort would not necessarily have known this.

She didn't mention it, but just throwing it out there that people as a group can be pretty mean if a person has physical shortcoming (not pretty in some way) or disabilities. I have seen both cases in "professional" work environments.

I remember one person way back complaining about supervisor and apparently this supervisor was mean about her looks and basically said she never looked "good" or "together", and that if she knew that previously, she wouldn't have accepted her.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and maybe the OP is not comfortable to mention if it does have to do with these things.

 

[AcronymAllergy]

She didn't mention it, but just throwing it out there that people as a group can be pretty mean if a person has physical shortcoming (not pretty in some way) or disabilities. I have seen both cases in "professional" work environments.

I remember one person way back complaining about supervisor and apparently this supervisor was mean about her looks and basically said she never looked "good" or "together", and that if she knew that previously, she wouldn't have accepted her.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and maybe the OP is not comfortable to mention if it does have to do with these things.

Just to speak to this particular point (and not to get off on too much of a tangent)--I don't recall that specific thread, but can say that there are certainly times when having a supervisor discuss someone's appearance is warranted. Obviously not when it's an issue of, "you just aren't handsome/pretty enough," but if the trainee is continually showing up either disheveled or dressed unprofessionally when seeing patients, this may be something that needs to be addressed.

And while lots of us can feel a "sting" with regard to constructive criticism (even when fully warranted and deftly delivered), I could see how remarks regarding our appearance may be taken particularly personally, and could cause a trainee to feel that the supervisor has overstepped their bounds, even when this isn't actually the case.

 

[EmotRegulation]

As an early career psychologist, I bristle at the generalizations (which has been aptly pointed out by others). I'm not sure it's fair for those descriptors to be used as descriptions of ECPs. My advice to the OP might be to recognize the power of words, and to amend accordingly. "My experience with a couple of supervisors who happen to be early career has been difficult, because these people......" with the same stuff after it would read SO differently to me. Is it possible for ECPs to be harsh? Sure. It is also possible for older more "seasoned" psychologists to be harsh. There ARE some career related issues that ECPs face which would be interesting to discuss on this board, but that's a different topic.

So, how to get through a practicum with the behaviors you are describing? Show respect with the way you talk, over using language that over generalizes. *Not just for others, but for yourself too* because the way we talk influences (reflects?) the way we think. Own your own s**t. Use "I" statements. Ask for feedback directly, and show you can handle it. Avoid gossiping. Accept that people gossip and you can't do anything about it. All of those things can go a looooong way.

 

[cara susanna]

There ARE some career related issues that ECPs face which would be interesting to discuss on this board, but that's a different topic..

As a soon-to-be ECP, I'd love to hear about those. Perhaps you or someone else could make a new thread?

 

[futureapppsy2]

As a soon-to-be ECP, I'd love to hear about those. Perhaps you or someone else could make a new thread?

Done! http://forums.studentdoctor.net/thr...t-and-know-after-you-finish-your-phd.1143074/