Styles of Counselor Supervision as Perceived by Supervisors and Supervisees

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the preferences of supervisors and supervisees for 4 styles of counselor supervision and the perceived frequency of use of the 4 styles during a 10-week supervision experience. The styles are labeled directive teacher, supportive teacher, counselor, and consultant. Data collected using 90 doctoral student supervisors and 168 master's-degree student supervisees showed significant correlations among the styles. Implications for the process of counselor supervision are offered.To evaluate the effectiveness of supervision and to teach students to conduct effective supervision, counselor educators and supervisors must have clear definitions of the various approaches that can be used and a theoretical conceptualization into which these approaches are logically integrated. Empirical evidence concerning the behavior on which approaches or styles are based varies widely and includes sources of power that a supervisor might use (Holloway, 1995); the supervisor relationship or working alliance (Martin, Garske, & Davis, 2000); and what Neufeldt, Beutler, and Ranchero (1997) described as social influence attributes (e.g" expertness, trustworthiness, and attractiveness). It may be assumed, as advocated by Bernard (1997) and theorized by Stoltenberg, McNeill, and Delworth (1998) and Holloway (1995), that a counselor supervisor may begin with an expectation of a style of supervision to use, but the decision whether to use it and other styles depends on the supervisee's needs and the context of the supervision experience. An examination of this process from the point of view of both the supervisor and the supervisee was the purpose of the present study,The literature describing approaches to providing supervision (often termed style,function, or role of supervision, depending on the theorist) has been summarized by Bernard and Goodyear (1992).They found that the styles counselor-therapist and teacher were most often cited in the supervision literature, followed by consultant and then monitor-evaluator. Styles seem to include the terms

The On‐Site Mentor of Counseling Interns: Perceptions of Ideal Role and Actual Role Performance

“…The role domains of the ideal mentor are less often mentioned as compared with the four categories indicated earlier, with the teacher role being at the top of the list. These findings are in keeping with previous research (Bernard & Goodyear, 1998;Hart & Nance, 2003;Shechtman & Wirzberger, 1999;Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Crethar, 1994), which indicates that novice counselors prefer the teacher role. The interns expected that the ideal mentor would primarily be a teacher who helps fledging counselors prepare for their new role, and so did the mentors.…”

Training the Millennial Learner Through Experiential Evolutionary Scaffolding: Implications for Clinical Supervision in Graduate Education Programs

“…Just as genetic counselors adjust to patients of different cultures (e.g. Hart and Nance 2003;Lindh et al 2003), they need to adjust to students with a different cultural perspective, in this case, the Millennial learner.…”

Toward a Common‐factors Approach to Supervision

“…One particular model of supervision is an interesting blend of the clinical, developmental, and social‐role models. Hart and Nance (2003) have taken the Adaptive Counseling and Therapy (ACT) clinical model (Howard, Nance, & Myers, 1986) and applied it to supervision. The model suggests an optimal supervisor style (level of directiveness and support) based on the developmental level of the supervisee.…”

“…Some have taken this Zeitgeist to imply the incorrectness of directive forms of supervision, or to infer that directive supervision cannot at the same time be supportive. Although Hart and Nance (2003) suggest that supervisor styles low in support may be appropriate at times, the overwhelming evidence from a variety of studies (their own included) demonstrate that supervisees prefer to at all times have a high degree of support from their supervisors, regardless of how directive or collaborative the relationship is (Carifio & Hess, 1987; Hunt, 1986; Long et al., 1996; McCarthy, Kulakowski, & Kenfield, 1994; White & Russell, 1995; Worthen & McNeill, 1996).…”