Professional Development

Supervisors’ and Supervisees’ Perceptions of Control and Conflict

in Counseling Supervision

Christopher J. Quarto

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to assess supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of control and conflict in counseling supervi- sion. More experienced counselor supervisees perceived themselves as controlling what occurs in supervision to a greater extent than their less experienced counterparts. Although supervisors and supervisees did not perceive relational conflict to occur on a frequent basis, novice supervisors perceived themselves as experiencing a greater amount of conflict than more experienced supervisors. Participants’ perceptions of control and conflict were related to the strength of the supervisory working alliance. Im- plications of this research and recommendations for future research are dis- cussed. [Article copies available for a fee from The Haworth Document Delivery Service: 1-800-HAWORTH. E-mail address: <[email protected]> Website: <http://www.HaworthPress.com> © 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved.]

KEYWORDS. Supervision, control, conflict, supervisory relationship

The ways in which supervisors and supervisees interact with one an- other have received much attention from researchers in recent years

Christopher J. Quarto, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Middle Tennes- see State University, Murfreesboro, TN.

Address correspondence to: Christopher J. Quarto, PhD, Department of Psychol- ogy, MTSU, P.O. Box 87, Murfreesboro, TN 37132 (E-mail: [email protected]).

The Clinical Supervisor, Vol. 21(2) 2002 http://www.haworthpress.com/store/product.asp?sku=J001

 2002 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. 10.1300/J001v21n02_02 21

(Chen & Bernstein, 2000; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990; Hollo- way, Freund, Gardner, Nelson, & Walker, 1989; Ladany, Ellis, & Friedlander, 1999). Supervisory interaction patterns have been exam- ined from a variety of perspectives including power and involvement (Holloway et al., 1989), power and affiliation (Nelson, 1997) and complementarity (i.e., adapting one’s behavior to fit or “complement” the behavior of the other) (Chen & Bernstein, 2000; Tracey & Sherry, 1993), to name a few. Generally speaking, the results of these studies suggest that supervisory interactions can be characterized by the degree to which each person in a dyad displays and responds to behaviors in- dicative of power/submission and friendliness/hostility. Despite the fact that supervisors hold the formal power in the supervisory relation- ship, this does not mean that they exercise that power independently. It is the evolving interactions that occur between supervisors and supervisees over the course of time as well as other factors such as competence and experience of the participants that permit “shared power” (Muse-Burke, Ladany, & Deck, 2001). The purpose of this study was to examine two aspects of supervisory interaction patterns, control and conflict, as they relate to supervisor and supervisee development and the supervisory working alliance.

The way in which supervisors and supervisees interact with one another is thought to be influenced by the developmental level of supervisees, and supervisors play an important role in promoting the growth and develop- ment of supervisees by providing optimal supervision environments (Stoltenberg & Delworth, 1987). Beginning supervisees prefer structure and direction from their supervisors (Worthington & Roehlke, 1979) while advanced supervisees prefer a less structured supervision environment (Heppner & Roehlke, 1984). As such, supervisors may function more as teachers with beginning supervisees and as colleagues with more advanced supervisees (Miars et al., 1983; Wiley & Ray, 1986). What has yet to be verified are the specific types of supervisory interactional patterns that define these environments and their relationship to supervisee develop- ment.

Although not as much is known about supervisor development as supervisee development, there are thought to be similarities pertaining to the types of issues with which both struggle. Ellis and Douce (1994) hypothesize that beginning supervisors are more likely than experi- enced supervisors to behave in an overly controlling and structured manner. In addition, given the fact that supervisors are presumed to be “the expert,” beginning supervisors may be more sensitive to perceived threats to their authority by supervisees. Indeed, Muse-Burke et al.

22 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

(2001) suggest that beginning supervisors are more likely to exhibit a rigid and demanding interpersonal style as a way of establishing bound- aries with their supervisees. In a similar vein, Alonso (1983) indicates that novice supervisors feel uneasy about having to once again “start from the bottom up” with regard to learning supervisory skills after hav- ing developed a sense of competence as a therapist. The anxiety they experience may be transformed into a feeling of having to control what occurs in supervision as way to “prove” to their supervisees that they are knowledgeable and competent. Nelson and Friedlander (2001) like- wise note that supervisors who are uncertain about their competence to supervise may compensate by becoming competitive with the supervisee or exhibiting other behaviors that demonstrates one’s ability to lead.

Two aspects of supervisory interactional patterns concern the degree to which participants in a dyad attempt to control what occurs between them and whether relational conflict occurs when one member of the dyad does not behave in the expected manner. When supervisors pro- vide structure in supervision, they are taking a more active role in the supervisory relationship and exerting a greater amount of relational control. If supervisees “complement” their supervisors by following their leads and otherwise behave in the “expected” manner, then there is a smooth interaction that is productive and indicative of relational har- mony as the dyad agrees on what is to be done (Tracey, 2002). On the other hand, if supervisees do not respond in a way that complements the power or control position of the supervisor, then this would set the stage for conflict. When this type of interactional pattern occurs repeatedly, it signifies that each member of the dyad is vying for a superior position in the relationship so as to determine what occurs in supervision.

The aforementioned ideas have some support in the literature. For example, Tracey, Ellickson, and Sherry (1989) found that when ad- vanced supervisees and their supervisors were discussing issues that were not of a crisis nature, advanced supervisees had more positive evaluations of supervision when there was a less structured supervision environment. On the other hand, beginning supervisees preferred struc- tured supervision regardless of what topic (crisis vs. non-crisis condition) was being discussed. These results imply that advanced supervisees are more satisfied with supervision when supervisors do not exert as much control in supervision (given non-crisis topical content).

McNeill, Stoltenberg, and Pierce (1985) found differences between beginning and advanced trainees (but not interns) on the dependency/au- tonomy dimension. The implication was that beginning supervisees pre-

Christopher J. Quarto 23

fer their supervisors to be in control of what occurs in supervision while advanced supervisees prefer to be more self-directive and share control with their supervisors.

Relational conflict in supervision has not been given much consider- ation in the research literature despite the fact that it occurs with some de- gree of frequency. Moskowitz and Rupert (1983) investigated supervisees’ perceptions of conflict in the supervisory relationship. Thirty-eight percent of the supervisees indicated that they had experienced a major conflict with a supervisor with regard to differences in theoretical orientation or approaches to take with clients, the supervisor’s style of supervision, and/or personality clashes. Despite the fact that Moskowitz and Rupert provide helpful descriptive information regarding conflict in supervi- sion, their research is limited from the standpoint of only investigating supervisees’ perceptions. It would have also been helpful to determine whether conflict was more characteristic of supervisees or supervisors who were at a particular level of experience so as to test the constructs of developmental models of supervision. Indeed, Ronnestad and Skovholt (1993) found that relational conflict and dissatisfaction with supervision may occur more frequently with advanced trainees given that these students are accumulating knowledge and experience regard- ing the counseling process but still depend on their supervisors to help them behave professionally in various situations.

It is likely that the manner in which supervisors and supervisees in- teract with one another will affect the quality of their relationships and what they accomplish in supervision. In particular, the supervisory working alliance (i.e., the degree to which a supervisory dyad collabo- rates to achieve mutually agreed upon goals and tasks in addition to the strength of their emotional bond) is hypothesized to be a by-product of how control and conflict is negotiated throughout the course of supervi- sion. For example, in a study examining the relationship between complementarity and the supervisory working alliance of two supervi- sion dyads, Chen and Bernstein (2000) found that the supervision dyad with a weaker working alliance tended not to complement one another very consistently (i.e., did not follow one another’s leads when one member of the dyad brought up a topic for discussion), resulting in greater relationship conflicts. This is consistent with the findings of Tracey and Sherry (1993) who found that participants who were part of unsuccessful supervision dyads competed for relationship control as evi- denced by a greater preponderance of non-complementary interactions. It stands to reason that when there is greater harmony in relationships, as reflected by participants following one another’s leads when discussing

24 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

topics, there is a greater likelihood that the supervisory working alliance will solidify as there is an implicit agreement on a process level as to how the dyad will interact to achieve their particular goals. Alterna- tively, the supervisory working alliance is more likely to weaken when supervisors and supervisees compete over what is discussed as there is an implicit disagreement on a process level how they will interact to achieve the goals of supervision.

The present study focuses on supervisors’ and supervisees’ percep- tions of how they interact with one another using newly developed super- visory interaction questionnaires. The questionnaires were developed in response to a recommendation of Sumerel and Borders (1996) that “[An] instrument, specifically designed to measure interactional styles of super- visors, may be needed to gather more meaningful information [about the process of supervision]” (p. 282). The questionnaires were designed to assess the extent to which participants perceive themselves to control what occurs in supervision and whether they perceive conflict as charac- teristic of their interactions. Control is defined as one’s perceived abil- ity to define and influence how another person behaves with regard to the process of supervision. For example, the supervisee may perceive the supervisor to be in control if the supervisor initiates most of the top- ics for discussion and the supervisee agrees to discuss those topics. Conflict is defined as one’s perceived refusal to behave in accordance with how another wants one to behave with regard to the process of su- pervision. Thus, the supervisor may perceive conflict if the supervisee does not discuss topics that he or she [supervisor] initiates. The research questions were as follows:

1. Will the items that were developed to measure how supervisors and supervisees perceive themselves to interact with one another result in reliable groupings of items (i.e., scales) reflective of either the supervisor or supervisee in a control position or relational conflict?

2. Will more advanced supervisees perceive themselves as exhibit- ing greater supervisory control than their less experienced coun- terparts?

3. Will novice supervisors perceive themselves as exerting greater supervisory control and experiencing greater supervisory conflict than their more experienced counterparts?

4. Will there be (a) a positive correlational relationship between su- pervisory control and the supervision working alliance and (b) a negative correlational relationship between supervisory conflict

Christopher J. Quarto 25

and the supervision working alliance regardless of whose per- spective (supervisor or supervisee) is assessed?

METHOD

Participants

A total of 72 supervisees participated in the study. Supervisees were recruited from 48 counselor education departments located in 25 states. The ages of supervisees ranged from 22 to 52 (M = 33.52, SD = 9.02); 78% were female. The predominant ethnic background of the supervisees was Caucasian (86%) followed by African American (6%), Hispanic (4%), and other (4%). The highest degree obtained by most supervisees was bache- lors (74%) and the majority of them were in their second (54%) or third (24%) year of graduate school. Supervisees were completing their practicum/internship experiences in a variety of settings including schools (33%), university counseling centers (28%), agencies (21%), university psychological clinics (3%), or other (e.g., hospital) (15%). Some supervisees had not completed a full semester of practicum (18%), although the majority had completed at least one (42%) or two (18%) se- mesters (range = 0-6). Seventy percent of the supervisees had one year or less of professional counseling experience (range = 0-10 years).

A total of 74 supervisors participated in the study. The ages of supervi- sors ranged from 27 to 65 (M = 44.41, SD = 10.93); 61% were female. The ethnic background breakdown of supervisees was similar for supervisors. Seventy-three percent of the supervisors had obtained doctoral degrees in counselor education (53%), counseling psychology (19%), clinical psy- chology (5%), or other disciplines (e.g., marriage and family counseling, school counseling, social work) (23%). A variety of theoretical orientations were represented including eclectic (37%), humanistic (30%), cognitive- behavioral (21%) and psychodynamic (12%). Supervisors varied in terms of the number of years of experience they had accumulated providing indi- vidual supervision (M = 8.63, SD = 7.32) and counseling/psychotherapy ser- vices (M = 10.00, SD = 8.55). The average number of hours spent per week providing individual supervision was 5.66 (SD = 3.56).

Item Writing

The initial 27 items on the Supervision Interaction Questionnaire (SIQ) were written to reflect how the constructs of control and conflict

26 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

are manifested in the supervisory relationship using the constructs of Tracey and Sherry (1993). In particular, the proposition that complementarity could be determined by who initiates the topic of discussion and whether the other agrees to and follows that topic was an important element in item writing. Within the items, the researcher wanted a sample of behaviors that illus- trated how one participant behaves given a particular behavior of another. For example, if supervisors attempted to engage in some type of control maneuver (i.e., defined what was to be discussed in a supervision ses- sion), then supervisees could respond by agreeing to follow the supervi- sors’ leads or otherwise challenge their attempts for control (i.e., informing supervisors that they wished to discuss another topic instead). There was a deliberate attempt not to include within the items the con- tent of supervisory discussions but, rather, how each person behaved when a topic was introduced (i.e., process-related features).

The items were given to an expert (T. Tracey) affiliated with an APA-accredited counseling psychology program for preliminary evalu- ation. The expert noted that most of the items appeared to assess the aforementioned aspects of the supervisory relationship, although a few items were apparently assessing stylistic factors and were subsequently rephrased or deleted. The expert also evaluated whether an item re- flected a complementary interaction with supervisors in the control po- sition (e.g., “I follow my supervisor’s lead when he or she initiates topics during supervisory sessions”), supervisees in the control position (e.g., “My supervisor follows my lead if I decide to change the topic”), or interactions reflective of relational conflict (e.g., “My supervisor and I do not follow one another’s leads when discussing issues in supervi- sion”). Two items were deleted as they did not fit any of these catego- ries. A total of 20 items remained on the supervisee version and 18 items on the supervisor version after this initial evaluation process. The items on the supervisor and supervisee versions are identical save for whether an item is written from the perspective of the supervisor or supervisee.

The items were then given to three other supervisors affiliated with APA-accredited counseling (2) and clinical psychology (1) programs for further evaluation. Changes were made with regard to scaling (agree/disagree format changed to frequency format) and the phrasing of a few items. The final version entailed participants rating themselves on the items using a Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (Almost Never) to 7 (Almost Always) with regard to how frequently participants per- ceived certain types of interactions to occur in supervision sessions.

Christopher J. Quarto 27

Instrument

The Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI; Efstation, Patton, & Kardash, 1990) was selected for use in this study to assess the relationship between specific types of supervisory interactions and the supervisory working alliance. The SWAI is designed to measure the na- ture and strength of the supervisory working alliance. This instrument has two versions, one for supervisees and the other for supervisors. The SWAI-Trainee version consists of 19 items and is composed of two scales. The Rapport scale (12 items) measures supervisees’ perceptions of rapport that is developed in the supervisory relationship through sup- port and encouragement that they receive from their supervisors. The Client Focus scale (7 items) assesses the extent to which supervisees perceive their supervisors to help them understand client behaviors and dynamics. The SWAI-Supervisor version consists of 23 items and con- tains the same two scales as the trainee version (7 and 9 items, respec- tively) and a third scale entitled “Identification” (7 items) which assesses the extent to which supervisors perceive that their supervisees are attempting to identify with them (e.g., “My trainee identifies with me in the way he/she thinks and talks about his/her clients”).

Alpha coefficients for the SWAI-Trainee version were .90 and .77 for the Rapport and Client Focus scales, respectively. For the SWAI-Supervisor version, alpha coefficients were .73 for Rapport, .71 for Client Focus, and .77 for identification. Strong convergent validity estimates were obtained from correlations between the scales on the two versions of the SWAI and three scales on the Supervisory Styles In- ventory (SSI; Friedlander & Ward, 1984) entitled Attractive, Interper- sonally Sensitive, and Task-Oriented.

Procedure

Training directors from 125 counseling programs listed in the Coun- cil for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP) directory were randomly selected and contacted by letter informing them of the nature and purpose of the study. Upon approval of the study, training directors were asked to distribute research materi- als (i.e., a demographic information form, supervisor and supervisee versions of the SIQ and SWAI) to up to three supervisors who were cur- rently providing individual counseling supervision to master’s program practicum or internship students or doctoral program practicum or in- ternship students. Forty-eight training directors granted permission to

28 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

conduct the study at their universities, which accounts for a 38% partici- pation rate.

Supervisors who agreed to participate were asked to randomly dis- tribute a questionnaire packet to one of their supervisees. Research par- ticipation was strictly voluntary and anonymity was guaranteed as participants were instructed not to write their names on the question- naires. One hundred forty-two packets were distributed to supervisors and 74 returned completed questionnaires, reflecting a 52% response rate. Seventy-two supervisees returned completed questionnaires, re- flecting a 51% response rate.

It is important to note that even though supervisors were asked to ran- domly select supervisees to complete the research materials, it is impos- sible to ensure that they followed through with this instruction. Thus, supervisors could have selected their “best” supervisees to complete the questionnaires (in this case, “best” meaning supervisees with whom they experience the least amount of conflict), which would have con- founded the results. Likewise, obtaining results from only half of the re- spective samples of predominantly Caucasian female participants who were enrolled in (or provided supervision on behalf of) counselor edu- cation programs obviously limits the generalizability of the results. The reliability and validity of the obtained information is also suspect given that a limited number of items were included on the questionnaires and that the perceptions of participants were only sampled at one point in time. The aforementioned factors are important to consider when inter- preting the results.

RESULTS

Factor Analysis

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the SIQ items; a three-factor solution accounting for 59% of the variance was judged best in accounting for variation in the data on the SIQ-Supervisee Ver- sion, while a two-factor solution accounting for 42% of the variance was deemed best for the SIQ-Supervisor Version.

The SIQ-Supervisee and Supervisor versions both contain scales that are reflective of the supervisee controlling what occurs in supervision sessions (e.g., “It is up to me/my supervisee to decide when my supervi- sor and I/we finish discussing a particular topic”) and were subse- quently labeled “Supervisee Control.” In addition, both versions

Christopher J. Quarto 29

contain scales that assess conflictual interactions or times in which the behavior of one participant does not complement or follow the behavior of the other (e.g., “My supervisor/supervisee and I do not follow one an- other’s leads when discussing issues in supervision”). These scales were labeled “Supervision Conflict.” Finally, the SIQ-Supervisee ver- sion contained an additional scale entitled “Supervisor Control” as the items that loaded highly on this scale measured instances in which su- pervisors dictate how the process of supervision evolves (e.g., “I follow my supervisor’s lead when he or she initiates topics during supervisory sessions”).

Reliabilities of SIQ Scales

The reliabilities of the SIQ scales were assessed using Cronbach’s al- pha. The alpha coefficients of the three scales of the SIQ-Supervisee version (i.e., Supervisee Control, Supervision Conflict and Supervisor Control) were .90, .83, and .74, respectively. Alpha coefficients for the SIQ-Supervisor version were .86 for Supervisor Control and .74 for Su- pervision Conflict.

Supervisory Working Alliance

Table 1 presents the correlations among the supervisor and supervisee versions of the SIQ and SWAI. Both supervisors and supervisees perceived supervision conflict to impede the development of the supervisory working alliance. Specifically, participants indicated that supervision conflict is negatively correlated with supervisors build- ing rapport with their supervisees and helping them understand their cli- ents. In addition, supervisors’ scores on the supervision conflict scale were negatively correlated with the Identification scale of the SWAI suggesting that it would be difficult for supervisees to identify with and learn from their supervisors if there was disharmony in their relation- ships.

In terms of the control scales, both supervisors and supervisees per- ceived supervisor control to be related to helping supervisees gain a better understanding of their clients. Interestingly, neither supervisors nor supervisees perceived supervisor control of what occurs in supervi- sion to be related to developing rapport with their supervisees. In addi- tion, supervisors did not perceive supervisor control to contribute to supervisees being able to identify with them. Supervisees perceived a stronger relationship between their taking charge of what occurs in su-

30 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

pervision and supervisors building rapport with them by providing sup- port and encouragement.

Experience Effects–Supervisors

A one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to deter- mine whether supervisors’ ratings of control and conflict in supervision varied according to their respective levels of experience providing su- pervision. Supervisor experience levels were based on years of experi- ence providing individual supervision to supervisees (Level 1 = 0-2; Level 2 = 3-5; Level 3 = 6-15; Level 4 = 16-28). The results indicated that the amount of experience providing supervision to supervisees was a significant factor with regard to supervisors’ perceptions of how much conflict occurs in supervision, F (3, 69) = 3.67, p = .01. The results of Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference tests indicated statistically significant differences (at the .01 and .05 levels, respectively) between Level 1 (M = 2.33, SD = .73) and Level 3 (M = 1.79, SD = .44) supervi- sors and Level 1 and Level 4 (M = 1.80, SD = .41) supervisors. Spe- cifically, Level 1 supervisors perceived a greater amount of supervisory conflict than their more experienced counterparts. No experience-re- lated effects were found on the Supervisor Control scale.

Experience Effects–Supervisees

A one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to deter- mine whether supervisees’ ratings of control and conflict in supervision

Christopher J. Quarto 31

TABLE 1. Correlations Among the Supervisor and Supervisee SIQ and SWAI Scales

SIQ-Supervisee Factor Scales SWAI Supervisee Scales

Rapport Client Focus

Supervisee Control .29* .10

Supervision Conflict �.80** �.58**

Supervisor Control .17 .45**

SIQ-Supervisor Factor Scales SWAI Supervisor Scales

Rapport Client Focus Identification

Supervisor Control �.10 .37* .05

Supervision Conflict �.41** �.39** �.28*

Note. *p < .05. ** p < .01.

varied according to their level of counseling experience. What consti- tutes “counseling experience” has been the subject of much debate. Es- sentially counseling experience level should be based on more than one criterion (McNeill, Stoltenberg, & Pierce, 1985). In the present study, counseling experience level was determined using two variables: the number of fully completed semesters of practica and the number of years of professional counseling experience. The data that comprised these two variables were summed for each supervisee and three catego- ries of experience level–beginning, intermediate, and advanced–were created based on these summed scores.

The results indicated that counseling experience is a significant fac- tor with regard to supervisees’ perceptions of how much control they exert in supervision, F (2, 69) = 4.27, p = .01.

The results of Tukey’s Honestly Significant Difference tests indi- cated statistically significant differences (at the .02 and .03 levels, respec- tively) between beginning and advanced supervisees and intermediate and advanced supervisees. Specifically, advanced supervisees perceived them- selves to be exerting more control in supervision (M = 4.86, SD = 1.01) in comparison to their less experienced peers (beginning supervisees, M = 4.35, SD = .92; intermediate supervisees, M = 4.16, SD = 1.01).

DISCUSSION

The results of this study indicate that supervisors and supervisees perceive distinct dimensions relating to control and conflict in counsel- ing supervision. Specifically, both supervisees and supervisors indi- cated that there are times in which supervisors control what occurs in supervision. In addition, they both admitted that conflict occurs on an occasional basis but is not a typical feature of the supervisory relation- ship. Only supervisees perceived a supervisee control dimension. This finding suggests that supervisees have a broader view of control than supervisors and perceive themselves to play an important role in how supervision sessions proceed. These findings were based on the mea- surement of supervisory interactions using a newly designed instrument that contains reliable groupings of items reflective of supervisor or supervisee control or supervision conflict.

Two of the research questions pertained to whether there was a rela- tionship between supervisory control, supervisory conflict, and the devel- opmental levels of supervisees and supervisors. As expected, advanced supervisees perceived themselves to assume more control in supervision

32 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

in comparison to their less experienced counterparts. This finding makes sense from a developmental perspective as less experienced supervisees have not yet developed enough self-awareness and knowl- edge about the supervisory process to promote their own development.

There were no differences among different experience level supervi- sors with regard to the amount of perceived control they exhibited in su- pervision. However, less experienced supervisors perceived a higher amount of supervisory conflict in comparison to their more experienced colleagues. Novice supervisors are more concerned about being per- ceived as inconsistent and ineffective supervisors. Indeed, in the early stages of development supervisors are re-experiencing feelings of when they were new to the counseling profession. This “recycling” to earlier stages of development is frustrating because they already have devel- oped some level of competence as a counselor and have an aversion to once again experiencing the unpleasantness of incompetence (Alonso, 1983). Thus, novice supervisors may be motivated to place themselves in a clearly superior position in the relationship and promote their own agendas instead of following the leads of their supervisees so as not to appear on a parallel developmental level. Conflict also could result if supervisors are not cognizant of developmental growth patterns of supervisees and fail to allow them to gradually control what occurs in supervision when, in fact, this may be a vital and necessary part of their development.

The final research question pertained to whether there was a positive relationship between supervisory control and the supervisory working alliance and a negative relationship between supervision conflict and the working alliance. Both of these relationships were verified. When supervisors perceived that they were in control of what was discussed in supervision and how supervision sessions proceeded, they felt as though their supervisees were able to gain a better understanding of their clients. Thus, supervisors may need to take more of a lead when discussing cer- tain issues concerning clients as they may have insights that supervisees have not yet developed. Supervisees’ perceptions of control are related to enhanced rapport; thus it is important to supervisees that their supervisors support and encourage them when they take the initiative by discussing issues in supervision as this contributes to a stronger supervisory working alliance.

Both supervisors and supervisees perceived supervision conflict to contribute to a weakening in the supervisory working alliance in terms of rapport, understanding clients and, in the case of supervisors’ percep- tions, supervisees identifying with their supervisors. Indeed, it would be

Christopher J. Quarto 33

quite difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship if one member of a dyad fails to complement (i.e., behave in the desired or expected man- ner) the behavior of another. It is important to note that this study only investigated participants’ perceptions of the process of supervision. Al- though the process dimension is an important one, supervisory interac- tions do not occur in a vacuum. Obviously, the manner in which supervisors and supervisees interact with one another is affected by the topics of discussion as well as other issues inherent to counseling super- vision. For example, some supervisees may resist discussing with their supervisors becoming too emotionally involved with their clients be- cause it makes them feel uncomfortable. Thus, although supervisees are attempting to switch the topic when their supervisors initiate it, they are only switching the topic because they are attempting to avoid the anxi- ety it arouses. This does not necessarily imply, however, that conflict is occurring and the supervisory process is in jeopardy. Indeed, this is a common dynamic in supervision that could be utilized by supervisors to help their supervisees gain self-awareness. In a similar vein, supervisees may attempt to control what is discussed in supervision as a result of the parallel process phenomenon. Thus, merely exploring the ways in which supervisors and supervisees interact without taking into consideration contextual factors provides a limited number of pieces to a more complex puzzle.

There are several recommendations for supervisors based upon the findings of this study. It is imperative that supervisors recognize when their supervisees are making a shift to assume more control in supervi- sion and provide them with opportunities to assume such control (i.e., provide optimal supervision environments) as a way of facilitating their development (Wiley & Ray, 1986). However, this is predicated on super- visors receiving training in supervision so they can recognize develop- mental characteristics of supervisees and anticipate associated changes in interaction patterns. Part of supervision training should also be a recogni- tion of how supervisors themselves grow and develop as well as, in par- ticular, to become aware of tendencies to consistently maintain control of what occurs in supervision, which is bound to result in supervision conflict. A goal of supervisors should be to establish a solid working al- liance with their supervisees and to be flexible when shifts in relational control occur so as to keep the working alliance strong. Indeed, rather than seeing supervisees’ attempts at controlling what occurs in supervi- sion as a challenge to their authority, it would be more helpful for super- visors, especially novice supervisors, to view this as a natural step supervisees are taking in their own growth and development. When su-

34 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

pervisors achieve this level of awareness and make adjustments in their own supervisory styles, they have themselves taken a step in their own growth as supervisors. Finally, it is important that supervisors and supervisees address conflictual interactional dynamics when either one becomes aware that such interactions are beginning to weaken the alli- ance. Indeed, it is not uncommon for ruptures in the supervisory alli- ance to occur (Bordin, 1983). In fact, Gray, Ladany, Walker, and Ancis (2001) found that supervisors and supervisees who experienced a coun- terproductive event that initially weakened the supervisory alliance were subsequently able to strengthen the alliance if they discussed the impact of the event with one another.

This study has a number of limitations. First, only supervisors and supervisees in counselor education programs were studied. It is possible that different results would have been obtained if participants in other helping professions (e.g., clinical psychology, social work) were inves- tigated. Secondly, a large portion of the variance went unexplained in the factor analytic portion of the study. This may be attributable to the fact that supervisors and supervisees from various types of counselor education programs (e.g., mental health counseling, school counseling) and different practicum/internship sites (e.g., schools, agencies), whose styles and issues of supervision vary, were included in the study. Third, although supervisors and supervisees from a large number of training programs were surveyed, the sample is certainly not representative of all counselor education programs. In addition, the results are not neces- sarily generalizable to minority supervisors and supervisees given that the bulk of the sample in this study were Caucasian participants. Fourth, it is quite possible that different results would have been obtained if par- ticipants were asked to rate their interaction patterns at various points throughout the course of a semester. Perhaps there are times when changes in relational control or conflict are more likely to occur that could not be accounted for in the present study. Finally, the artificiality of the research design (i.e., studying process issues independently of content issues) limits the utility of these results. More useful information would have been elicited if specific topics/issues that tend to be associated with particular types of supervisory interactions were identified.

Individuals who are interested in using the SIQ in future research studies may want to consider having supervisees and supervisors from different training programs complete the questionnaire. If similar re- sults are obtained in those studies, then more evidence would be accu- mulated that supports various aspects of developmental models of supervision. It also would be interesting to examine the role gender

Christopher J. Quarto 35

plays relating to perceptions of control and conflict in supervision. Third, greater confidence could be placed in the results of the present study if interaction patterns were examined throughout the course of the semester to assess when and how these change. It would be interesting to determine if there are predictable ebbs and flows to these patterns and if a parallel process occurs with regard to strengthening and weakening of the supervisory working alliance. Finally, researchers may also want to consider examining whether perceptions of control and conflict are re- lated to the discussion of particular types of topics as well as supervisees’ and supervisors’ levels of satisfaction with supervision and other out- come indices.

REFERENCES

Alonso, A. (1983). A developmental theory of psychodynamic supervision. The Clini- cal Supervisor, 1, 23-26.

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11, 35-41.

Chen, E. C., & Bernstein, B. L. (2000). Relations of complementarity and supervisory issues to supervisory working alliance: A comparative analysis of two cases. Jour- nal of Counseling Psychology, 47, 485-497.

Efstation, J. F., Patton, M. J., & Kardash, C. M. (1990). Measuring the working alli- ance in counselor supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 37, 322-329.

Ellis, M. V., & Douce, L. A. (1994). Group supervision of novice clinical supervisors: Eight recurring issues. Journal of Counseling & Development, 72, 520-525.

Friedlander, M. L., & Ward, L. G. (1984). Development and validation of the supervi- sory styles inventory. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 4, 541-557.

Gray, L. A., Ladany, N., Walker, J. A., & Ancis, J. R. (2001). Psychotherapy trainees’ experience of counterproductive events in supervision. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 48, 371-383.

Heppner, P. P., & Roehlke, H. J. (1984). Differences among supervisees at different levels of training: Implications for a developmental model of supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 31, 76-90.

Holloway, E. L., Freund, R. D., Gardner, S. L., Nelson, M. L., & Walker, B. R. (1989). Relation of power and involvement to theoretical orientation in supervision: An analysis of discourse. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36, 88-102.

Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alli- ance, trainee self-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77, 447-455.

McNeill, B. W., Stoltenberg, C. D., & Pierce, R. A. (1985). Supervisees’ perceptions of their development: A test of the counselor complexity model. Journal of Coun- seling Psychology, 32, 630-633.

36 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR

Miars, R. D., Tracey, T. J., Ray, P. B., Cornfeld, J. L., O’Farrell, M., & Gelso, C. J. (1983). Variation of supervision process across trainee experience levels. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 30, 403-412.

Moskowitz, S. A., & Rupert, P. A. (1983). Conflict resolution within the supervisory relationship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 632-641.

Muse-Burke, J. L., Ladany, N., & Deck, M. D. (2001). In L. J. Bradley & N. Ladany (Eds.), Counselor supervision: Principles, process, and practice (3rd Ed.) (pp. 28-62). Philadelphia: Brunner-Routledge.

Nelson, M. L. (1997). An interactional model for empowering women in supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 37, 125-139.

Nelson, M. L., & Friedlander, M. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory re- lationships: The trainee’s perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48, 384-395.

Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovholt, T. M. (1993). Supervision of beginning and advanced graduate students of counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and De- velopment, 71, 396-405.

Stoltenberg, C., & Delworth, U. (1987). Supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Sumerel, M. B., & Borders, L. D. (1996). Addressing personal issues in supervision: Impact of counselors’ experience level on various aspects of the supervisory rela- tionship. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 268-286.

Tracey, T. J. (2002). Stages of counseling and therapy: An examination of complementarity and the working alliance. In G. S. Tryon (Ed.), Counseling based on process research: Applying what we know (pp. 265-297). Boston: Allyn & Ba- con.

Tracey, T. J., Ellickson, J. L., & Sherry, P. (1989). Reactance in relation to different su- pervisory environments and counselor development. Journal of Counseling Psy- chology, 36, 336-344.

Tracey, T. J., & Sherry, P. (1993). Complementary interaction over time in successful and less successful supervision. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 24, 304-311.

Wiley, M., & Ray, P. B. (1986). Counseling supervision by developmental level. Jour- nal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 439-445.

Worthington, E. L., & Roehlke, H. J. (1979). Effective supervision as perceived by be- ginning counselors-in-training. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 26, 64-73.

RECEIVED: 01/22/01 ACCEPTED: 04/26/02

Christopher J. Quarto 37

Copyright of Clinical Supervisor is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or 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.