0c960533b2b3badfaf000000

MANAGING AND RESOLVING CONFLICTIN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM

Alan W. KorinekThomas G. Kimball

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to offer a brief review ofrelevant literature on conflict in the therapist-supervisor system. Theauthors discuss factors that contribute to conflict and the principalareas of disagreement in the supervisory system. Additionally, the au-thors present several ideas regarding what a supervisor can do proac-tively to prevent conflict within supervision. Finally, various ways toaddress and resolve supervisor-trainee conflict, including terminatingthe supervisory relationship, are discussed.

KEY WORDS: marital and family therapy supervision; supervisor; training; therapist-in-training; conflict management; conflict resolution.

Conflict is a word that often evokes negative images. Conflict inthe context of a helping relationship, such as the relationship betweena supervisor and a trainee, seems especially incongruent and problem-atic. Just the thought of it can create discomfort, anxiety, and disso-nance. The actual experience of conflict in such a relationship mayraise the issue of fit between a supervisor and a trainee.

Although constant conflict within marital and family therapy su-pervision may signal the need to reconsider fit and perhaps even toterminate the relationship between supervisor and trainee, the merepresence of conflict does not imply the need for either option. Conflictand disagreement between supervisors and trainees is inevitable; at

Alan W. Korinek, PhD, LMFT, is Associate Director of the Texas Tech UniversityHealth Sciences Center Employee Assistance Program, TTUHSC, Department of Neuro-psychiatry, 3601 4th Street, Lubbock TX 79430 ([email protected]). Thomas G.Kimball, PhD, LMFT, is Associate Director of Research and Organizational Interven-tions, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Employee Assistance Program,Department of Neuropsychiatry, 3601 4th Street, Lubbock, TX 79430 ([email protected]). Reprint requests should be sent to the first author.

Contemporary Family Therapy 25(3), September 2003 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc. 295

296

CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

the same time, conflict that is not resolved in a satisfactory mannercan be damaging and destructive, not only to those in the supervisorysystem, but to others as well (e.g., clients).

The purpose of this article is to offer a review of pertinent literatureon dealingwith conflict in the therapy supervisor system and to identifycommon factors associated with conflict that occur between supervisorsand trainees. The authors focus on the literature that applies specifi-cally to supervision within the field of Marriage and Family Therapy(MFT). Literature from other related disciplines was utilized whereappropriate. Additionally, the authors present several ideas regardingsteps a supervisor can take to minimize conflict within the supervisorysystem. Finally, the authors discuss ways to address and resolve super-visor-trainee conflict. Although the article is focused more specificallyon supervision within the MFT field, the concepts presented are seento have broader application to the general field of psychotherapy andthe supervision and training of its therapists.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONFLICTIN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM

It is important to note that conflict in interpersonal relationshipsis inevitable due to the interdependency that exists within such rela-tionships. The definition of conflict offered byHocker andWilmot (1995)underscores the role interdependency plays in the creation and mainte-nance of conflict: Conflict is an expressed struggle between at leasttwo interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarcerewards, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals(p. 20). The trainee depends upon the supervisor to impart knowledgeand provide skills training that will prepare the trainee to do therapy.The trainee also needs supervision hours and credit in order to meetimportant goals (e.g., course credit, licensure, and/or membership in aprofessional organization). Similarly, the supervisor may depend uponthe trainee as an important source of professional identity, work respon-sibility, and income.

Interdependency by itself does not create conflict; rather it setsthe stage for conflict to occur. As Hocker and Wilmot (1995) noted,conflict transpires when there is the perception of incompatible goals,scarce rewards, and interference from the other party in achievingones goals. In other words, conflict is manifested when needs and goalsof supervisors and trainees collide (Liddle, 1988).

297

ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

One mutual need that may create conflict is the desire to beperceived as competent. Liddle (1988) stated, Fear of exposing onespersonal, interpersonal, cognitive, and professional inadequacies; per-formance anxiety; competitiveness with colleagues . . . are the mostobvious and intensely felt concomitants of being supervised and con-ducting supervision (p. 154). Many supervisors, especially those newto the role, may lack confidence in themselves. The inevitable chal-lenges to their conceptual models of therapy and/or their style of super-vision can lead to symmetrical escalations that permeate every aspectof training (Schwartz, 1988).

Incompatible goals can also result in conflict. Both trainer andtrainee have expectations for the training experience. The degree offit between these sets of expectations often determines the degree ofadjustment in the relationship (Schwartz, 1988). For example, the su-pervisors goal may be to foster the trainees development and growth,perhaps by expanding the new therapists repertoire of interventionsand perspectives of cases. The trainees goal, however, may be to con-serve asmuch energy as possible due to amyriad of competing demands.Another example of competing demands occurs when the supervisoris focused on the trainees personal and professional growth and thetrainees main focus is on obtaining a credential. Such differences ingoals are almost sure to create conflict.

Differences in learning styles, therapy orientation, and personalityare also common sources of conflict in the supervisory relationship.These differences may include disparities in learning styles (visual,auditory, kinesthetic, tactile) and in personality and working styles assuggested by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1980). Conflictcan also occur with trainees who previously learned other ways tointervene with clients (Alderfer & Lynch, 1986). Shifting from an indi-vidual to a systemic model or from a deficit to a strength model canbe difficult for a trainee. Moskowitz and Rupert (1983) found thatconflicts over differences in preferred model of therapy are far moredifficult to resolve satisfactorily than conflicts created by the supervi-sors style of supervision. Similarities between trainers and traineescan also be a source of difficulty in the supervisory relationship. Thecloser they are in age, years of clinical experience, and academic degree,the more difficulty they may experience in attempting to establish anddefine a complementary teacher-student relationship (Schwartz, 1988).

Role ambiguity and role conflict are other sources of difficulty inthe supervisory system. Role ambiguity is the lack of clarity regardingthe expectations for ones role, the methods for fulfilling them, and

298


the consequences for effective or ineffective performance. Role conflictoccurs when one faces expectations requiring behaviors that are mutu-ally competing or opposing (Biddle, 1979). Olk and Friedlander (1992)found that role ambiguity is more prevalent across training levels, butit typically diminishes with increasing experience. Role conflict, on theother hand, is an issue for advanced trainees. In the role of student,they are expected to follow the supervisors directives, but as therapistsand colleagues, they are expected to demonstrate a capacity for autono-mous decision-making.

Another potential source of conflict between a supervisor and atrainee is an unconscious attempt to pattern the supervisory relation-ship after past relationships where there was unfinished business(Alderfer & Lynch, 1986). Freud (1958) used the term transferenceto refer to clients displacement or projection onto their therapist offeelings, impulses, and fantasies from important relationships. Thera-pists reactions to clients transferences (i.e., their own displacementsor projections onto clients) Freud termed countertransference. Manyauthors within the MFT field (e.g., Liddle & Saba, 1983, 1985; Schwartz,Liddle, & Breunlin, 1988) prefer the term isomorphism to describehow interactions between supervisor and traineemay resemble interac-tions between the trainee and the client(s) and/or the trainee andmembers of his or her family. Significant problems can occur whensupervisors are not aware of the presence of isomorphic processes(Rigazio-DiGilio, 1997; Schwartz, Liddle, & Breunlin, 1988).

PRINCIPAL AREAS OF DISAGREEMENTBETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND TRAINEES

Although conflict between a supervisor and trainee may occur forany of the reasons discussed above, it is the authors observations thatconflict very often manifests itself around disagreements related to thetrainees clinical work. In this section, the authors will discuss theaspects of clinical work that they have experienced to be sources ofconflict.

Case conceptualization is a common source of disagreement be-tween supervisors and trainees. For example, in a case where onepartner presents with symptoms of depression, the trainee may viewthe case as one inwhich the individualwith depression needs individualtherapy and/or medication, while the supervisor conceptualizes it as acase for which couple therapy is appropriate. It is common for beginning

299


therapists, especially those with a strong individual therapy approach,to diminish the role of the other person or disregard one person to forman alliance with the other.

Another area of clinical work where disagreements often occur isthe area of therapeutic intervention. The trainee may wish to interveneby making a referral to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation orby excluding the clients partner, while the supervisor may want todirect the couple to interact with one another so that underlying systemdynamics (e.g., pattern of blame-withdraw) may emerge. Traineessometimes feel reluctant to address issues of domestic violence, sub-stance abuse, and/or sexual dysfunction, and they may delay askingquestions. As one trainee said, If I ask about sex and drugs, I mighthave to do something about it, and I may not know what to do.

Conflict also occurs over case management issues. For example,the supervisor could have specific requirements regarding the formatand quality of clinical case notes. As quality is much more subjectivein nature, disagreement regarding the adequacy of the case notes mayoccur. Whereas the trainee believes the case notes are sufficient, thesupervisor could disagree and insist that they be done differently (e.g.,include more or less detail). The insistence that case notes be writtendifferently may be solely a matter of the supervisors personal prefer-ence and/or it may stem from concerns regarding liability issues (e.g.,requirement/standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation ofHealth Care Organizations or other professional accrediting bodies).A more critical issue arises when deciding to notify another agency(e.g., child protective services, probation department, police) about aclient or client system. The trainee may be reluctant to do so for fearof losing the case; the supervisor may be hyper-vigilant to such issuesto avoid liability.

The supervision process itself can become a place where disagree-ments arise. Supervisors and traineesmay disagree, for example, aboutthe structure of the supervision hour. For example, conflict emergeswhen the trainee wishes to devote the majority of the time to talkingabout one or two specific cases, while the supervisor wishes to spendsome of the hour reviewing the case notes to ensure that they are inaccordance with agency/organizational standards. Family therapistspioneered videotape supervision; however, trainees often want to showonly their best work and may bring only one or two videotapes tosupervision. Furthermore, talking about what went on in the therapysession will reveal the therapists biases and insecurities. Thus, atrainee may want to give verbal descriptions of his or her work with

300


a client, while the supervisor insists that the trainee show a videotapeof the session.

Live supervision of the trainees work is another arena for conflictbetween supervisors and trainees. Various authors (e.g., Elizur, 1990;Schwartz et al., 1988) discuss the potential for conflict when live super-vision is used. Initially, trainees typically feel nervous and are consciousof the supervisor behind the mirror or at the monitor. Taking a mid-session break to consult with the supervisor or receiving a phone callwith instructions can heighten the trainees anxiety. For supervisors,live supervision can also be a very stressful experience. Tension in theclient system is easily transferred into the supervisory relationshipand vice versa, creating deadlocks that are difficult to resolve (Elizur,1990). Furthermore, conflict over who is responsible for the client mayarise. Gottlieb (1995) notes that with so-called vertical models of super-vision (e.g., Haley, 1976, 1996), the lines of responsibility are very clear.Conversely, supervisors, who use a horizontal model or a more collabo-rative/team approach, may face issues of responsibility that are oftenunclear. For example, whether a trainee can act independently or mustfirst consult with the supervisor is an important issue that needs ad-dressing.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZECONFLICT IN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM

Although conflict in the supervisory system is inevitable, the amountof conflict that supervisors and trainees experience can be reduced andmanaged. The following paragraphs delineate several things that asupervisor can do to minimize the frequency and intensity of conflictwith her or his trainees.

First, supervisors should make an effort to join well with theirtrainees. Alderfer and Lynch (1986) state, The relationship betweenthe supervisor and the trainee has more impact on the success of theprocess of supervision than any other factor (p. 70). In the initial stageof the supervisory relationship, supervisors join with their trainees byusing their language and accepting their epistemologies (Schwartz,1988). Supervisors can also assess each trainees unique learning style,using this type of assessment to determine how best tomeet the individ-uals training needs (Rigazio-DiGilio & Anderson, 1994). Although itmay be necessary to challenge a trainees framework of therapy atsome time, to do so immediately invites defensiveness, transference,and resistance.

301


A supervisor should maintain a good connection with a trainee bydisplaying a positive and supportive attitude. Snyders (1986) statedthat one cardinal rule in supervisory interactions should be that thetherapist as a person should always be supported and respected, how-ever much his or her functions may be challenged, provoked, amplified,or criticized (p. 18). Supervisors should try to identify, support, andcatalyze trainee strengths. A supportive environment for training isfurther enhanced when supervisors reduce the evaluative focus of su-pervision (Schwartz, 1988). Supervisors who function as deficit detec-tives create considerable anxiety for their trainees (Liddle, 1988). Onesuggestion is for the supervisor to define the supervisory relationshipby implying or stating overtly early on that she or he believes thetrainee is, or has the potential to be, a good therapist. Supervisors maywish to exercise caution in making such statements since if this is donetoo quickly or too facilely the potential to create genuine conflict mayarise particularly if it becomes apparent that the trainee is not perform-ing as a potentially good therapist. In such cases supervisors may thinkabout other means to support their trainee such as providing them withhonest and respectful feedback about their skill level. Another sugges-tion is for the supervisor to display an attitude about the traineesperformance that implies that while there is an investment in thetrainees development, the supervisors identity as a competent traineris not dependent upon the trainees performance or the clients outcome.Supervisors should also be careful not to blend support with criticismor add criticism as a caboose at the end of positive statements, asdoing so will negate the support.

A secondway tominimize conflict in the supervisory relationship isto create a good supervision contract. An effective supervision contractoutlines logistics, clarifies the supervisory relationship, identifies goals,describes supervision methods, reviews clinical issues, complies withcredentialing requirements, and specifies evaluation procedures (Storm,1997). A useful contract will also include provisions for renegotiatingthe contract or resolving supervision disagreement. Some supervisorsinclude a provision to include third parties to help in conflict resolution(Fine & Turner, 1997). Provisions for terminating the supervisory rela-tionship should also be spelled out in the contract, including groundsfor termination. Finally, if supervision is leading toward licensure,certification, and/or designation, it is wise to include a specific state-ment that participation in supervision does not guarantee that thesupervisor will endorse or support the trainee.

Balancing hierarchy and power is a fourth way to minimize conflictin the supervisory system. Although the supervisory relationship is

302


hierarchical by its very nature (Hicks & Cornille, 1999; Nichols, 1988)and the supervisor must have final say in case management matterssince she or he bears legal responsibility (Huber, 1994), supervisorscan mind the power inherent in their evaluative position, therebyincreasing the trainees personal agency and leveling the hierarchy(Fine & Turner, 1997). One way to level the hierarchy is to develop acontract that stipulates shared responsibility between supervisor andtrainee for change, learning, and evaluation (Wheeler, Avis, Miller, &Chaney, 1985). In any event, trainees should be given increased auton-omy as the supervision process progresses. In the later stages of train-ing, when trainees have demonstrated the capacity to generate soundclinical alternatives, supervisors should function more as consultants(Liddle, 1988; Nichols, 1988). To avoid the resistance that often accom-panies insufficient autonomy, a supervisor might tell a trainee, Nowthat you have had some experience, I will expect you to bring up theissues that you want to discuss. Unless you tell me differently, I willassume that everything is okay.

When thinking about power in supervisory relationships, the su-pervisor is encouraged to pay special attention to diversity issues. Train-ees and supervisors may experience anxiety about gender, race, andethnic biases. If not managed effectively, this type of anxiety can inter-fere with both the supervisory relationship and the therapy process(Watson, 1993). Given that male and female therapists often havedifferent experiences in therapy (Warburton, Newberry, & Alexander,1989), supervisorswill dowell to recognize and overtly challenge genderissues as they occur in therapy or supervision (Wheeler et al., 1985).

Supervisors who attend to self-of-supervisor issues and exercisehumility are also in better positions to minimize conflict in the supervi-sory relationship. Although supervisor and trainee both bear someresponsibility for the quality and tone of the supervisory relationship,the greatest responsibility belongs to the supervisor (Alderfer & Lynch,1986). The quality of the relationship depends upon the supervisorswillingness to pay attention to person of the supervisor issues insupervision (Watson, 1993). Maintaining such a self-focus may pose adilemma for some supervisors, as it requires stepping down from theexpert position and becoming vulnerable. At the same time, supervisorswho take responsibility for monitoring their own behavior provide agood example for trainees to follow in their work with clients.

An attitude of humility on the part of supervisors can promoteless conflictual relationships with trainees. When supervisors showfallibility and are willing to admit their own mistakes, while at the

303


same time maintaining a sense of leadership and confidence, it servesto create a noncompetitive atmosphere and prevents an increasingcycle of blame and demoralization (Breunlin, Liddle, & Schwartz, 1988;Schwartz, 1988).

Another way to create less conflicted supervisory relationshipsinvolves knowing when to confront and when to refrain from confronta-tion. The inevitability of conflict in the supervisory relationship meansthat potential battles abound, but not every battle needs to be fought.Schwartz (1988) observed that traineeswho value dialectical exchangessometimes will strongly challenge a supervisors suggestion, only tofollow the suggestion in the therapy room. Two important battles worthwaging in supervision are the battle for structure and the battle forinitiative (Boylin, Anderson, & Bartle, 1992; Whitaker & Napier, 1977).Though originally conceptualized as issues in a therapists work withclients, these battles also occur in supervision. The battle for structureestablishes the supervisors position in the supervisory system as thefacilitator of growth and change, while the battle for initiative is overthe responsibility for that growth. Winning the battles for structureand initiative does not preclude the development of amore collaborativerelationship between a supervisor and her or his trainees. As notedpreviously, the supervisory relationship should becomemore collabora-tive and the trainee more independent as she or he gains confidenceand competency.

WAYS TO HANDLE AND RESOLVE CONFLICT

Thus far, the inevitability of disagreement and conflict in supervi-sion has been discussed, along with ways to minimize them. Suchconflict may be overt, but it is much more likely to be covert, especiallyat low levels of disagreement. Ratliff, Wampler, andMorris (2000) usedthe term dissensus to describe occasions of misunderstanding anddisagreement that commonly occur during supervision. In this studyinvolving supervisors and trainees within two MFT programs, the au-thors identified different types of supervisor responses to dissensusand placed them into two general categories: (1) attempts to influence;and (2) statements of judgment. The latter category ismore confrontive.Trainee responses to dissensus all fall into one category, attempts tocomply, and they varied in terms of the degree of compliance.

Ratliff and associates (2000) found that although dissensus in su-pervision is common, supervisors or trainees rarely acknowledged dif-

304


ferences of opinion. Instead, supervisors and trainees would engage ina lower level of dissensus and then proceed to other topics without anexplicit acknowledgement of error by the trainee or explicit criticismby the supervisor. The most confrontive supervisory responses wererarely used, being reserved for instanceswhere other tactics of influenceand judgment had been unsuccessfully employed, and there were noinstances of explicit non-compliance by trainees.

Ratliff and colleagues (2000) also argued that the tactics used bysupervisors and trainees relate to strategies used in the presentationof self (Goffman, 1967). Trainees wish to present themselves both ascompetent in the therapy roomand cooperative in the supervision room.Consequently, the trainee may agree with the supervisors comments,but then defend in-session behavior as appropriate to the context (i.e.,Yes, I hear what youre saying, but . . .). Supervisors tactfulness insupervision may be demonstrated by their ability to refrain from intro-ducing explicit contradictions when trainees present themselves asboth competent and cooperative. The tactful supervisor may even takethe blame for a failed intervention, suppressing the urge to blame thetherapist. Such a collaborative dance between supervisor and traineecontinues until such time as the latter appears unresponsive to thesupervisor, in which case the supervisor may escalate the confrontationmaking the conflict more overt (Ratliff et al., 2000). A trainee who feelsattacked and belittled by the supervisor could eventually refuse tocarry out the supervisors suggestions and directives, begin avoidingsupervision sessions, and/or terminate supervision.

An awareness of these dynamics allows supervisors to exercisegreater care in using responses that facilitate, rather than frustrate, theattainment of important goals in supervision. If a supervisor escalatesconfrontation too quickly, the end result may be increased dependencyon the part of the trainee. Warning signs of increasing dependence bya trainee include asking many questions (especially in response to aquestion from the supervisor), deferring continually to the supervisor,and being unwilling to discuss or challenge a directive given by thesupervisor (Ratliff et al., 2000).

Metacommunication, defined as communicating about the processin a relationship (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967), is an impor-tant conflict resolution skill. Most disagreements in supervision arereally issues of dissensus that can be easily resolved (Ratliff et al.,2000); however, dissensus that is not resolved may develop into overtconflict. If conflict reaches a level at which it poses a threat to theviability of the supervisory relationship and the trainees development,

305


the supervisor should take the initiative. Using the skill of metacom-munication, the supervisor addresses the situation in a straightforwardbut respectful manner. Effective metacommunication involves the su-pervisor taking appropriate responsibility for self as the conflict isprocessed and strategies for resolving the conflict are developed.

A form of metacommunication that may serve to prevent an escala-tion in conflict involves regularly asking for feedback regarding thesupervisory process (Todd, 1997a). The usefulness of the practice, how-ever, depends upon the sincerity of the supervisor who is making therequest. Supervisors who wish to hear only positive feedback will likelyreceive little feedback at all. Todd (1997b) stated, Ideally the supervi-sor should ask for the feedback that the supervisor considers mostrelevant to the supervisor, while leaving enough questions open-endedand unstructured to allow feedback expressed from the point of viewof the trainee (p. 245). For example, the supervisor might say, I thinkits important as we go along that we continue to talk about whatshappening in supervision. I wonder how youre feeling about it. It isimportant for supervisors to remember that they can only ask traineesto provide such feedback; the trainee must choose whether or not todo so.

Ideally, conflict resolution in the supervisory relationship will bea collaborative, win-win process. Much has been written about thissubject and most readers probably will be quite familiar with it. Toreview, successful employment of a win-win approach often beginswith adopting a different metaphor for dealing with disagreement.Elgin (1997) noted that the metaphors most often used (e.g., disagree-ment is combat or disagreement is a contest) imply a zero-sum gamewhere every disagreement has to end with a winner and a loser(p. 80). Instead she suggested the metaphor disagreement is carpen-try, which emphasizes building a meaningful solution together and iscollaborative rather than competitive (Elgin, 1997).

Win-win conflict resolution includes six steps: (1) Identify theproblem and unmet needs; (2) Make a date to discuss the problemand needs; (3) Describe the problem and needs from each personsperspective; (4) Consider the other persons point of view; (5)Negotiate asolution; and (6) Follow up the solution (Adler&Towne, 1996). Traineesshould be encouraged to invest in the process and offer possible solu-tions. In these interactions, supervisors must be especially careful inmonitoring power issues (Fine &Turner, 1997). A supervisor, cognizantof his or her legal responsibility for case management, may reserve theright to choose the solution from those generated, but that possibility

306


should be explained prior to engaging in the process. Otherwise, train-ees may feel that their contribution to the process was in vain.

WHEN DISAGREEMENTS AND CONFLICTCANNOT BE RESOLVED

Although the goal is to settle disagreements and resolve conflictsthat occur within the supervisory system, there are those times whenneither can be accomplished. Todd (1997b) asserted that a good supervi-sory contract will consider, and provide for, the possibility that conflictbetween a supervisor and a trainee cannot be resolved and supervisionwill terminate. The easiest form of premature termination is endingsupervision by mutual consent. Ideally, the situation is recognizedsooner rather than later, for the longer the supervisory relationshiphas continued, the more involved termination will be (Todd, 1997b).Difficult but important questions must be addressed (e.g., Will thetrainee receive full credit for the hours, and/or will the supervisor sendin an evaluation?). When a specific number of hours of supervision isrequired by an outside agent or by law, late termination may be espe-cially problematic.

Unfortunately, there is relatively little guidance in the literatureregarding the process of termination in supervision. Mead (1990) listsfour supervisory tasks that should be undertaken in the event thattermination becomes necessary: (1) Summarize the progress made bythe trainee; (2) Discuss further needs for training and supervision; (3)Promote generalization from supervision; and (4) Resolve interpersonalissues between the supervisor and trainee and bring supervision toclosure (Mead, 1990, p. 127). Accomplishing these tasks when tensionis high may be difficult. Todd (1997b) encouraged supervisors to avoidabandonment when ending supervision by at least attempting to achievethe four supervising tasks. He also suggested that the situation mayimprove if the supervisor places the trainees supervision experienceinto a larger context, framing it as one step in a long-term process.

The context of supervision can also make a significant difference inthe termination process. For example, the termination of a supervisoryrelationship within a graduate training program can have far differentconsequences for the trainee than the termination of a supervisoryrelationship by which a therapist in private practice is attempting togain an additional license. With a graduate program, the traineesdegree and career may be at stake. The high level of dependency, and

307


the fact that the trainee is likely to be at a much earlier stage ofdevelopment, dramatically increases the degree of vulnerability experi-enced by the trainee. Supervisors will wish to be sensitive to suchvulnerability and factor it into their functioning at every stage of thesupervisory process. Also, the greater the vulnerability, themore essen-tial it is that expectations and grounds for termination are spelled outin a supervision contract. For graduate programs, such stipulationsare normally included in the programs policies and procedures andcommunicated clearly to everyone who is either in the program orinterested in becoming part of the program. MFT programs are wiseto provide such information in order to avoid legal liability in cases oflitigation over termination of a student.

In rare instances, a supervisor may feel compelled to counsel atrainee out of the profession (Mead, 1990). Given the usual complexityof such situations, Todd (1997b) advocated taking as much time as isnecessary to ensure that the most possible and most peaceful outcomeis achieved. As stated earlier, honest and respectful feedback is sug-gested. In addition, regular consultation with knowledgeable parties(e.g., legal counsel) may be an essential part of the process.

DISCUSSION

Conflict within the supervisory relationship is inevitable, but itdoes not have to be destructive or disrupt learning. The authors havediscussed several important things a supervisor can do both tominimizethe frequency and severity of conflict and to resolve conflict when itdoes occur. By applying these principles and practices, supervisors cancreate and maintain relationships with trainees that are as mutuallysatisfying as possible.

Most of what has been written in this article applies to all stylesand types of therapy supervision. It should be noted however, thatthere are some important differences between individual supervisionand group supervision. The obvious difference is that with group super-vision there are multiple people with whom the supervisor interactsat any given time. Moreover, the supervisor is responsible for manyindividuals, which makes the supervision experience more complex foreveryone involved. Methods to minimize conflict in group supervisioninclude being familiar with group dynamics, communicating and clari-fying expectations for group functioning, and providing opportunitiesto discuss group process.

308


Another issue arises where there are multiple supervisors provid-ing supervision for the same trainee, either consecutively or at the sametime. For example, a trainee could be transferred to a new supervisor atthe beginning of a new semester within a MFT training program or atrainee could be supervised by both a supervisor candidate and anapproved supervisor. In the former case, it is the responsibility of thesupervisors to ensure a smooth transition and that personal preferencesregarding supervision do not disregard the trainees current skill level.In the latter case, supervisors are wise to initially negotiate appropriateboundaries and roles to ensure clear lines of communication and ac-countability for the trainee.

As Ratliff and associates (2000) found,making overt the differencesbetween supervisors and trainees perturbs the system and possiblyleads to open conflict. Escalating confrontations too quickly may in-crease a trainees dependence on the supervisor, drive the trainee outof supervision, and/or stifle the trainees growth andautonomy (Nichols,1988). The urgency of the confrontation (e.g., the welfare of a client)and the stage of the trainees development are factors that should becarefully weighed during conflict resolution.

For the future, the authors suggest that the process of supervisionbe further examined and clearly described so that supervisors can becomfortable being open about the challenges of supervision. Generally,more rigorous studies are needed focusing on how disagreements andopen conflicts in the supervisory system are handled (or not handled)and the nature of conflict within supervision. Such future studies couldbe modeled on the Ratliff et al. (2000) study discussed in this articleand focus on the process of handling conflict in supervision.

The authors offer these additional recommendations:

Training programs, where the bulk of supervision takes place,might consider addressing the relationship between faculty andstudent and how that affects the supervisory-trainee relation-ship.

Due to the power imbalance that naturally exists within thesupervisory relationship, university faculty members would bewise to reevaluate how trainees and supervisors are held ac-countable for their supervisory relationships.

In more private settings, supervisors may want to continue theirsupervision of supervision hours indefinitely, instead of endingonce they have received the Approved Supervisor status.

Most importantly, supervisors and trainees would do well to

309


strive to develop the types of relationships that promote healthycommunication and open dialogue about differences so that pro-fessional growth continues and quality care is promoted.

REFERENCES

Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1996). Looking out/looking in: Interpersonal communication(8th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.

Alderfer, C., & Lynch, B. (1986). Supervision in two dimensions. Journal of Strategicand Systemic Therapies, 5, 7073.

Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York:Academic Press.

Boylin, W. M., Anderson, S. A., & Bartle, S. E. (1992). Symbolic-experiential supervision:A model for learning or a frame of mind? Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 3, 4359.

Breunlin,D. C., Liddle,H.A.,&Schwartz,R. C. (1988). Concurrent training of supervisorsand therapists. In H. A. Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbookof family therapy training and supervision (pp. 207224). New York: Guilford Press.

Elgin, S. H. (1997).How to disagree without being disagreeable: Getting your point acrosswith the gentle art of verbal self-defense. New York: John Wiley.

Elizur, J. (1990). Stuckness in live supervision: Expanding the therapists style. Journalof Family Therapy, 12, 267280.

Fine, M., & Turner, J. (1997). Collaborative supervision: Minding the power. In T. C.Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy,and pragmatics (pp. 229240). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Freud, S. (1958). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), TheStandard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12,pp. 97108). London: Horvath Press. (Original work published 1912)

Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor.Gottlieb, M. C. (1995). Ethical dilemmas in change of format and live supervision. In

R. H. Mikesell, D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy:Handbook of family psychology and systems theory (pp. 561569). Washington, DC:American Psychological Association.

Haley, J. (1976). Problem-solving therapy: New strategies for effective family therapy.San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Haley, J. (1996). Learning and teaching therapy. New York: Guilford Press.Hicks, M. W., & Cornille, T. A. (1999). Gender, power, and relationship ethics in family

therapy education. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 4556.Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict (4th Ed.). Madison, WI:

Brown & Benchmark.Huber, C. H. (1994). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in the practice of marriage

and family therapy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Liddle,H.A. (1988). Systemic supervision:Conceptual overlays and pragmatic guidelines.

In H.A. Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapytraining and supervision (pp. 153171). New York: Guilford Press.

Liddle, H. A., & Saba, G. (1983). On context replication: The isomorphic relationship oftraining and therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 2, 311.

Liddle, H. A., & Saba, G. (1985). The isomorphic nature of training and therapy. In J.Schwartzman (Ed.), Families and other systems (pp. 2747). New York: GuilfordPress.

Mead,D. (1990).Effective supervision:A task-orientedmodel for the developingprofessionsNew York: Brunner/Mazel.

310


Moskowitz, S., & Rupert, P. (1983). Conflict resolution within the supervisory relation-ship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 632641.

Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.Nichols, W. C. (1988). An integrative psychodynamic and systems approach. In H. A.

Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.),Handbook of family therapy trainingand supervision (pp. 110127). New York: Guilford Press.

Olk, M. E., & Friedlander, M. L. (1992). Trainees experiences of role conflict and roleambiguity in supervisory relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 389397.

Ratliff, D. A., Wampler, K. S., &Morris, G. H. B. (2000). Lack of consensus in supervision.Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 373384.

Rigazio-DiGilio, S. A. (1997). Integrative supervision: Approaches to tailoring the super-visory process. In T. C. Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor:Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 195216). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rigazio-DiGilio, S. A., & Anderson, S. A. (1994). A cognitive-developmental model formarital and family therapy supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 12, 93118.

Schwartz, R. C. (1988). The trainer-trainee relationship in family therapy training. InH. Liddle, D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapytraining and supervision (pp. 172182). New York: Guilford Press.

Schwartz, R. C., Liddle, H. A., & Breunlin, D. C. (1988). Muddles in live supervision. InH. A. Liddle, D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapytraining and supervision (pp. 183194). New York: Guilford Press.

Snyders, R. (1986). Emancipatory supervision in family therapy.The Clinical Supervisor,4, 325.

Storm, C. L. (1997). The blueprint for supervision relationships: Contracts. In T. C.Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy,and pragmatics (pp. 272282). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Todd, T. C. (1997a). Self-supervision as a universal supervisory goal. In T. C. Todd &C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and prag-matics (pp. 1725). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Todd, T. C. (1997b). Problems in supervision: Lessons from supervisees. In T. C. Todd &C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and prag-matics (pp. 241252). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Warburton, J., Newberry, A., & Alexander, J. (1989). Women as therapists, trainees,and supervisors. In M. McGoldrick, C. M. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.), Women infamilies: A framework for family therapy (pp. 152165). New York: Norton.

Watson, M. F. (1993). Supervising the person of the therapist: Issues, challenges anddilemmas. Contemporary Family Therapy, 15, 2131.

Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967).Pragmatics of human communica-tion: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. NewYork: Norton.

Wheeler, D., Avis, J. M., Miller, L. A., & Chaney, S. (1985). Rethinking family therapyeducation and supervision: A feminist model. Journal of Psychotherapy and theFamily, 1, 5371.

Whitaker, C. A., &Napier, A. Y. (1977). Process techniques of family therapy. Interaction,1, 419.

0c960533b2b3badfaf000000

Documents