Page 221 [221]
OCR
USING THE MICRO-LEVEL PERSPECTIVE OF CONVERSATION ANALYSIS TO IMPROVE COMMUNICATION IN SUPERVISION COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES OF SUPERVISORS AND SUPERVISEES: COMPLETE SUMMARY . . . . . inviting SE to take over the turn, sometimes even using incomplete phrases to do so, the acceptance of interruptions; they readily give the turn up, a preference for the unobtrusive, non-lexical "hm" as back channel signal, the invitation of speaker continuation by maintaining long pauses, the support of SEs utterances: SRs offer metaphors, rewordings, etc. . . . . After SE’s presentation of the problem, oftentimes SR words SE's goal, need, and / or concern, thus — signaling understanding while giving SE the opportunity to correct, — showing their diagnostic competencies, — making sure the goal / need / concern can be worked with and met in and through supervision, — clearing the way for “solution talk” instead of “problem talk” (depending on the formulation used). SRs sometimes de-topicalize private emotions, or at least they make them part of the workplace problem, thus omitting non-professional issues that firstly supervision is not competent to address, and that also would go beyond the scope of what can be worked on in a (limited) process. SRs often implicitly steer the conversation towards SE's options to actively and concretely influence or improve the situation. SRs also develop suggestions that build upon these options. . . They take up SR’s suggestions in an only formally responsive manner, i. e. agree with them, but then de-topicalize or even contradict them. They steer back to the problem presentation, oftentimes including dramatizing metaphors or stressing strong negative feelings. * 219 +
