Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in Counseling Supervision

This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733]
On: 7 February 2010

Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 911724993]
Publisher Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-
41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
The Clinical Supervisor

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t792303991
Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in

Counseling Supervision
Christopher J. Quarto a
a
Middle Tennessee State University, Murfreesboro, TN, USA
To cite this Article Quarto, Christopher J.(2003) 'Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in
Counseling Supervision', The Clinical Supervisor, 21: 2, 21 — 37
To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1300/J001v21n02_02
URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1300/J001v21n02_02
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or
systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or
distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses
should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,
actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly
or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Supervisors’ and Supervisees’ Perceptions
of Control and Conflict
in Counseling Supervision
Downloaded By: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733] At: 19:31 7 February 2010
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: <docdelivery@haworthpress.com> 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: cquarto@mtsu.edu).
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
22 THE CLINICAL SUPERVISOR
(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.
Christopher J. Quarto 23
(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-
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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-
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.
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
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
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
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-
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
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.
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

Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in Counseling Supervision

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in Counseling Supervision

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This article was downloaded by: [EBSCOHost EJS Content Distribution - Superceded by 916427733]

On: 7 February 2010

The Clinical Supervisor

Supervisors' and Supervisees' Perceptions of Control and Conflict in

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

ABSTRACT. The purpose of this study was to assess supervisors’ and

KEYWORDS. Supervision, control, conflict, supervisory relationship

Christopher J. Quarto, PhD, is Assistant Professor of Psychology at Middle Tennes-

complementarity (i.e., adapting one’s behavior to fit or “complement”

(2001) suggest that beginning supervisors are more likely to exhibit a

ing developed a sense of competence as a therapist. The anxiety they

fer their supervisors to be in control of what occurs in supervision while

gree of frequency. Moskowitz and Rupert (1983) investigated supervisees’

topics, there is a greater likelihood that the supervisory working alliance

an implicit disagreement on a process level how they will interact to

and the supervision working alliance regardless of whose per-

A total of 72 supervisees participated in the study. Supervisees were

The initial 27 items on the Supervision Interaction Questionnaire

are manifested in the supervisory relationship using the constructs of Tracey

trated how one participant behaves given a particular behavior of another.

The Supervisory Working Alliance Inventory (SWAI; Efstation,

supervisory working alliance. The SWAI is designed to measure the na-

Training directors from 125 counseling programs listed in the Coun-

participants were instructed not to write their names on the question-

An exploratory factor analysis was conducted on the SIQ items; a

contain scales that assess conflictual interactions or times in which the

sion contained an additional scale entitled “Supervisor Control” as the

Reliabilities of SIQ Scales

Supervisory Working Alliance

Table 1 presents the correlations among the supervisor and

SIQ-Supervisee Factor Scales SWAI Supervisee Scales

Supervisee Control .29* .10

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

pervision and supervisors building rapport with them by providing sup-

A one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to deter-

A one-factor analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted to deter-

varied according to their level of counseling experience. What consti-

number of fully completed semesters of practica and the number of

The results of this study indicate that supervisors and supervisees

in comparison to their less experienced counterparts. This finding

quite difficult to maintain a harmonious relationship if one member of a

tions do not occur in a vacuum. Obviously, the manner in which

pervisors achieve this level of awareness and make adjustments in their

ance. Indeed, it is not uncommon for ruptures in the supervisory alli-

plays relating to perceptions of control and conflict in supervision.

if a parallel process occurs with regard to strengthening and weakening of

You might also like