Supervision Relationships

In Supervision relations, we find two actors: the auditor and the audited; these relations are created to perform revision and, of course, supervision chances amongst peers and teams. Common supervision chains are:

    • Causal-Determinist supervision chain (C-D; Process, Positivist, Static):
      • ENTp( ILE) → ISTj (LSI) → ESFp (SEE) → INFj (EII) → ENTp (ILE)
    • Dialectical-Algorithmic supervision chain (D-A; Process, Negativist, Dynamic):
      • ISFp (SEI) → ENFj (EIE) → INTp (ILI) → ESTj (LSE) → ISFp (SEI)
    • Vortical-Synergetic supervision chain (V-S; Result, Positivist, Dynamic):
      • ESFj (ESE) → ISTp (SLI) → ENTj (LIE) → INFp (IEI) → ESFj (ESE)
    • Holographical-Panoramic supervision chain (H-P; Result, Negativist, Static):
      • INTj (LII) → ENFp (IEE) → ISFj (ESI) → ESTp (SLE) → INTj (LII)

These chains melodically form to assure flawless performances and will help teamwork provide clear analysis and high-quality work. Slinko, in the “The key to heart – Socionics,” explains that Supervision Relations may appear very strict. Since they are formed by a Supervisor’s dominant function, which coincides with the supervisee’s most vulnerable and painful function making it a not symmetric relation, this sounds a bit overwhelming, but can prove to be satisfactory and easy-going if respect and help act here. Slinko, says about this construct:

“Supervisor can monitor every step the Supervisee takes, while Supervisee is powerless to resist this influence: all of his strong features “drown” in the appropriate function of the Supervisor.”– O.B Slinko

The explanation shows a dark side, of course, it is a relationship of power, where they tend to avoid any aggressive behavior, partners need to be very respectful, and also they need to remember they are, after all, a team. Slinko worries and fears that a Supervisee might try to resist and even fight back to the point of using physical force if the Supervisor forgets to rely on teamwork.

This situation is reinforced in the explanation provided by Laima Stankevichyute, in their work “Intertype relations” and tells us the following:

“These are the type of relations where a person is most vulnerable and unable to defend themselves. The Supervisor, drawing from his first element, frequently hits the third element of the supervisee.”

Somehow being put in a position of power could also be quite overwhelming for the Supervisor. Unless clear and established rules take part, they need to base all their actions on the human and empathy elements at all times. The Supervisee in Exchange most always be firm on their decisions and choices but also be open to positive suggestions.

The new detail about Supervision Relationships is brought up by Ekaterina Filatova, in her book “Art of understanding yourself and others”: Filatova explains the asymmetry in these relations focusing on the fact of vulnerability on one towards the other:

“In this case, the functions of two people are positioned such that the most powerful function of one (called the auditor) presses on the vulnerable function of the other (called the audited). But, in turn, the audited does not have direct access to the weak function of the auditor.”

Given these explanations, it is clear that Supervision Relationships are necessary, but a fair game and set rules are the key elements to make sure work goes on flawless and undisrupted; otherwise, constant conflict amongst peers might get in the way.

By:  Dr. Graciela González Calderón-Psychologist

Bibliography

Recommended Posts
Activity Relationships

Activity Relations are one of the top relations we can use with little to no supervision in Socionics. Partners work together, achieve together, act together, Read more

Benefit Relations

Benefit relations are also known as "relations of request" or "social order." The four rings of benefit are: ENTp (ILE) → ENFj (EIE) → ESFp Read more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X