Help Needed

SituationalSupervisionApplyingSituationalLeadershiptoClinicalSupervision.pdf

Home >Social Science homework help >Sociology homework help >Help Needed

Address correspondence to Christopher Bedford, University of St. Thomas, Graduate School of Professional Psychology-Opus Hall 217, 1000 LaSalle Avenue, Minneapolis, MN 55403, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

Situational Supervision: Applying Situational Leadership to Clinical Supervision

CHRISTOPHER BEDFORD and KURT M. GEHLERT University of St. Thomas, Minneapolis, Minnesota, United States

This article examines Hersey, Blanchard, and Johnson’s (2001) model of Situational Leadership and adapts and applies it to clini- cal supervision. The authors propose a model that centers around four primary supervision styles which are aligned with four pri- mary readiness levels of supervisees. The article describes the four supervision styles, contrasts the approach to developmental stage models, provides advice on assessing trainee readiness, and con- siders the implications of adopting the wrong supervision approach or misjudging the readiness level of supervisees. The authors close with a discussion of shortcomings of the approach and recommen- dations for future research of the model.

KEYWORDS clinical supervision, situational leadership, student supervision, supervisor roles

INTRODUCTION

Supervision is a critical component of the professional preparation of coun- selors and psychotherapists, and plays an essential role in fostering super- visee skill development and ensuring a standard of client care (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004; Neufeldt, 2007). Chagnon and Russell (1995) lay out two basic assumptions about counselor development: first, as competence increases supervisees pass through different developmental stages, and second, each of those stages necessitates a different supervisory approach. It is widely agreed that supervisors must adopt different roles during the course of supervision (Bernard, 1979; Carroll, 1996; Holloway, 1995; Williams, 1995).

Situational Supervision 57

There is even considerable agreement about what those different roles are. Although they may go by different names, the roles tend to fall into the domains of teacher, consultant, counselor, and evaluator (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). What seems to be missing is any kind of diagnostic device or framework that helps supervisors select the appropriate supervisory role to assist their supervisees. Applying the concepts of Situational Leadership (Hersey, Blanchard, & Johnson, 2001) to clinical supervision creates a diag- nostic tool to help supervisors select appropriate interventions and supervise more effectively.

SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP

Hersey and Blanchard developed Situational Leadership in the late 1960s, and since then it has grown to be one of the most widely taught and used leadership frameworks in both the for-profit and not-for-profit sectors (Northouse, 2004; Papworth, Milne, & Boak, 2009; Yukl, 2006). The model is based on three factors: the amount of direction (task behavior) that is pro- vided by the leader, the amount of support (relationship behavior) that is provided by the leader, and the confidence and competence (readiness level) that is present in the follower (Hersey et al., 2001).

Task behavior is defined as the “extent to which the leader engages in spelling out the duties and responsibilities of an individual or a group. The behaviors include telling people what to do, how to do it, when to do it, where to do it, and who is to do it” (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 173). Relationship behavior, on the other hand, is the degree to which “the leader engages in two-way or multiway communication. The behaviors include listening, facili- tating, and supportive behaviors” (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 173).

Task behavior and relationship behavior together form two axes on a 2 × 2 grid. The horizontal axis depicts task behavior (the amount of directive- ness) from low to high, and the vertical axis plots the relationship behavior (the amount of supportiveness or engagement required) from low to high. The resulting 2 × 2 grid represents 4 distinct leadership styles. See Table 1.

Readiness is defined as the extent to which “a follower demonstrates the ability and willingness to accomplish a specific task” (Hersey et al., 2001, p. 175). It is important to note that readiness is task or situation specific. A

TABLE 1 Leadership Styles

Style Task behavior Relationship behavior

Style 1 (S1) Above Average Below Average Style 2 (S2) Above Average Above Average Style 3 (S3) Below Average Above Average Style 4 (S4) Below Average Below Average

58 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

person may be at a high level of readiness for some tasks and a low level of readiness for others. As the definition indicates, there are two aspects to readiness: ability and willingness. Ability has to do with competence: does the follower have the knowledge and skills to complete a given task? Willingness has to do with confidence: does the follower have sufficient motivation, commitment, and confidence to complete the task (Hersey et al., 2001)? See Table 2.

The key to Situational Leadership is learning to accurately determine readiness and then matching the follower’s readiness level with the appropri- ate leadership style. When a follower is at readiness level 1, the leader should use style 1. Likewise, when the follower is at readiness level 3, the leader should employ leadership style 3. A discussion about how to assess readi- ness levels in a clinical supervision session follows.

Hersey and colleagues (2001) named the four leadership styles based on the types of behaviors they require. When followers do not have the skills and ability to complete a task and also lack the willingness to engage in the task (i.e., low competence and low confidence), leaders need to engage in telling. They need to give explicit directions to followers, guide their behav- iors, and take a very hands-on approach to managing the task in question. At this stage the focus is on providing instruction, not overwhelming the fol- lower, and reducing anxiety about making mistakes (Hersey et al., 2001).

When followers are willing to engage in a behavior but lack the skills to complete it successfully (i.e., low competency and high confidence), the leader needs to sell to the follower. Because the follower is trying, leaders need to sustain the follower’s motivation while also remaining directive enough to ensure that tasks are completed successfully. This requires more engagement and two-way conversation between the leader and follower. At this stage lead- ers need to gauge the follower’s understanding of tasks, field questions from the follower, clarify misconceptions, and provide deeper explanations and the rationale for why things are done a certain way (Hersey et al., 2001).

Behaviors executed in these first two quadrants tend to be more leader driven. That is, the leader is providing the bulk of the direction and setting the course for how tasks are approached and completed. The next two lead- ership styles require the leader to step back and allow the follower to chart the course and set the direction.

TABLE 2 Readiness Level

Style Ability/competence Willingness/confidence

Readiness 1 (R1) Unable Insecure Readiness 2 (R2) Unable Confident Readiness 3 (R3) Able Insecure Readiness 4 (R4) Able Confident

Situational Supervision 59

When followers are able to complete a task but lack confidence or will- ingness, the leader needs to adopt a participating style. This requires the leader to encourage and support the follower while limiting the amount of direction given, because the follower has already demonstrated the ability to perform the task; more instruction is not necessary. At this stage decision- making responsibility is typically shared between the two parties (Hersey et al., 2001).

Finally, when followers have both the confidence and the competence to complete a task, the leader should take a delegating approach. The leader should focus on observing and monitoring the follower. Hersey and col- leagues (2001) suggest leaders at this stage listen more (e.g., engage in less two-way communication), “provide support and resources … and encourage autonomy” (p. 187).

ADAPTING SITUATIONAL LEADERSHIP TO CLINICAL SUPERVISION

With a few adjustments, the Situational Leadership model becomes an excel- lent framework for clinical supervisors of counselors-in-training. The model remains the same, but the names of the quadrants are changed to reflect generally accepted and familiar roles that supervisors play: teacher, consul- tant, counselor, and evaluator (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). Moreover, adapt- ing Situational Leadership to clinical supervision avoids some of the short- comings of developmental stage models and extends the social role models in an important way. Namely, the Situational Supervision model provides guidance about when to adjust roles and which roles to adopt based on supervisee needs.

While developmental stage models (e.g., Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Rønnestad & Skovholt, 2003) provide good general guidelines about counselor development and inform broad supervisory approaches, they do not account for the variability of task-based developmental advances. In other words, they do not take into consideration that specific clinical experi- ences have an impact upon supervisee development. For example, a coun- selor-in-training could develop great general counseling skills in practicum but never have the need to hospitalize a client, so when she or he is eventu- ally faced with that responsibility, she or he may not be prepared to respond in the way a supervisor might expect someone at the supervisee’s level of development to respond. Furthermore, developmental stage models typi- cally do not take into account counselor regression. That is to say, stage models do not necessarily recognize that trainees sometimes lose confidence in their abilities, perhaps following an unsuccessful intervention or an epi- sode of client self-harm. Due to its task-based orientation, Situational Supervision allows for supervisors to meet supervisees where they are and

60 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

respond to them effectively and helpfully regardless of their level of experi- ence or developmental progress.

The Situational Supervision model is ultimately a social role model. Other social role models (e.g., Bernard, 1979) encourage supervisors to adopt different roles depending on the needs of the supervisee. Bernard’s (1979) Discrimination Model is a well-known supervision model, which requires the supervisor to adopt one of three roles (teacher, counselor, or consultant) to attend to one of three primary aspects of supervision (inter- vention, conceptualization, and personalization). The model is situation spe- cific and Bernard is clear that the “supervisors’ roles and foci should change not only across sessions, but also within session” (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004, p. 97). However, there is little guidance about when to adopt each role or when to shift foci.

Stoltenberg, McNeill, and Delworth’s (1998) Integrated Developmental Model (IDM) for clinical supervision is well researched and supported. The approach requires supervisors to assess and intervene in different ways depending on the supervisee’s development across eight domains of profes- sional competencies. The model suggests that development is linear; trainees begin at level 1 and progress to level 3 (Stoltenberg, 2008). The model rec- ognizes that trainees can operate at different levels across domains, but the model does not appear to address supervisees who have differential abilities within domains. For example, one of the domains is “assessment techniques.” IDM does not provide much guidance to a supervisor with a trainee who has level 3 abilities to administer and interpret a Wechsler intelligence test but level 1 skills to administer a Rorschach. Our Situational Supervision model provides a framework for selecting the appropriate supervisory style to meet the present need of a supervisee.

When both confidence and competence are low, supervisors need to play the role of teacher. This is a common role early in the supervision of first practicum counselors. These individuals have typically not worked with clients one-on-one, and they often have only their coursework and a basic counseling skills class to inform their work. This is their first time providing therapy, and naturally much of their experience is colored by uncertainty about what to do and anxiety about a multitude of issues.

When supervisee skills and ability are low, but confidence or willing- ness to perform are high, the supervisor is advised to take more of a consul- tant role. These trainees typically do not need encouragement to bolster their confidence or help to reduce undue levels of anxiety. These individuals need a supervisor to help them understand not just how to do the work (which they are taught when readiness is at level 1) but the deeper rationale behind the work—the why of the task. Often supervisees at this level have a false sense of ability; they often misunderstand things that occur in therapy (e.g., they underestimate the client’s level of engagement in or commitment to therapy, or they overestimate the need for directiveness). In the consultant

Situational Supervision 61

role, the supervisor corrects these misunderstandings without putting a damper on the trainee’s enthusiasm or confidence.

Sometimes supervisees have the ability to complete a task or demon- strate a behavior but lack either the confidence or the willingness to per- form. Sometimes this lack of confidence or unwillingness is because the trainee has experienced a setback with a client and is feeling discouraged, causing her or him to question her or his ability to perform tasks that the supervisor knows have been performed before. In other instances, trainees lack willingness to perform tasks because they are repetitive, boring, or tedious. When a supervisee is high in ability and low in confidence or will- ingness, the supervisor should take on the role of counselor. This is an opportunity for the supervisor to help trainees explore feelings of discour- agement, ambivalence, or boredom and to recapture the level of commit- ment demonstrated as they were building competence.

When trainees are both confident and competent to perform a particu- lar task, the supervisor can take on an evaluative role. Much of post-degree supervision likely happens in this quadrant of the model. Supervisees at readiness level 4 generally exhibit a high level of skill and comfort in their role as therapists. They often rely on supervisors for feedback on perfor- mance and alternative perspectives or conceptualizations of client issues. An important aspect of this supervisory approach is fostering the supervisee’s sense of autonomy and mastery.

With the four supervisory styles in mind, it is very important to remem- ber that the supervisory styles are task based, and hence require the ability to fluidly adjust supervision styles as different tasks emerge in the course of a given supervision session. Supervisors need to be vigilant about assessing their supervisee’s readiness for each task they need to undertake and not fall back on global evaluations of their supervisee’s overall readiness level. When supervisors depend on a global assessment of their trainee’s needs and abili- ties, they are more likely to use only one supervisory style and risk damage to the relationship and potentially jeopardize client welfare. See Figure 1 for information on readiness levels.

ASSESSING TRAINEE READINESS

The following illustrations are examples of assessing and matching the supervisory style with the trainee’s readiness level when working with novice counselors who may be seeing clients for the first time.

Teaching

If a new practicum counselor encounters a client in crisis and faces the need to hospitalize the person, the anxiety level for the counselor is high and

62 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

confidence to effectively manage the situation is low. Given the level of fear and hesitation, the supervisee needs direct instruction from the supervisor. The supervisor should adopt a teaching style. The supervisor takes an active, directive role with an emphasis on teaching the trainee about the steps nec- essary to assist the client. The supervisor may even become directly involved in facilitating the hospitalization given the supervisee’s lack of experience in this potentially dangerous situation. The supervisor meets the trainee’s needs by teaching and telling the supervisee how to proceed. Given the urgency of the situation, little attention is given to the relational aspect (i.e., low sup- portive behavior) of the supervisory working alliance.

In this situation, the potential hazard lies in the supervisor under- responding to the trainee’s need and not providing enough direction. If the supervisor assumes a more laissez-faire stance, the trainee risks losing

FIGURE 1 Situational Supervision model depicting supervisor styles based on level of rela- tionship and task behavior as determined by the corresponding supervisee readiness levels. Adapted from Hersey et al. (2001).

Situational Supervision 63

confidence in herself or himself as well as creating a potential rupture in the supervisory alliance and possibly a negative impact on client welfare. The supervisee may conclude that the supervisor will not be available when needed in the future. Moreover, the trainee may be left feeling abandoned or devalued by the supervisor. Unnecessary anxiety is created in the moment and later frustration results from the lack of direction offered when needed.

Consulting

A consulting approach to supervision is required when the supervisee has low ability to demonstrate a given competency while expressing a high degree of willingness or confidence in doing so. For example, the first-time practicum counselor may feel good about her or his ability to develop a strong working alliance with clients and likely feels confident connecting with clients and putting them at ease in sessions. The counselor-in-training may even feel that she or he is doing everything the client needs in order to improve. In these instances the supervisor may want or need to challenge the trainee to deepen the counseling relationship to promote therapeutic change, employ an intervention that the trainee may not have completely mastered or fully understands despite great willingness and/or confidence to perform the intervention, or entertain alternative conceptualizations of client problems and methods of encouraging change. Much of the work that hap- pens in the consulting style revolves around addressing the trainee’s blind spots and her or his misconceptions about counseling and therapeutic change. When facing these types of issues with the counselor-in-training, the supervisor must be careful to validate the good work that the trainee is doing with her or his clients while also inviting different ways of conceptualizing the counseling process. Careful attention is paid to avoid undermining the counselor’s confidence and enthusiasm while encouraging her or him to develop new ways of engaging with clients. The supervisor illuminates blind spots and helps the trainee develop a more complex understanding of the counseling process by using supportive, high relationship behaviors to gently move the counselor out of her or his zone of comfort.

Given the need to support the trainee’s confidence while also inviting new ways of being with the client, a few pitfalls may emerge if the supervi- sor misjudges the trainee’s level of confidence and ability. Specifically, the supervisor risks creating anxiety if the trainee perceives that her or his foun- dational skills are being called into question by the supervisor. If not com- municated with sufficient trust in the supervisee’s abilities and potential (i.e., high relationship behavior), the trainee may experience a decrease in self- confidence. Conversely, if the trainee is beginning to experience concern about how to maximize the therapeutic work once a strong working alliance is in place with the client and the supervisor under-functions in response, trainee frustration is likely. If the supervisor underestimates the need for

64 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

challenging the supervisee to deepen the relationship, employ new interven- tions, or think differently about clients, the supervisee may feel stuck in her or his growth and frustrated by the supervisor’s inability to assist in the development of skills necessary to assist both the trainee and the client.

Counseling

The counseling stance is utilized by the supervisor in situations in which the supervisee demonstrates high ability and low willingness or motivation. A number of factors can push a trainee into the counseling quadrant, including but not limited to anxiety levels, poor time management skills, perceived institutional barriers, and issues with profession identity. For example, when the trainee is having difficulty managing the demands of paperwork and agency procedures, a supervisory response that is high on relationship and low on task focus is appropriate. If the trainee experiences a high degree of stress regarding paperwork requirements, it may inhibit her or his overall training experience. The resulting stress impedes the trainee’s ability to accu- rately assess what is needed to complete the documentation requirements. The supervisor’s task is to help the supervisee identify ways to manage the stress and demands of the paperwork without diminishing the training expe- rience. Rather than being overly directive, the supervisor assists the trainee in identifying subjective blocks to getting paperwork completed. The supervisor utilizes the trust in the supervisory relationship to facilitate the trainee in developing new or improved ways of managing the paperwork struggles.

The supervisory relationship risks rupture in this situation if the super- visor is overly directive in offering assistance. If the supervisor over-functions or takes an overly authoritarian approach, the supervisee may be left feeling disempowered and shamed. This adds an unnecessary element of anxiety to the novice counselor’s experience. Too much direction from the supervisor undermines the trainee’s sense of agency in working through her or his blocks to completing paperwork. When supervisors under-function in this stance, trainees may feel that their supervisors are not attuned to their stress level, paying attention to all aspects of their work. Moreover, under-function- ing supervisors may send the tacit message that staying current with case notes and other paperwork is not a valued or important part of counseling.

Evaluating

For tasks in which the supervisee demonstrates a high degree of both confi- dence and ability, the supervisor assumes the evaluating stance. For exam- ple, if the practicum counselor reports a high degree of confidence and ability in enacting basic counseling skills with the client, including express- ing support for and understanding of the client, a minimal amount of inter- vention is required by the supervisor. The trainee may be confident in her or

Situational Supervision 65

his ability to empathize and express care to the client. The supervisor offers encouragement and positive reinforcement of the trainee’s success. Minimal task behavior is needed from the supervisor as the trainee demonstrates proficiency with basic counseling skills. Similarly, the supervisor does not need to rely heavily upon the relationship component of the supervisory working alliance. If the supervisee is able to utilize basic counseling skills with the client, there is little need to invite an exploration of potential blocks to doing so.

If the supervisor over-functions in this scenario, there is a risk that the counselor-in-training will be left feeling less confident in her or his abilities. The supervisor risks disempowering the supervisee if overly directive or questioning of her or his skills. The trainee may end up feeling frustrated if too much attention is given to any aspect of her or his work in which confi- dence is presumed.

Risks of Misjudging Readiness

As suggested in the preceding scenarios, problems are likely to occur when supervisors misdiagnose the readiness level of their supervisees. When the supervision style misses by one degree (e.g., the supervisor uses style 2 when the trainee requires style 3), anxiety is created. Trainees tend to become frustrated when the supervision style misses their needs by two degrees, and they become angry when the supervisor’s approach is at the opposite end of the spectrum (i.e., the supervisor is using style 4 when the supervisee needs style 1) (R. Barnett, personal communication, September 2010). See Table 3 for information on misdiagnosing readiness levels.

Imagine supervising the first practicum of a counselor-in-training. The trainee needs to start meeting with clients for the first time but, like many new therapists, does not feel fully confident or competent to work with clients. The supervisee must perform her or his first intake with a client and is clearly positioned at readiness level 1. Using the principles of Situational Leadership, the supervisor should adopt a teaching approach to help the novice coun- selor feel at ease and foster a sense of competence and confidence.

If the supervisor took a consulting approach and assumed the trainee had the willingness or confidence to do the intake but lacked the skill, the trainee may become anxious and perhaps feel misunderstood by the

TABLE 3 Implications of Misdiagnosing

Readiness level Style 1 Style 2 Style 3 Style 4

Readiness 4 Anger Frustration Anxiety Match Readiness 3 Frustration Anxiety Match Anxiety Readiness 2 Anxiety Match Anxiety Frustration Readiness 1 Match Anxiety Frustration Anger

66 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

supervisor. Likewise, if the supervisor took a counseling approach, which assumes the supervisee has the skills but lacks the motivation or willingness to do the intake session, the trainee could become frustrated. The trainee may feel that the supervisor has overestimated her or his ability or does not understand where she or he is developmentally. Finally, if the supervisor takes an evaluative stance with the supervisee, assuming that both the skill and the commitment to perform the intake are present, the supervisee is liable to feel angry. She or he is likely to feel that the supervisor is not willing to guide her or his development, that the supervisor is not cognizant of the trainee’s skills and abilities or anxiety level. In this instance some trainees may even question their supervisor’s commitment to client welfare as well as their competence as a practitioner and supervisor.

For supervisors who apply Bordin’s (1983) goal-task-bond working alli- ance model to supervision, the value of matching the trainee’s readiness level is clear: the bond between supervisor and supervisee is strengthened when the supervisor’s approach matches the trainee’s readiness level and weakened when the two factors are misaligned. Moreover, that misalignment may cause trainees to disclose less to their supervisors (Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & Nutt, 1996; Webb & Wheeler, 1998), which in turn makes it more difficult for supervisors to properly diagnose readiness levels in the future.

While we suggest that it is important to match the readiness level of the supervisee, some may argue that a certain level of anxiety or arousal may enhance supervisee performance and motivation (Bernard & Goodyear, 2004). We believe that a sufficient level of anxiety to promote conscientious performance of counselors-in-training can be achieved within the supervi- sory style that matches the readiness of the trainee, making it unnecessary to introduce artificial anxiety to motivate counselors-in-training.

Shortcomings of the Model

While Hersey and colleagues’ (2001) model is a well-established framework for leading others and making optimal selections for how to lead others, it is not without weaknesses. Perhaps the biggest weakness when adapting Situational Leadership to clinical supervision is that the model is likely to fail to work if the supervisee engages in impression management. In other words, supervisors cannot reliably assess supervisee readiness if the super- visee is not comfortable in honestly expressing herself or himself within supervision. In fact, if a supervisee successfully convinces a supervisor that she or he is skilled and confident performing a task she or he is not capable of or comfortable performing, the supervisor’s response will likely result in supervisee anxiety, frustration, and perhaps anger as indicated in the previ- ous section about misjudging readiness. The model cannot supplant the importance of establishing a strong working alliance that allows the super- visee to be comfortable being transparent during supervision.

Situational Supervision 67

The model may also have limited application in group supervision set- tings. Attempting to use Situational Supervision in a group setting may dis- rupt the group process. For example, in an effort to meet one supervisee where she or he is, the supervisor may adopt a style that fuels anxiety or frustration, or anger for another supervisee, or worse, causes other members of the group to disengage entirely. The model may actually be too situational for group supervision, and attempting to employ it in a group setting may distract supervisees from the universality of the experience of being a trainee. Other models may be more appropriate for group supervision.

In an effort to address these and other unforeseen weaknesses and challenges, we recommend a rigorous scientific examination of the model. We suggest that research should examine both process and outcome dimen- sions. In terms of examining process outcomes, a qualitative study that examines the experience of the supervisee within the model would be war- ranted. Of particular interest is the supervisee’s perception of the readiness matching process and whether accurate matches result in appropriate super- visory interventions. In addition, a study that examines the supervisor’s experience in assessing readiness could lend more insight into the potential benefits and drawbacks of matching supervisee readiness. It may also pro- vide greater insight and refinement to the four supervisory roles.

Outcome research would also provide helpful information about the value and utility of the model. Research comparing the outcome of Situational Supervision to other models, namely developmental stage models, would be quite valuable. In particular, it would be useful to evaluate differences in self-efficacy/confidence and agency of trainees based on different supervi- sory models.

SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND CONSIDERATIONS

We believe that Hersey and colleagues’ (2001) model of Situational Leadership provides an excellent means of understanding clinical supervision and pro- viding guidance for the different roles that supervisors need to play when working with trainees. The model is straightforward, has proven itself useful in other venues, and perhaps most importantly is transtheoretical in that it can be applied to clinical supervision regardless of the supervisor’s theoreti- cal orientation. The importance of focusing on trainee behaviors and assess- ing readiness cannot be stressed enough. The model is not linear or devel- opmental. Supervisees do not start at readiness level 1 and progress over the course of time to readiness level 4. It is possible for supervisees to move back and forth between readiness levels in the model. For example, super- visees may experience setbacks that cause them to lose confidence in their ability to do something they have previously done successfully (e.g., they move from readiness level 4 to readiness level 3). For the model to be

68 C. Bedford and K. M. Gehlert

employed successfully supervisors need to be diligent about continually evaluating supervisee readiness. Moreover, supervisors also need to be com- fortable using all four styles, and capable of fluidly shifting styles as often as necessary to meet the needs of trainees.

Furthermore, we like that the model is focused on task-specific behav- iors, rather than a global evaluation of trainee development. We know from our own experiences that a counselor will develop different skills at different paces, and an overall evaluation of competence and confidence is often unable to produce an adequate assessment of acquired skills and abilities. In this way, the model is fundamentally related to the concept of self-efficacy. The intervention—matching of supervision styles to readiness levels—acts to foster the growth of self-efficacy among trainees. We feel that this conceptual approach melds well with the underlying values of counselor training as well as the goals of clinical supervision. We strongly believe that Situational Supervision is a useful model for conceptualizing clinical supervision and welcome the comments and reactions of fellow supervisors and practitioners.

REFERENCES

Bernard, J. (1979). Supervisor training: A discrimination model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19, 60–68.

Bernard, J., & Goodyear, R. (2004). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (3rd ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Bordin, E. (1983). A working alliance model of supervision. Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35–42.

Carroll, M. (1996). Counselor supervision: Theory, skills, and practice. London, England: Cassell.

Chagnon, J., & Russell, K. (1995). Assessment of supervisee developmental level and supervision environment across supervisor experience. Journal of Counseling and Development, 38, 342–349.

Hersey, P., Blanchard, K., & Johnson, D. (2001). Management of organizational behavior: Leading human resources (8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Holloway, E. (1995). Clinical supervision: A systems approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ladany, N., Hill, C., Corbett, M., & Nutt, E. (1996). Nature, extent, and importance of what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44(3), 284–293.

Loganbill, C., Hardy, E., & Delworth, U. (1982). Supervision: A conceptual model. Counseling Psychologist, 10, 3–42.

Neufeldt, S. (2007). Supervision strategies for the first practicum (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: American Counseling Association.

Northouse, P. G. (2004). Leadership: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.

Situational Supervision 69

Papworth, M., Milne, D., & Boak, G. (2009). An exploratory content analysis of situational leadership. Journal of Management Development, 28, 593–606.

Rønnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The journey of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on professional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5–44.

Stoltenberg, C. D. (2008). Developmental approaches to supervision. In C. Falender & E. Shafranske (Eds.), Casebook for clinical supervision: A competency-based approach (pp. 39–56). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B. W., & Delworth, U. (1998). IDM supervision: An integrated development model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Webb, A. & Wheeler, S. (1998). How honest do counsellers dare to be in the supervisory relationship? An exploratory study. British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 26, 509–524.

Williams, A. (1995). Visual and active supervision: Roles, focus, technique. New York, NY: Norton.

Yukl, G. (2006). Leadership in organizations (6th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.