Supervision
My Personal Supervision Model
My personal supervision model is a work in progress in its infancy with room for exploration and growth. Having a framework from which to approach supervision is helpful as it fosters preparation for both supervisor and supervisee. Although all of the supervision models have appealing aspects, I will focus on the humanistic, solution-focused, and discrimination models. The following essay will attempt to provide an overview of my personal supervision model by rendering a definition for supervision, my philosophy, exploring the role of the supervisor, the process of evaluation, my approach to counselor development, and the similarity between my supervision and counselor theory.
Definition of Supervision
The term supervision, according to Bernard and Goodyear (2019), involves overseeing or providing guidance to a junior member of a particular profession in order to facilitate growth, knowledge, and further the skills of the novice professional. The authors assert that the supervision process is hierarchical in nature, evaluative, and that the senior member serves as a gatekeeper for the profession in making sure that the junior professional possesses adequate skills. I would also argue that in the counseling field, gatekeeping is an important part of the supervisory relationship (Freeman et al., 2020) as it protects clients, supervisees, and supervisors. I like the definition offered by the authors because it captures several essential components of the supervisory relationship. Nevertheless, I will offer additional aspects of importance in an effort to offer a personal view of supervision.
My personal definition of supervision is inclusive of Bernard and Goodyear’s (2019) description in that the process involves a hierarchy, evaluation, gatekeeping, but also teaching, counseling, consulting, and an overall partnership between supervisor and supervisee. To be clear, my personal definition of supervision starts with a baseline partnership between the supervisor and supervisee where all the aforementioned roles and tasks take place at their appropriate time along the continuum of the supervisory journey. There will be moments when the supervisor will need to clearly establish a hierarchy with the supervisee, but there will be other times when both parties will function in partnership for a certain goal or task. Thus creating a level of equality between the two. There will be times when the supervisor will teach the supervisee content, but there will be other instances where the supervisee will offer innovative ways to apply learned content. The supervisor will then move fluidly across roles as he or she deciphers the best course of action in partnership with the supervisee and vice versa. Constant communication and transparency will be key for being successful in this process as both supervisor and supervisee will move gracefully across roles.
Philosophy of Supervision
My philosophy of supervision is similar to my approach to teaching and education. It takes a humanistic approach with roots in solution-focused and the discrimination model. The humanistic approach to supervision focuses on the supervisee as a person and validates his or her skills as a change agent (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). In supervision, focusing on the supervisee as a person highlights his or her vulnerability, which Stargell et al. (2020) assert is a strength rather than a weakness. The researchers propose that supervisee vulnerability creates opportunities for growth and can help to create a greater connection with clients. Therefore, supervisors should model appropriate vulnerability with supervisees in hopes that they can learn how to utilize it with clients. The supervisor also holds a disposition of care and integrity while providing a safe environment where the supervisee can continue to be open and grow. Essentially the supervisee will offer information about what he or she needs in order to be successful and communicate with the supervisor, hence the solution-focused approach. This form of supervision places the supervisee in the driver’s seat to decide the best course of action (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019). This is the reason why creating a partnership with supervisees is important, as it will ease the level of reciprocal communication that takes place along the process. Nevertheless, even if communication is not as fluid as desired, having an established evaluation process between supervisor and supervisee will be helpful. When supervisees provide feedback to their supervisors, they will have a chance to voice aspects of the process that are helpful and those that they would like to change. Supervisors will have to lean heavily on supervisees to provide information about interventions or supports needed in order to help them be successful.
The discrimination model of supervision is one of my favorites as it highlights three essential roles for the supervisor – teacher, counselor, and consultant. Borders and Brown (2005) share that the teacher role involves the supervisor discerning among different teaching modalities to meet the supervisee’s learning style; the counselor role involves utilizing counseling skills to connect with the supervisee; and the consultant role requires working together on case conceptualization and brainstorming ideas. As a supervisor, I believe that there will be times when my supervisee will need me to provide different levels of support that will necessitate that I move across professional roles. Not only will I have to discriminate among roles, but also decide the best way to execute the respective role in a way that will be most effective for my supervisee. In addition to these three roles, another essential area is that of advocacy. Because supervisees are in a peculiar place at the beginning stage of their profession, they require even more protection than seasoned counselors as they embark on the journey of developing a professional identity. Those from marginalized groups will face institutional barriers and other obstacles along their journey based on factors that continue to divide humanity and the way we perceive each other. As a result, supervisors must be knowledgeable on issues regarding social justice, diversity, access, and engage in multicultural sensitivity training in order to advocate for supervisees and clients who need support (Spellman et al., 2022). Modeling appropriate advocacy during supervision will teach and empower supervisees to do the same for their clients.
Role of the Supervisor
The role of the supervisor in the supervision process is to be a clay vessel that God utilizes and molds to His will. The first part is recognizing that there is a bigger plan controlled by God in which supervisors and supervisees play a role. Therefore, when supervising I adopt the mindset that God is utilizing me as a vessel, and I have to remain open to the different roles and situations that the journey will bring. Nevertheless, God will provide guidance and information along the way regarding my role in my supervisee’s life along with discernment as I move fluidly. As a Christian supervisor, it is also important that I assess my supervisee’s spiritual and religious beliefs for the purpose of incorporating them into the supervisory journey. Although I hold personal spiritual beliefs, I am conscious that some supervisees will present with spiritual values and others will not. Regardless of where they fall on the spectrum, part of my role is to offer an open space where this topic can be discussed and incorporated into the process if they deem it important. My role is not to impose personal values or approach the supervisory relationship through the lens of my personal spiritual beliefs. It is to assume a role of humility as I broach conversations with my supervisees with an open disposition that encourages them to explore their own thoughts and beliefs (Gutierrez et al., 2020).
The second part of the process is establishing a positive and professional connection with my supervisee. The supervisory relationship is one that will last for a significant period of time hence the importance of establishing rapport at the onset of the process and having transparent conversations throughout. This process is initially driven by the supervisor for the purpose of creating appropriate norms and boundaries where the supervisor-supervisee relationship can grow. Therefore, part of the supervisor’s role is to set the tone of the supervisory relationship and communicate expectations. Utilizing my supervision style, I can envision having several conversations with future supervisees before starting the process to offer communication regarding my supervision style, roles and responsibilities, evaluation process, and other pertinent information. The purpose of doing this is to assess for compatibility prior to making a commitment. It would be unfortunate for my supervisee to feel like he or she is stuck in a supervisory relationship that is not compatible with what they envisioned professionally. I also want to make sure that my supervisee is not intimidated by the variety of roles that will be explored in the supervisory style that I adopt. Essentially my role is to be as transparent as possible so that he or she will be well informed throughout the process.
Process of Evaluation
The evaluation process in the supervisory relationship is one that can be daunting. In my supervisory model, the evaluation process is two ways: the supervisor provides feedback but also receives an evaluation from the supervisee. This form of evaluation connects with the collaborative nature of my supervision model, where the supervisor and supervisee assume different roles at the appropriate time. Hence, moving away from the traditional hierarchy that exists in the supervision process. My supervision model involves four different forms of evaluation – evaluation of goals, formative evaluation of counseling knowledge and skills, verbal feedback, and supervisee evaluation of supervisor.
One of the initial steps in the supervisory relationship is for the supervisee to establish goals. This step is usually part of the discussion when reviewing the supervision agreement and establishing responsibilities. Goals are important because they dictate the direction of the counseling process. They also inform the supervisor what the supervisee intends on getting out of the supervisory relationship. Conversely, the supervisor will be sure to include opportunities, interventions, and practices that will target the supervisee’s goals and further development. These goals can serve as formative evaluation at the beginning of the supervisory relationship, mid-way, and at the end of the journey. Another form of evaluation is that of the supervisee’s knowledge and skills. This form of evaluation can be tied to the supervisor’s role in gatekeeping as supervisees should not be able to advance if they lack essential skills and knowledge. Borders and Brown (2005) showcase a Practicum Counselor Evaluation Form that can be utilized to evaluate counselor knowledge and skills. Please see Appendix A for this form. Such evaluation is summative in nature and can be utilized to provide quality feedback to supervisees. Supervisors can also offer resources for areas where the supervisee needs improvement. Nevertheless, one of the most important forms of feedback and evaluation is done verbally throughout the continuum of the supervisory relationship. This modality of feedback is hands-on and provides immediate information. Such feedback also accounts for the communication that my supervision model requires – transparency between supervisor and supervisee. The verbal feedback will not always be evaluative in nature as there will be instances where the supervisor will pose presuppositional questions (Bernard & Goodyear, 2019) to assist with thoughts and reflection.
The fourth essential part of the evaluation process involves the supervisee providing feedback to the supervisor. Such a process can be intimidating for the supervisee due to the sense of power hierarchy. Nevertheless, I hope that through my supervision model, such power dynamics can be desensitized over time to the point where supervisees feel comfortable providing feedback either informally through conversation with the supervisor or formally utilizing a confidential summative assessment. Borders and Brown (2005) posit that receiving supervisee feedback can only improve the supervisory relationship. Bernard and Goodyear (2019) present a toolbox that offers a list of assessment resources for supervisors and supervisees to use. Toolbox resource number eight is a Supervisory Satisfaction Questionnaire (appendix B) where supervisees can indicate their level of satisfaction with the supervision received. Likewise, the Supervisory Working Alliance (SWA) – Supervisee Form (Appendix C) can be utilized to assess the supervisee’s level of comfort working with the supervisor. I like both of these forms because they can provide a wealth of information that can improve my supervisory skills and streamline problems that can arise in the supervisory relationship.
Theory of Counselor Development
My theory of counselor development is simplistic in nature given that it is based on personal investment and growth – hence taking a humanistic approach. I believe that all counselors, whether in the role of supervisor or supervisee, have the ability to learn and grow from every situation. For this reason, my supervision model highlights the fluidity of both supervisor and supervisee. Although the supervisee might possess novice knowledge in the field, he or she can draw from life experiences that paved the way toward success. Combining these experiences with professional knowledge can further personal growth and development. Therefore, the supervisor must be skillful in highlighting some of those skills while teaching the supervisee how to utilize them appropriately. The supervisee can also benefit from cultural sensitivity training as he or she embarks on their professional journey. Providing opportunities where he or she can work with diverse populations can provide a well-rounded experience. The same is true for the supervisor in receiving and implementing cultural and diversity sensitivity training. Essentially, development for both supervisor and supervisee will take place as long as both have an open disposition for learning new trends and explore sensitive areas pertinent to the field.
Relationship to Counselor Theory
My theoretical framework as a counselor up to this point has been a mixture of solution-focused, reality, and cognitive behavioral therapy. As a school counselor, all three of these approaches work beautifully together as they help students take accountability for their part in their presenting problem [reality origin] (Glasser, 1964); explore distorted thoughts by challenging maladaptive conceptions or assumptions [cognitive behavioral approach] (Clarke et al., 2017); and determine the best course of action to move toward their desired outcome [solution-focused approach] (Meyer & Cottone, 2013). Although I have leaned on these theoretical frameworks for the past eight years as a school counselor, I am finding that my supervisory framework is minimally different given that I am not bound by some of the restrictions of the school counseling field. As a supervisor, I have the ability to take a more therapeutic approach with my supervisee while working within a longer timeline than offered in the school setting with students. For this reason, although both counseling and supervisory theories share the solution-focused approach, I find myself being drawn to a humanistic framework that is person-centered in nature and invests in personal development. I enjoy helping people grow and reach self-actualization. I believe that the humanistic approach will most likely be my theoretical framework once I venture into private practice.
​
References
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2019). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (6th Ed.). Pearson Education, Inc.
Borders, L. D., & Brown, L. (2005). The new handbook of counseling supervision. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.
Clarke, C., Hill, V., & Charman, T. (2017). School based cognitive behavioural therapy targeting anxiety in children with autistic spectrum disorder: A quasi-experimental randomized controlled trail incorporation a mixed methods approach. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 47, 3883 – 3895. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1007/s10803-016-2801-x
Freeman, B., Woodliff, T., & Martinez, M. (2020). Teaching gatekeeping to doctoral students: A qualitative study of a developmental experiential approach. The Professional Counselor, 10(4), 562 – 580. https://doi.org/10.15241/bf.10.4.562
Glasser, W. (1964). Reality therapy: Realistic approach to the young offender. Crime and Delinquency, 10(2), 135-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/001112876401000206
Gutierrez, D., Hiatt, K., & Lee, A. (2020). Spiritually competent orientation in supervision: Application of the cultural third. The Clinical Supervisor, 39(2), 210 – 228. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/07325223.2020.1824835
Meyer, D. D., & Cottone, R. R. (2013). Solution-focused therapy as a culturally acknowledging approach with American Indians. Journal of Multicultural Counseling and Development, 41(1), 47 – 55. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1002/j.2161-1912.2013.00026.x
Spellman, K., Dillenbeck, J., Edwards, N. N., & Bohecker, L. (2020). Supporting marginalized students in counselor education and supervision programs. Journal of Counselor Leadership and Adovocacy, 9(1), 32 – 44. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1080/2326716X.2021.2007429
Stargell, N., Craigen, L., Bradley, N., Whisenhunt, J., Campbell, E., & Kress, V. E. (2020). Relational-cultural supervision: A humanistic approach to promoting vulnerability and counselor development. The Journal of Humanistic Counseling, 59(3), 188 – 200. https://doi-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/10.1002/johc.12144