Conflict resolution within the supervisory relationship.

Abstract

The present article examines conflicts in the supervisory relationship from the supervisee's perspective. One hundred and fifty-eight graduate students in clinical psychology were surveyed concerning the occurrence, handling, and outcome of conflicts in their supervisory experiences. Thirty-eight percent of the students with supervised experience reported a major conflict with a supervisor, which made it difficult to learn from supervision. Trainees described three areas of conflict—theoretical orientation or therapeutic approach, style of supervision, or personality issues. The degree to which conflicts were discussed and successfully resolved seemed to depend partly on the type of conflict; it was easier to resolve conflicts that centered on style of supervision than on personality issues. When conflicts were not resolved, students often sought support from others, altered their behavior to conceal difficulties, or appeared to comply with the supervisor. The implications of these findings for the process in supervision are discussed. One of the most important elements in the training of a psychotherapist is the direct supervision of his or her clinical work. The knowledge acquired through books and classes provides the basis for therapeutic work, but the critical element is the more intensive, personal training provided by experienced supervisors. Supervision is more than simply a didactic experience in which the supervisor teaches the trainee. It is a complex interpersonal interaction subject to the vicissitudes of all human relationships. The importance of these interpersonal or relationship aspects of supervision to the quality of the experience has repeatedly been emphasized throughout the supervision literature. For example, Cohen and DeBetz (1977) stated that success in supervision depends on the quality of the relationship between supervisor and trainee, and Fleming and Benedek (1966) stressed the importance of establishing a learning alliance with the trainee, which they view as analogous to the therapeutic alliance. Indeed, one study found that trainees' perceptions of the quality of supervision were more strongly related to the interpersonal aspects of the relationship than to the content emphasized by the supervisor (Nash, 1975). A positive supervisory relationship characterized by good rapport, empathy, and respect appears to facilitate the trainee's receptivity to from the supervisor. Sources of tension in the, supervisory relationship have been discussed by numerous authors. For the most part, these discussions have highlighted problems that relate to personality dynamics and role definition, for example, personal issues or anxieties of the therapist in training (Fleming & Benedek, 1966; Langs, 1980; Mueller & Kell, 1972), need for dominance on the part of the supervisor (Robiner, 1982), and the dual role of supervisor as teacher and evaluator (Cohen & DeBetz, 1977; Hassenfeld & Sarris, 1978;,Kadushin, 1968; Robiner, 1982; Wolberg, 1977). Wolberg (1977) has also noted th^t conflicts may center around differences in orientation; that is, supervisor and supervisee may differ in theoretical orientation used in case conceptualization and treatment planning, in clinical methods and techniques, in use of terminology, and in the setting of psychotherapeutic goals. Numerous authors have stressed the importance of discussing conflicts in the su