Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Training

Abstract

This article presents an introduction to the Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Training (ASiCT) model. The ASiCT model provides four supervisory styles furnishing guidelines on the degree of supervisor direction and support provided to supervisees. Adherence to a supervisory style is based upon the supervisee’sreadiness (i.e., willingness, ability, confidence) to address a clinical/supervisory issue. The ASiCT model is meta-theoretical in nature and provides sufficient flexibility for functioning within the various developmental and therapy based supervision theories.

Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Training

Supervision of counselorsinvolves an evaluative, long-term relationship between a “more senior member ofa profession” and “amore junior member or members of that same profession” (Bernard & Goodyear,1998, p. 5). The supportive andeducative process of supervision is aimed toward assisting supervisees in theapplication of counseling theory and techniques to client concerns (Associationfor Counselor Education and Supervision, 1993). 

Numerousdevelopmental models of supervision have been proffered in an attempt to furtheradvance the sound application of supervisory services (Littrell,Lee-Borden, & Lorenz; 1979; Loganbill, Hardy,& Delworth, 1982; Rodenhauser,1994; Stoltenberg & Delworth,1987; Watkins, 1995a). Developmentalmodels of supervision have in common a focus on supervisee change from noviceto experienced clinician through a delineated stage process with representativechallenges facing supervisees at each level. The characteristics of each developmental stage afford supervisors theopportunity to enhance effectiveness through interventions aimed atfacilitating further supervisee development. Watkins (1997) noted:

In the past two decades, models of psychotherapysupervision – particularly developmental models – have increasingly beenproposed; those efforts have provided us with a useful meta-perspective on thesupervisory process, have stimulated some valuable thought about intervention,have stimulated much research about therapist development and supervision, andseemingly have substantially advanced supervision theory far beyond anythingthat therapy-based supervision models have contributed in the last few decades.(p. 13)

Empirical support for the basic tenets of developmentalmodels has been identified (Watkins, 1995b) with some authors suggesting futurefocus on “discovering what supervisory interventions work best for which levelof trainees, with which characteristics when used by supervisors with what typeof experience and which characteristics at what point in time” (Stoltenberg, McNeill, & Crethar,1995, p. 646).

The purpose of this article is to present ameta-theoretical model of counselor supervision which provides for theapplication of interventions based upon supervisee task readiness across alldevelopmental stages. Specifically, AdaptiveSupervision in Counselor Training (ASiCT) is based upon Howard, Nance, andMyers’ (1986) Adaptive Counseling and Therapy (ACT) model. The ACT model provides an “integrative modelfor selecting a progression of therapist styles as clients move throughdevelopmental stages during the course of counseling and psychotherapy.” (p.363) Similarly,the ASiCT model provides a means for supervisors to match supervisee taskreadiness with the goal of moving them to the next skill and developmentallevel. The ASiCT model does not strictlyadhere to any one developmental stage model but rather is meta-theoretical innature, affording supervisors a breadth of theoretically-based interventionsand a structure for the development of research paradigms.

The ASiCT Model

Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Training providessupervisors with four dimensionally based styles. These supervisory styles furnish guidelineson the degree of direction and support beneficial for the supervisee. The application of characteristic stylebehaviors is centered on improving supervisee’s readiness to address thespecific task before them and the counseling process as a whole.

Readiness

Readinesswas conceptualized by Hersey and Blanchard (1977) as consisting of willingness,ability, and self-confidence. Superviseereadiness the supervisees willingness, ability, andconfidence in addressing a task related to their role as counselor orsupervisee. For example, a superviseemay have a great deal of experience in addressing suicidal ideation in crisiscounseling situations. When faced with aclient in crisis, this supervisee will have a high degree of readiness,that is the supervisee will be willing, able, and confident to addressthe client’s crisis situation. However,this supervisee may not have a great deal of experience in dealing with sexualassault victimization and when faced with a crisis situation involving rapevictimization, readiness would be low. That is, the supervisee would have a lesser degree of willingness,ability, and confidence in addressing the client concern.

Supervisee readiness may also be applied to functioningwithin the supervisory relationship. Forexample, the developmental model of Loganbill et al.(1982) characterized counselor trainees in the first stage of development,stagnation, as being unaware of the counseling process, dualistic in theirthinking, and dependant on the supervisor for guidance. This supervisee would be conceptualized asbeing at a low readiness level. The supervisees willingness is tempered by low self-confidenceand questionable ability resulting in supervisee dependence on thesupervisor. However, within this stagethere may be related tasks that the supervisee is at a greater readiness toaddress. For example, the supervisee mayhave high readiness in the establishment of supervisory meetings, completion ofsupervision notes, and accurate presentation of those thoughts and feelingsrelated to clinical functioning. The ASiCT model provides a framework for supervisors to matchand move supervisees along their developmental path.

The concept of matchand move is fundamental to the ASiCTmodel. Through the four supervisorystyles, supervisors are able to matchtheir methods/interventions to supervisee readiness on a specific issue orcluster of issues and move thatsupervisee to increased readiness to address those issues in the future.

The Supervisory Styles

There are four supervisorystyles identified within the ASiCT model. These styles are differentiated by thedegree of support and direction given by the supervisor to the supervisee,based upon supervisee readiness. The four styles are labeled TechnicalDirector, Teaching Mentor, Supportive Mentor, and Delegating Colleague as ameans of providing a descriptive titles and stylistic characterization for eachquadrant.

Supervisors functioning within the TechnicalDirector style would respond to supervisees in a manner that provides a great dealof direction and minimal support. Forexample, a supervisee may be engaging in their first session of counseling witha client diagnosed with anorexia nervosa. Their readiness may be low due to their lack of confidence, limitedexperience, and skills. The supervisorin the Technical Director style would primarily provide the superviseedirection on the basic issues relevant to counseling clients with anorexia(e.g., maintaining clear boundaries, assessment areas, consultation withphysician, psychiatrist, and possibly nutritionist, etc.). As the supervisee progresses in his/her workwith the client, their readiness for addressing the basic issues of counselingwill improve. The supervisor may then take on a Teaching Mentor style.

The Teaching Mentor style of supervision ischaracterized by high direction and high support. The supervisor would continue to providenecessary direction to the supervisee on the process of counseling, but wouldalso provide a high level of support so as to increase the supervisee’sself-confidence in their maturing skill level. The supervisor would continue todirect the supervisee to relevant reading materials and highlight areas ofassessment (e.g., family history, eating history, suicidal/self-harm history,history of abuse or neglect, etc.). Asthe supervisee continues to advance their clinical skills and knowledge aboutthe treatment of eating disorders, their readiness level will progress to amoderately high level. At this point,the supervisor will take on the style of Supportive Mentor.

The Supportive Mentor style is characterized by alow degree of direction and a high degree of support. The supervisor may serve as a respected”sounding board” to the supervisee. Forexample, the supervisee may inform the supervisor of planned interventions andperspectives on the counseling process. The supervisor functioning within the Supportive Mentor role wouldprovide validation for supervisee case conceptualization and treatment planningso as to further support supervisee self-confidence, ability, andwillingness. Minor direction may begiven within this realm. Eventually, thesupervisee may reach a degree of expertise in the treatment of eatingdisordered clients. The supervisor wouldthen respond as a Delegating Colleague.

The Delegating Colleague style is characterized bylow degrees of direction and support. The supervisor is the recipient ofupdates on client status and progress. The supervisor may inquire into areas ofclient functioning, therapy success, and/or supervisee growth. However, thesupervisee’s readiness is high (characterized by high willingness, ability, andself-confidence) and little direction and support arenecessary.

The ASiCT model allows forthe assessment of supervisee readiness on multiple levels. The supervisee inthe above final example may have a high degree of readiness for their work withtheir eating disordered client, but may have a low degree of readiness fortheir client struggling with a personality disorder or with the same client whomay be also struggling with issues associated with a history of child sexualabuse. Supervisory styles are presented with a degree of fluidity allowing forthe continual matching of supervisee readiness and movement to higher readinesslevels. The flexibility of ASiCT may befurther evidenced through a supervision case study.

Case Example

This case example is based primarily on two supervisorymeetings with a counselor at a university counseling center. Thomas is a seasoned alcohol and drugcounselor who recently joined the staff at the center. Thomas is very familiar with the diagnosisand treatment of substance-related and mood disorders. He has limited experience and knowledge inthe diagnosis of most other mental disorders. Thomas is certified as a chemical dependency counselor and is currentlyunder supervision as he pursues licensure as a clinical counselor. Thomas is open to the supervisory process andreadily seeks feedback.

During the course of the supervisory meeting, Thomaspresented two cases. Case one detailedan individual who was referred to counseling for an assessment of alcohol usewith the question of possible substance dependence. In the presentation of this case, Thomasprovided a review of the client’s referral information, substance use history,family structure, and other relevant mental status data. In his presentation and conceptualization ofthis case it was evident that Thomas was at a high level of readiness. He wasable to accurately identify information in support of his diagnosis (i.e.,Alcohol Abuse), identify relevant client factors in the assessment process(e.g., minimal defensiveness, no history of family substance dependence, asignificant history of substance abuse resulting in legal problems, emotionalimmaturity, ignorance regarding substance effects, minimization). He has a clearly defined treatment plan andthe requisite skills for the application of the treatment plan. Thomas evidenced confidence in his caseconceptualization and was open to feedback; however, he presented no specificquestions.

Thomas’ supervisor accurately assessed his readiness ashigh and thus functioned within the Delegating Colleague style. The supervisor provided minimal support toThomas, simply acknowledging that he appears to “be on top of thesituation” and has a “well formed treatment plan.” Thomas was also reminded that a report was tobe provided to the disciplinary panel following the conclusion of the assessmentprocess. Thomas informed the supervisor that the assessment report wascompleted and presented the report for review.

The second case presented by Thomas referred to a femaleclient with a history of self-abuse (i.e. cutting arms and legs), suicidalgestures (overdosing on non-prescription pain medication – hospitalizationrequired), relational conflicts with mother, sister, and roommate, history ofsexual abuse (child molestation by paternal uncle) and physical abuse(perpetrated by father), non-significant history of substance use, academicproblems (failing two of four classes this term), and significant resistanceduring the counseling process. Whenpresenting this information Thomas appeared frustrated noting that he has had agreat deal of difficulty obtaining the data over the course of fivesessions. He reported that he was unsureas to how he should address the client’s history of abuse, relationalconflicts, and resistance. He reportedthat he has primarily focused on continual assessment of suicidal ideation, mentalstatus, and psychosocial history and noted “I feel like I’m spinning mywheels.”

The supervisor assessed Thomas’ readiness as being at alow to moderately low level as evidenced by his confusion, frustration, lack ofknowledge on the treatment of self-abuse and abuse victimization, and insecurityaround his ability to provide appropriate treatment. The supervisor’s initial style is asTechnical Director. Within this style,some of the supervisor’s responses were to: (a) direct Thomas to obtain releases of information for the client’s previoustherapist; (b) review the diagnostic criteria for borderline personalitydisorder, post traumatic stress disorder, and the dissociative disorders; (c)verify the process utilized by Thomas to assess the client’s currentself-destructive behavior; (d) request that the client be referred for apsychiatric consultation, and (e) direct Thomas to discuss his feelings offrustration and insecurity related to the treatment of the client’sconcerns. The supervisor then assumedthe style of Teaching Mentor by recognizing the great deal of informationobtained by Thomas and validating Thomas’ frustration over dealing with such adifficult case. The supervisor continuedwithin this style and provided additional direction to Thomas.

In the subsequent supervision meeting, Thomas’ understanding of the diagnostic issues presented by this clientwere addressed as well as his understanding of the appropriate issues toaddress within his treatment plan. Thesupervisor continued to function within the Teaching Mentor role providingdirection on the diagnosis and treatment process and supporting thesupervisee’s clinical conceptualization and functioning. As the treatment process continued with thisclient and the supervisee’s expertise improved, the supervisor would move to aSupportive Mentor style providing support to the supervisee in an attempt tofurther expand his confidence regarding his developing skills.

Conclusion

The present article provides an introduction to the AdaptiveSupervision in Counselor Training model. The ASiCT model provides an uncomplicated method for supervisors toconceptualize supervisee behaviors in a manner that is flexible and growthproducing. The flexibility of the modelallows for the continual matching of supervisee clinical task readiness as ameans of moving them to improved levels of clinical functioning. Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Trainingdoes not adhere to any one theoretical model and is well suited for applicationwithin developmental and non-developmental models.

The ASiCT model may be facilitative to the researchprocess. As noted earlier, Stoltenberg et al. (1995) suggested that future research insupervision work to examine those facilitative factors (i.e., the who, when,how, and where of supervision) so as to provide the most effective matchbetween supervisory style/characteristics and those of the supervisee towardthe end of enhanced supervisee functioning and development. Adaptive Supervision in Counselor Trainingprovides a means for identifying hypotheses related to the match and moveprocess alluded to by Stoltenberg, McNeill, and Crethar (1995).

Limitations to the ASiCT model primarily focus on it’s status as a new supervisory model without establishedempirical support. Future research couldprovide such empirical support and thus result in the further modeldevelopment. Research examining thecharacteristics of supervisee readiness and the four supervisor styles wouldprovide support for their construct validity. Research could also develop quick and effective means for supervisors toidentify characteristic responses/behaviors of supervisees allowing for therapid assessment of supervisee readiness and application of the appropriatematching supervisory style. The ASiCTmodel could be combined with the ACT model (see Howard, Nance, and Myers, 1986)into a training approach for counselor’s clinical and supervisory skilldevelopment. For example, studentsenrolled in counselor practicum/internship could be trained in the ACT modelwhile supervisors enrolled in a supervisory training practicum could receivetraining in ASiCT. This combinationcould result in a body of research examining the interaction of the two modelson client, counselor, and supervisor development.

The ASiCT model provides an effective template forthe supervisory process with the ability to easily evaluate supervisee clinicalskill readiness and develop appropriate supervisor interventions. The model may also be facilitative of futureresearch program development allowing for an improved effectiveness in theprocess of counselor training.

References

Associationfor Counselor Education and Supervision (1993). Ethical guidelines forcounseling supervisors. ACESSpectrum, 53(4), 5-8.

Bernard,J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (1998). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (2^nd ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Hersey,P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1977). Management of organizational behavior: Utilizing human resources (3^rded.). EnglewoodCliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Howard,G. S., Nance, D. W., & Myers, P. (1986). Adaptive counseling and therapy: An integrative, eclectic model. The Counseling Psychologist, 14,363-442.

Kaplan,M. L., Kaplan, N. R., & Serok. S. (1985). Gestalttherapy’s theory of experiential organization and mutual support processes inpsychotherapy and supervision. Psychotherapy,4, 687-695.

Littrell, J. M.,Lee-Borden, N., & Lorenz, J. A. (1979). A developmental frameworkfor counseling supervision. CounselorEducation and Supervision, 19, 119-136.

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

Rodenhauser, P. (1994). Toward a multidimensional model for psychotherapysupervision based on developmental stages. Journal of Psychotherapy Practice andResearch, 3, 1-15.

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

Stoltenberg, C.D., McNeil, B. W., & Crethar, H. C. (1995). Persuasion and developmentin counselor supervision. TheCounseling Psychologist, 23, 633-648.

Watkins,C. E. (1997). Reflectionson contemporary psychotherapy practice, research, and training. Journal of Contemporary Psychothearpy, 27, 5-22.

Watkins,C. E. (1995a). Psychotherapy supervisionin the 1990s: Some observations andreflections. American Journal ofPsychotherapy, 49, 568-581.

Watkins,C. E. (1995b). Psychotherapy supervisorand supervisee: Developmental models andresearch nine years later. ClinicalPsychology Review, 15 647-680.

Author Note

Robert A. Rando is the Director of the Center for Psychological Services and an Associate Professor in the School of Professional Psychology. Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Rando at the Center for Psychological Services, Frederick A. White Health Center, Wright State University, Dayton, Ohio 45435; email: robert.rando@wright.edu.

 
Top of Page