Part 1 article attached Think about previous/current supervisors. Some of them may have been easy to work with, although that didn’t automatically make them good supervisors. Some of them may have be

It is also documented that clinical knowledge and s kills are not as easily transferrable as the master-apprentice model implie s (Falender & Shafranske, 2008). Observing experienced clinicians at work i s without question a useful training tool, but is not sufficient to help studen ts develop the skills necessary to become skilled clinicians themselves. Development is facilitated when the supervisee engages in reflection on the counseling work and relationship, as well a s the supervision itself. Thus, clinical supervision is now recognized as a complex exchange between supervisor and supervisee, with su pervisory models/theories developed to provide a frame for it. In an effort to give the reader a foundation for un derstanding different supervision models, this article highlights informa tion gathered from a variety of authors on the topic of supervision. It does not r epresent all models of supervision, nor does it provide a comprehensive description of each supervisory model presented. Rather, the following presents salient defining characteristics of selected models. For further learning, readings from the re ference section at the end of this paper may be helpful. Psychotherapy-Based Supervision Models As explained above, clinical supervision started as the practice of observing, assisting, and receiving feedback. In this way, su pervision follows the framework and techniques of the specific psychotherapy theory /model being practiced by the supervisor and supervisee. As the need for specifi c supervisory interventions became evident, supervisory models developed within each of these psychotherapy theories/models to address this need. Psychotherapy-based models of supervision often fee l like a natural extension of the therapy itself. “Theoretical orientation infor ms the observation and selection of clinical data for discussion in supervision as well as the meanings and relevance of those data (Falender & Shafaanske, 2008, p. 9). Thus, there is an uninterrupted flow of terminology, focus, and technique from the couns eling session to the supervision session, and back again.

Several examples of specific psychotherapy-based su pervision models are described briefly below. Readers interested in lea rning more about a specific psychotherapy-based supervision approach are referr ed to the references for further reading. Psychodynamic Approach to Supervision : As noted above, psychodynamic supervision draws on the clinical data inherent to that theoretical orientation (e.g., affective reactions, defense mechanisms, transferen ce and countertransferece, etc.). Frawley-O’Dea and Sarnat (2001) classify psychodyna mic supervision into three categories: patient-centered, supervisee-centered, and supervisory-matrix- centered. Patient-centered began with Freud and, as the name implies, focuses the supervision session on the patient’s presentation a nd behaviors. The supervisor’s role is didactic, with the goal of helping the supe rvisee understand and treat the patient’s material. The supervisor is seen as the uninvolved expert who has the knowledge and skills to assist the supervisee, thus giving the supervisor considerable authority (Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 200 1). Because the focus is on the patient, and not on the supervisee or the superviso ry process, very little conflict occurs between supervisor and supervisee, as long a s they both interpret the theoretical orientation in the same way. This lack of conflict or stress in the supervision sessions often reduces the supervisee’s anxiety, making learning easier. Conversely, if conflict were to develop using this model, supervision could be impeded by not having a way to deal directly with i t (Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat).

Supervisee-centered psychodynamic supervision came into popularity in the 1950s, focusing on the content and process of the s upervisee’s experience as a counselor (Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001; Falender & Shafranske, 2008). Process focuses on the supervisee’s resistances, anxieties, and learning problems (Falender & Shafranske). The supervisor’s role in this appro ach is still that of the authoritative, uninvolved expert (Frawley-O’Dea & S arnat), but because the attention is shifted to the psychology of the super visee, supervision utilizing this approach is more experiential than didactic (Falend er & Shafranske). Supervisee-centered supervision was adapted to fit several psychodynamic theories, including Ego Psychology, Self Psychology , and Object Relations (Frawley- O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001). Supervisee-centered superv ision can stimulate growth for the supervisee as a result of gaining an understand ing of his/her own psychological processes, but this same advantage can also be a li mitation in that it makes the supervisee highly susceptible to stress under scrut iny.

The supervisory-matrix-centered approach opens up m ore material in supervision as it not only attends to material of t he client and the supervisee, but also introduces examination of the relationship bet ween supervisor and supervisee. The supervisor’s role is no longer one of uninvolve d expert. Supervision within this approach is relational and the supervisor’s role is to “participate in, reflect upon, and process enactments, and to interpret relational themes that arise within either the therapeutic or supervisory dyads” (Frawley-O’Dea & Sarnat, 2001, p. 41). This includes an examination of parallel process, which is defined as “the supervisee’s interaction with the supervisor that parallels the client’s behavior with the supervisee as the therapist” (Haynes, Corey, & Moul ton, 2003).

Feminist Model of Supervision : Feminist theory affirms that the personal is political; that is, an individual’s experiences are reflective of society’s institutionalized attitudes and values (Feminist Th erapy Institute, 1999). Feminist therapists, then, contextualize the client’s –and t heir own—experiences within the world in which they live, often redefining mental i llness as a consequence of oppressive beliefs and behaviors (Feminist Therapy Institute; Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). Feminist therapy is also described as “gender-fair, flexible, interactional and life-span oriented” (Haynes, Core y, & Moulton, p. 122).

The Ethical Guidelines for Feminist Therapists (Fem inist Therapy Institute, 1999) emphasizes the need for therapists to acknowl edge power differentials in the client-counselor relationship and work to model eff ective use of personal, structural, and institutional power. Though the Gu idelines do not specifically address the supervisee-supervisor relationship, it can be assumed that the same tenets apply to this latter relationship. That is, the supervisor-supervisee relationship strives to be egalitarian to the exten t possible, with the supervisor maintaining focus on the empowerment of the supervi see.

Cognitive-Behavioral Supervision : As with other psychotherapy-based approaches to supervision, an important task for the cognitive -behavioral supervisor is to teach the techniques of the theoretical orientation. Cog nitive-behavioral supervision makes use of observable cognitions and behaviors—pa rticularly of the supervisee’s professional identity and his/her reaction to the c lient (Hayes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). Cognitive-behavioral techniques used in su pervision include setting an agenda for supervision sessions, bridging from prev ious sessions, assigning homework to the supervisee, and capsule summaries b y the supervisor (Liese & Beck, 1997). Person-Centered Supervision : Carl Rogers developed person-centered therapy around the belief that the client has the capacity to effectively resolve life problems without interpretation and direction from the couns elor (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). In the same vein, person-centered supervisi on assumes that the supervisee has the resources to effectively develop as a couns elor. The supervisor is not seen as an expert in this model, but rather serves as a “collaborator” with the supervisee. The supervisor’s role is to provide an environment in which the supervisee can be open to his/her experience and fully engaged with t he client (Lambers, 2000).

In person-centered therapy, “the attitudes and pers onal characteristics of the therapist and the quality of the client-therapist r elationship are the prime determinants of the outcomes of therapy” (Haynes, C orey, & Moulton, 2003, p. 118). Person-centered supervision adopts this tenet as we ll, relying heavily on the supervisor-supervisee relationship to facilitate effective learning and growth in supervision. Developmental Models of Supervision In general, developmental models of supervision def ine progressive stages of supervisee development from novice to expert 1, each stage consisting of discrete characteristics and skills. For example, supervise es at the beginning or novice stage would be expected to have limited skills and lack c onfidence as counselors, while middle stage supervisees might have more skill and confidence and have conflicting feelings about perceived independence/dependence on the supervisor. A supervisee at the expert end of the developmental s pectrum is likely to utilize good problem-solving skills and be reflective about the counseling and supervisory process (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). For supervisors employing a development approach to supervision, the key is to accurately identify the supervisee’s current stage and provide feedback and support appropriate to that developmental stage, while at t he same time facilitating the supervisee’s progression to the next stage (Littrel l, Lee-Borden, & Lorenz, 1979; Loganbill, Hardy, & Delworth, 1982; Stoltenberg & D elworth, 1987). To this end, a supervisor uses an interactive process, often refer red to as “scaffolding” (Zimmerman & Schunk, 2003), which encourages the su pervisee to use prior knowledge and skills to produce new learning. As t he supervisee approaches mastery at each stage, the supervisor gradually mov es the scaffold to incorporate knowledge and skills from the next advanced stage. Throughout this process, not only is the supervisee exposed to new information a nd counseling skills, but the interaction between supervisor and supervisee also fosters the development of advanced critical thinking skills. While the proce ss, as described, appears linear, it is not. A supervisee may be in different stages si multaneously; that is, the supervisee may be at mid-level development overall, but experience high anxiety 2 when faced with a new client situation. Integrated Development Model : One of the most researched developmental models of supervision is the Integrated Developmental Mode l (IDM) developed by Stoltenberg (1981) and Stoltenberg and Delworth (19 87) and, finally, by Stoltenberg, McNeill, and Delworth (1998) (Falender & Shafranske, 2004; Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). The IDM describes three l evels of counselor development: Level 1 supervisees are generally entry-level stude nts who are high in motivation, yet high in anxiety and fearful of eval uation; 1 Different development theorists use their own nome nclature to describe each stage. “Novice” and “expert” are used here as repr esentative of the labeled stages.

2 Supervisee high anxiety is a Level-1 characteristic in Stoltenberg, McNeill and Delworth’s Integrated Development Model (IDM) (1998 ). Level 2 supervisees are at mid-level and experience fluctuating confidence and motivation, often linking their own mood to suc cess with clients; and Level 3 supervisees are essentially secure, stable in motivation, have accurate empathy tempered by objectivity, and use t herapeutic self in intervention. (Falender & Shafranske) As noted earlier, the IDM stresses the need for the supervisor to utilize skills and approaches that correspond to the level of the supe rvisee. So, for example, when working with a level-1 supervisee, the supervisor n eeds to balance the supervisee’s high anxiety and dependence by being supportive and prescriptive. The same supervisor when supervising a level-3 supervisee wo uld emphasize supervisee autonomy and engage in collegial challenging. If a supervisor was to consistently mismatch his/her responses to the developmental lev el of the supervisee, it would likely result in significant difficulty for the sup ervisee to satisfactorily master the current developmental stage. For example, a superv isor who demands autonomous behavior from a level-1 supervisee is likely to int ensify the supervisee’s anxiety.

While presenting a clear and flexible conceptual mo del of the developmental approach to supervision, the IDM does have some wea knesses. For one, it focuses predominantly on the development of graduate studen ts in training, with little application to post-degree supervision. For anothe r, it presents limited suggestions for specific supervision methods that are applicabl e at each supervisee level (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 2003). An alternative d evelopmental model proposed by Ronnestad and Skovholt (1993, 2003; Skovholt & R onnestad, 1992) addresses effectively the IDM’s first weakness by providing a framework to describe development across the life span of the counselor’s career.

Ronnestad and Skovholt’s Model This model is based on a longitudinal qualitative s tudy conducted by interviewing 100 counselors/therapists, ranging in experience (a t the beginning of the study) from graduate students to professionals with an ave rage of 25 years of experience (Skovholt & Ronnestad, 1192). Ronnestad and Skovho lt analyzed the resulting data in three ways, coming up with a stage model, a them e formulation , and a professional model of development and stagnation (R onnestad & Skovholt, 2003). In the most recent revision (2003), the model is c omprised of six phases 3 of development. The first three phases ( The Lay Helper, The Beginning Student Phase, and The Advanced Student Phase ) roughly correspond with the levels of the IDM. The remaining three phases ( The Novice Professional Phase, The Experienced Professional Phase, and The Senior Professional Phase ) are self-explanatory in terms of the relative occurrence of the phase in relation to the counselor’s career.

3 Ronnestad and Skovholt (2003) dropped stage in favor of phrase, saying that the former denoted “hierarchical, sequential and invari ant ordering of qualitatively different functioning/structures” (p. 40). Phase, they felt, emphasized “the gradual and continuous nature of changes therapists go thro ugh” (p. 40). In addition to the phase model, Ronnestad and Skovholt’s (2003) analysis found 14 themes of counselor development. These are: 1. Professional development involves an increasing hig her-order integration of the professional self and the personal self 2. The focus of functioning shifts dramatically over t ime from internal to external to internal.

3. Continuous reflection is a prerequisite for optimal learning and professional development at all levels of experience.

4. An intense commitment to learn propels the developm ental process.

5. The cognitive map changes: Beginning practitioners rely on external expertise, seasoned practitioners rely on internal expertise.

6. Professional development is long, slow, continuous process that can also be erratic.

7. Professional development is a life-long process.

8. Many beginning practitioners experience much anxiet y in their professional work. Over time, anxiety is mastered by most.

9. Clients serve as a major source of influence and se rve as primary teachers.

10. Personal life influences professional functioning a nd development throughout the professional life span.

11. Interpersonal sources of influence propel professio nal development more than ‘impersonal’ sources of influence.

12. New members of the field view professional elders a nd graduate training with strong affective reactions.

13. Extensive experience with suffering contributes to heightened recognition, acceptance and appreciation of human variability.

14. For the practitioner there is a realignment from se lf as hero to client as hero.

In sum, Ronnestad and Skovholt (2003) note that cou nselor/therapist development is a complex process requiring continuo us reflection. They also state that much like the client-counselor relationship’s strong influence on treatment outcomes, research findings support “a close and re ciprocal relationship between how counselors/therapists handle challenges and dif ficulties in the client relationship and experiences of professional growth or stagnation” (p. 40).

Integrative Models of Supervision As the name implies, integrative models of supervis ion rely on more than one theory and technique (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 200 3). Given the large number of theories and methods that exist with respect to sup ervision, an infinite number of “integrations” are possible. In fact, because most counselors today practice what they describe as integrative counseling, integrativ e models of supervision are also widely practiced (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton). Hayne s, Corey, and Moulton describe two approaches to integration: technical eclectici sm and theoretical integration. Technical eclecticism tends to focus on differences, chooses from many approaches, and is a collection of techniques. Thi s path calls for using techniques from different schools without necessarily subscribing to the theoretical positions that spawned them. In co ntrast, theoretical integration refers to a conceptual or theoretical creation bey ond a mere blending of techniques. This path has the goa l of producing a conceptual framework that synthesizes the best of t wo or more theoretical approaches to produce an outcome richer than that of a single theory. (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, p. 124).

Examples of Integrative supervision models include: Bernard’s (1979) discrimination model, Holloway’s (1995) systems app roach to supervision, Ward and House’s (1998) reflective learning model, and G reenwald and Young’s (1998) schema-focused model (Haynes, Corey, & Moulton, 200 3).

Bernard’s Discrimination Model : Today, one of the most commonly used and researched integrative models of supervision is the Discrimination Model, originally published by Janine Bernard in 1979. This model is comprised of three separate foci for supervision (i.e., intervention, conceptualizat ion, and personalization) and three possible supervisor roles (i.e., teacher, counselor , and consultant) (Bernard & Goodyear, 2009). The supervisor could, in any give n moment, respond from one of nine ways (three roles x three foci). For example, the supervisor may take on the role of teacher while focusing on a specific interv ention used by the supervisee in the client session, or the role of counselor while focusing on the supervisee’s conceptualization of the work. Because the respons e is always specific to the supervisee’s needs, it changes within and across se ssions.

The supervisor first evaluates the supervisee’s abi lity within the focus area, and then selects the appropriate role from which to res pond. Bernard and Goodyear (2009) caution supervisors not to respond from the same focus or role out of personal preference, comfort, or habit, but instead to ensure the focus and role meet the most salient needs of the supervisee in that mo ment. Systems Approach : In the systems approach to supervision, the heart of supervision is the relationship between supervisor and supervis ee, which is mutually involving and aimed at bestowing power to both members (Hollo way, 1995). Holloway describes seven dimensions of supervision, all conn ected by the central supervisory relationship. These dimensions are: the functions of supervision, the tasks of supervision, the client, the trainee, the superviso r, and the institution (Holloway). The function and tasks of supervision are at the fo reground of interaction, while the latter four dimensions represent unique contextual factors that are, according to Holloway, covert influences in the supervisory proc ess. Supervision in any particular instance is seen to be reflective of a u nique combination of these seven dimensions. Conclusion Clinical supervision is a complex activity. “The competent clinical supervisor must embrace not only the domain of psychological s cience, but also the domains of client service and trainee development. The compet ent supervisor must not only comprehend how these various knowledge bases are co nnected, but also apply them to the individual case” (Holloway & Wolleat, 1994, p. 30). This article summarized various supervision models, with the goal of helpin g to increase the reader’s theoretical knowledge base, thereby enhancing the f oundation of supervisory competence. As one can see from the above description, numerous models of supervision have been developed and applied. Some have had a l imited constituency, while others have resonated with many practitioners, evol ved, and thrived. No matter your chosen approach to supervision, it is importan t for it to be grounded in a theoretical framework. The aim of this article has been to give the reader an introduction to some of the supervision models avai lable. You are encouraged to pursue further readings in order to identify or enh ance your personal supervisory orientation. REFERENCES Bernard, J. M. (1979). Supervisor training: A disc rimination model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19 , 60-68.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2009). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4 th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Falender, C. A., & Shafranske, E. P. (2004). Clinical supervision: A competency-based approach . Washington, DC: American Psychological Associati on.

Feminist Therapy Institute (1999). Feminist Therap y Code of Ethics. Retrieved August 14, 2009, from http://www.feminist-therapy-institute.org/ethics.ht m Haynes, R., Corey, G., & Moulton, P. (2003). Clinical supervision in the helping professions: A practical guide. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

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

Sage.

Holloway, E., & Wolleat, P. L. (1994). Supervisio n: The pragmatics of empowerment. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultati on, 5(1), 23-43.

Lambers, E. (2000). Supervision in person-centered therapy: Facilitating congruence. In E. Mearns & B. Thorne (Eds.), Person-centered therapy today:

New frontiers in theory and practice (pp. 196-211). London: Sage.

Liese, B. S., & Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive ther apy supervision. In C. E. Watkins, Jr.

(Ed.), Handbook of psychotherapy supervision (pp. 114-133). New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Littrell, J. M., Lee-Borden, N., & Lorenz, J. A. (1 979). A developmental framework for counseling supervision. Counselor Education and Supervision, 19 , 119-136.

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

Ronnestad, M. H., & Skovolt, T. M. (1993). Supervis ion of beginning and advanced graduate students of counseling and psychotherapy. Journal of Counseling and Development, 71 , 396-405.

Ronnestad, M. H. & Skovholt, T. M. (2003). The jou rney of the counselor and therapist: Research findings and perspectives on pr ofessional development. Journal of Career Development, 30, 5-44.

Skovolt, T. M., & Ronnestad, M. H. (1992). The evolving professional self: Stages and themes in therapist and counselor development. Chichester, England: Wiley. Stoltenberg, C. D. (1981). Approaching supervision from a developmental perspective: The counselor complexity model. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 28 , 59-65.

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

Stoltenberg, C. D., McNeill, B., & Delworth, U. (19 98). IDM supervision: An integrated developmental model for supervising counselors and therapists. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Ward, C. C., & House, R. M. (1998). Counseling sup ervision: A reflective model. Counselor Education and Supervision, 38 , 23-33. Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. S. (Eds.). (2003). Educational psychology: A century of contributions . Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.