PULL QUOTE HERE
The supervisory relationship is the cornerstone of ethical and effective clinical supervision. The strength and quality of this relationship influence almost every aspect of the supervisory experience, including openness to feedback, supervisees’ disclosure, risk taking, and evaluative processes.
The potential for supervisory nondisclosure is an especially important consideration. Research by Mehr et al. (2010) found that 84% of trainees chose not to disclose important information to their supervisors within a single session, often due to “impression management, deference to the supervisor, and perceived negative consequences” (p. 110). Not surprisingly, the researchers also found an inverse relationship between the strength of the supervisory relationship and the level of nondisclosure: stronger relationships were associated with greater openness and transparency.
In many respects, the qualities responsible for developing a strong therapeutic alliance mirror those for developing a strong supervisory alliance. What sets the supervisory relationship apart is the power born of the hierarchical, evaluative and involuntary nature of the relationship (supervisees most often do not get to decide whether they are supervised). Power is the central influencing force within supervision and peaks early in the supervision relationship at times when the supervisee’s skill and confidence are at their lowest. Effectively managing the power differential both strengthens the supervisory relationship and enables supervisors to address inherent tensions, which are ever-present aspects of supervision that can become problematic depending on various factors in the supervisor-supervisee dynamic.
Power also arises and is shaped through intersecting cultural identities. Recognizing and integrating a culturally responsive approach to supervision reduces the potential for power to be used in a way that leads to microaggression or more blatant forms of discrimination and prejudice.
A key aspect of the supervisory relationship is the concept of parallel processes, wherein the dynamics between supervisor and supervisee often reflect those occurring between the supervisee and their clients. Recognizing these parallels can provide unique insights into the supervisee’s work and open pathways for meaningful discussions that contribute to their professional development.
Finally, conflict is an inevitable component of any close professional relationship, including supervision (Nelson et al., 2008; Nelson & Friedlander, 2001). This module provides guidance on identifying, addressing, and resolving conflicts that may arise in ways that preserve the integrity of the supervisory relationship and encourage growth. Supervisors must also consider how the “person of the counsellor” shapes their supervisory stance, including how personal biases, values, and experiences influence supervisory interactions. Through the exploration of these concepts, Module 4 equips you with essential tools to create and sustain a collaborative, supportive, and effective supervisory relationship.
Learning Outcomes
By the end of this module, participants should be able to:
- Define the key elements of a strong supervisory relationship, including trust, respect, and mutual accountability, with attention to cultural influences and ethical considerations.
- Recognize how the cultural identities of both supervisor and supervisee shape the development and maintenance of the supervisory relationship.
- Analyze power dynamics within the supervisory relationship, with a focus on cultural factors and strategies for addressing imbalances in a culturally responsive way.
- Develop strategies that strengthen the supervisory relationship and support supervisee growth.
- Identify skills for recognizing, addressing, and resolving conflicts within the supervisory relationship.
Key Concepts
- Isomorphism
- Parallel Process
- Knowledge Power
- Microaggression
- Position Power
- Power versus Authority
- Supervisor Factors
- Supervisee Factors
- Supervisory Working Alliance
- The importance of responsivity, which is noted by Thiessen on p. 51