JEAN-CARLOS

POLANCO
LOPEZ

jcpl@ufl.edu

Philosophy of Supervision

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

Introduction
In choosing a personal philosophy of supervision there are multiple factors
to take into consideration as well as levels in which they are to be attended to.
Similarly to family therapy, supervision is to be understood as a system, one that
can manifest itself in both a linear and circular form. The following factors
affecting supervision must be understood within the appropriate context, which
are the varying developmental levels the supervisee finds himself or herself
within. The first factor that one must seek to counterbalance is ones therapy
model with ones model of supervision. In unpacking this factor, I discovered that
my counseling approach differed from my supervisory approach. Succeeding this
factor, one must then pair the chosen model for work with the supervisees
theoretical orientation, ensuring that the model aligns with the needs of the
counselor-in-training one supervises. The following factor emphasizes the
supervisees developmental stage, as this will alter the manner in which I, as the
supervisor, employ different tools and techniques from my chosen supervisory
philosophy. Furthermore, the developmental level of the trainee may more
explicitly elucidate for the supervisor, the needs of that counselor-in-training.
Subsequent factors in the supervisory relationships focus in on the effects of
cultural and contextual factors, familiarity with other models of supervision, and
knowledge of the different ethical factors. In turn, with such an array of moving
components to arrange, it is critical to develop a philosophy that is originated in

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

the practice of supervision, as I would argue only then could one draw
conclusions on the effectiveness of a preferred philosophy.

Therapy
Therapy
Model
Model

Model
Model of
of
Supervision
Supervision

Supervisee
Supervisee
Model
Model

Supervisee
Supervisee
Needs
Needs

Cultural
Cultural and
and
Contextual
Contextual
Factors
Factors
Familiarity
Familiarity
with Other
Other
with
Models
Models
Ethical
Issues
Ethical Issues

Purpose of Supervision
Clinical supervisors are tasked with relating important knowledge, skills
and attitudes of the profession to less experienced counselors. Concurrently, the
supervisor is to oversee the work of the counselors in training, to ensure that
their clients are receiving appropriate services (Campbell, 2000). Furthermore,
Etringer, Hillerbrand, and Claiborn describe the process of supervision as a goal
oriented process seeking to change or alter the behaviors and attitudes of the
supervisee that may not align with the profession (Etringer, Hillerbrand, and
Claiborn, 1995). Moreover, given the hierarchical nature of supervision where a
more senior counselor acts as the gatekeeper for those junior members seeking
entrance in the field, it is important to be aware of the factors affecting this
relationship because dismissing the structure as not important could result in
conflict surrounding power later on the relationship (Sherry, 1991).

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

In providing supervision it is important for me to assess and address issues

pertaining not only to the supervisees client but also to the person of the
supervisee. By way of weekly discussion I seek to help supervisees attain a better
understanding of themselves and their cognitive processes and how these affect
the manner in which they attend to their clients. My goal as a supervisor is to
elucidate counselors in training about their blind spots through self-reflection and
feedback. Moreover, I seek to embed pseudo live supervision by way of
reviewing live tapes of the counselors work. In this manner I seek to provide
constructive criticism to my supervisees about their skills while being able to
delve deeper with the supervisees about their own processes within the counseling
session, with the purpose of informing them more about their role.
Supervisor Therapy Model
William Glasser is recognized as the American psychiatrist who developed
choice theory (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). Choice theory
fundamentally focuses on internal control as a mean to regulate emotion. Choice
theory psychology is the also the foundation of reality therapy. The external
factors that may influence the emotions of the client are only to be understood as
external information (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). In other
words, externalities, or factors of everyday life, do not affect the clients emotion;
rather, these are elements that give additional information about the outside world.
These factors cannot influence the clients emotions because the client is taught

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

how to view and understand himself as sole governor of his feelings. As he

understands this, he is able to make better choices of how to process said external
information. An important element of choice theory is the quality world
component. This element can be conceptualized as a chest of photographs
(Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). The memories, wishes and
wants contained in this chest are all part of the clients perfect world. These
photographs also, in their entirety, fulfill the 5 intrinsic needs of all humans:
survival, love and belonging, power (inner control), freedom (autonomy), and fun
(enjoyment) (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). Consequently,
the individual will seek to process information in ways that allow for the least
incongruence between their real (present) world and their quality world.
Moreover, another important element associated with choice theory is that
of total behavior (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). According to
this theory, from our birth we constantly behave. Glasser believes that there are 4
components of total behavior that are occurring simultaneously at all times, these
being: acting, thinking, feeling and physiology (Sommers-Flanagan & SommersFlanagan, 2012). Only two of these, however, can one exercise full control over
acting and thinking. Thus, these two components serve as facilitating dimensions.
As a result of how one may act or think, feelings and physiologies change. In
other words, in order to change the way in which we feel physically or
emotionally then we must first change how we behave and think. Furthermore, in

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

this approach challenges are always categorized as relational. Each issue the client
may bring into session must be connected to something or someone else that the
client cannot control. Essentially, choice theory focuses on allowing the client to
understand that he has the choice to process external information in ways that are
most congruent with their quality world. Consequently, one is able to empower
the client to a higher level of self-determination and self-control.
Choice theory also intertwines elements from humanistic-existential
approaches as it exerts emphasis on personal choice (Sommers-Flanagan &
Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). This idea of inherent freedom set the client as the
expert of the intervention. Only he is able to control what issues will be addressed
as well as his emotions. Another element of choice theory that I find very useful is
its focus on the present and future (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan,
2012). As explained by Glasser in one of his ten axioms of choice therapy, What
happened in the past has everything to do with what we are today, but we can only
satisfy our basic needs right now and plan to continue satisfying them in the
future (as cited in Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012, p. 346). I
find this to be a great point of reference for clients experiencing issues in their
lives that may be connected to past incidences. Choice theory does not oppose the
fact that there is a strong connection between ones past experiences and the
present self, rather it advices the client to focus energies on what can be altered
rather than the unchangeable.

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

Furthermore, I believe that this approach can be easily explained to

clients, irrespective of where they fall developmentally. This psychoeducational
component is facilitated by the way in which the therapist frames the idea of a
quality world to clients. By helping the client conceptualize this world, as a chest
of pictures detailing all their wants and needs, the counselor is better able to
connect with the client without resourcing to technical terminology. Moreover,
empowering the client to understand his role in building this perfect world may
help him clarify his true needs and wants, allowing for the establishment of direct
objectives. Additionally, by reducing the effect of external stimuli to a mere
transfer of information, the counselor empowers the client to possess a greater
sense of internal control (Sommers-Flanagan & Sommers-Flanagan, 2012). As the
client understands that he cannot change the behaviors of others and that those
behaviors are to be seen as information transfers, he soon realizes the great power
that lies in his choices of how to process such information.
Model of Supervision
While in therapy I favor a more existential approach. In supervision, I see
the need to employ a more cognitive model. Nevertheless, both types of models
call for a shift in focus to the self rather than external sources. In turn, by making
this shift, supervisees can expect to gain a better understanding of themselves and
what about their own person influences their work with clients. I believe a
cognitive model of supervision aligns well with my goals as a supervisor; that is,

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

to inform supervisees of the blind spots that may be impeding them from
appropriately engaging with a client. A cognitive model of supervision narrows in
on the connections between the thinking, feeling and doing parts of the supervisee
(Campbell, 2000). Hence, allowing the supervisee to explore how their own
thoughts about themselves, their goals and expectations for a client may affect
their approach and/or understanding of him or her.
Furthermore, I believe the structure of a cognitive model to be effective
especially with beginning counselors. This model includes setting an agenda for
the supervisory meeting, checking in from prior sessions, assigning
homework/tasks as well as providing the supervisee with summaries about their
work (Liese and Beck, 1997). The highly structured model allows for the
supervisor to be goal driven, reduce distractions in the supervision, as well as
establish the proper parameters for the supervisor-supervisee relationship.
Moreover, it allows for the supervisee to explore their own cognitive processes,
and any biases they may have about themselves, the client, or work institution,
deciphering how their cognition both negatively and positively impacts their
work. Further, in using this model it is important to listen carefully to the content
of the supervisee dialogue to ensure that the supervisee is aware of possible
distorted or negative thinking impacting their work (Campbell, 2000).

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

Supervisee Needs: Theoretical Orientation

A factor that inherently affects the manner in which one offers supervision
is the needs of the individual supervisee. Knowing the supervisees developmental
level greatly elucidates the manner in which one supervises said supervisee.
Bernard and Goodyear explain, We assume that supervisees need different
supervisory environments as they develop professionally and that the manner in
which supervisors intervene differ accordingly to supervisee level (Bernard and
Goodyear, 2014, p. 19). In turn, in order to provide the best structure and method
of supervision it is of utmost important to understand the individual needs of the
supervisee.
Furthermore, one major component that affects supervisee needs is their
own theoretical orientation. Each counselor chooses one or several theoretical
orientations that align most congruently with the manner in which they choose to
provide their services. This decision often correlates with the manner in which
this individual behaves and thinks. Accordingly, it is important for the supervisor
to understand the manner in which the supervisee conceptualizes their work. In
this manner the supervisor can select a model of supervision that takes into
consideration the supervisee background, thus yielding a model that is cognizant
of the supervisee, not only as an individual, but a counselor.

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

Supervisee Needs: Supervisee Supervisor Relationship

Moreover, one of the less apparent needs of supervisees is tied to the
relationship between him and the supervisor. In fact, the supervisory relationship
is seen as the base and pillar of all the work that takes place in supervision
(Bernard and Goodyear, 2014). Hence, it is a primordial factor to be cognizant of
as a supervisor. There are multiple factors affecting the supervisor-supervisee
relationship that stem from both parts. From the supervisee perspective these
factors include, but are not limited to: supervisee shame, anxiety, resistance, and
transference. Parallel to this the supervisor may experience issues with attachment
style, social influence (over the supervisee), interpersonal perspective, and
countertransference, among others. Thus, it is important to be not only aware of
these influencing factors but also proactive in countering the negative effects of
each for the supervisory relationship.
Shame and anxiety are intricately connected for novice trainees. In fact,
for several counselors in training, the first experience with clients will come from
their practicum and internship sites. This alone can be the catalyst for a
heightened level of anxiety and shame about counseling clients for the first time.
Supervision may elicit feelings of shame as a result of its evaluative nature
(Bernard and Goodyear, 2014). In turn, it is important to note the emotions
experienced by early level clinicians. Shaming the supervisee by way of an
intervention or technique utilized may heavily damage the relationship with the

10

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

supervisor. It is important to understand how to manage the critical assessment of

the supervisee with his well-being and perception of self.
Notwithstanding there are multiple factors of the supervisor, as well,
affecting the supervisory relationship. One of these factors is the supervisors
attachment style. White and Queener (2003) found that while the supervisee
attachment style did not have an effect on the supervisory working alliance, the
supervisors attachment did predict strength of this alliance. As a result, it is
important to form postitive-affiliative connections with ones supervisees.
Furthermore, social influence over the supervisee can create dissonance in the
working relationship, especially when the supervisor is oblivious to or abuses the
power he has within the relationship (Bernard and Goodyear, 2014). In thinking
of this asymmetry in power it is crucial for the supervisor to remain aware of how
to utilize such power. As the supervisor one has more dominance in the
relationship and this results in a greater spectrum of responses and reactions. In
other words, being the person on top of the power hierarchy gives the supervisor
the option to promote an egalitarian relationship, rather than an aristocratic one.
Additionally countertransference can present multiple limiting factors for
the supervisory relationship, whether it stems from the supervisor or supervisee.
From a personal outlook, however, I argue that countertransference from the
supervisor to be more negative for the relationship. In an unpublished study,
Walker and Gray (2002) (as cited in Bernard and Goodyear, 2014) identified four

11

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

sources of countertransference for supervisors: external stress from workload,

disappointment that supervisee is not taking the work seriously, over
identification with what it is like to be a beginning counselor, and wanting the
supervisee to be a better therapist. Given that at times one is not aware of ones
own countertransference it is key to recognize even the most miniscule pieces of
it. One may do this through self-reflective exercises and also by receiving
supervision on ones supervision. The supervisors tone can lead the supervisee to
sense this countertransference if the tone, for example, indicates to the supervisee
that he is being a bad therapist and that change must take place. Although, as
supervisors we are tasked as gatekeepers of the profession; one must take into
consideration the trainees developmental stage when supervising and adjust
expectations accordingly.
Contextual and Cultural Factors in Supervision
Not only are personal factors able to shape the supervisory relationship
and work, contextual and cultural factors also play a role in the way that
supervision takes place. Most commonly there are two different contexts for
supervision outside of private practice: the graduate academic setting and public
agencies (Bernard and Goodyear, 2014). Although most students receive a
combination of supervision from these two settings concurrently, there are several
counseling settings that offer in-program training. Thus, on-campus training
clinics offer the students both clinical supervision and didactic learning (Bernard

12

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

and Goodyear, 2014). The academic context, although more structured and often
times more supportive, possesses its own unique set of limitations. For example,
in-program training clinics must identify effective recruiting techniques and then
manage clients expectations and trainees level of expertise. Furthermore, the
issue of dual roles also comes into play as supervisors may find themselves
occupying other roles that come in contact with their supervisees, possibly
blurring the lines of such relationship. Hence, it is imperative for the supervisor to
be aware of these limitations when offering supervision in this context. It is also
advantageous to check in with the supervisee to assess how they see context
affecting their supervision.
Likewise, cultural factors impact the supervisory relationship, in many
instances shaping the way we perceive, think and react to our surroundings. Jane
M. Campbell notes that, there are two important areas in which multicultural
differences will play an important role in supervision: first in building trust and
the working alliance, and second, in evaluation of the supervisee competency and
ability (Campbell, 2000, p. 174). Given this protagonist role of culture in
supervision it is not enough to simply be aware and sensitive about how
differences in values and beliefs might affect the relationship with ones
supervisee. In order to be an effective multicultural supervisor, one must be able
to respond to these differences as a way to prevent roadblocks in supervision as
well as create a supervisory climate that is safe to the supervisee. Additionally, the

13

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

supervisor is also tasked with broaching topics pertaining to cultural differences.

Campbell (2000) recommends for this conversations to take place earlier within
the supervisory relationship as she projects that this conversation can promote
growth and development for the supervisee. It further informs him or her of how
to manage these different cultures in their own clinical setting.
Moreover, cultural factors also tint the lens of the supervisor in regards to
the assessment and the evaluation of the supervisee. For example, sense of time or
expressions of feelings both have cultural components attached to it. As a man of
color and supervisor I am aware of how cultural background greatly impacts the
way in which I may assess someone outside of my cultural context. It is possible
that the performance of some variables, for example, perception of warmness and
empathy for the client, may look different for me as a Latino than as an Asian
American. Concurrently, the supervisor is to make the trainees aware of how their
own cultural differences affect client care. Campbell explains that the supervisor
Needs to help supervisees to explore and understand their personal values and
beliefs about multicultural differences, their biases, stereotypes, and prejudices
(Campbell, 2000, p. 180). By exploring these topics in a deeper level, and
focusing on reflecting and confronting these differences, one helps the trainee
reach a higher level of competence. This process will elucidate any biases
previously held by the supervisee. In turn, the supervisor should suggest to the
trainee to make time, perhaps via counseling, to work through these biases prior

14

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

to seeing clients who may trigger them. These biases should be resolved before
the trainee continues extensive clinical work. In fact, I would suggest these biases
be dismantled during the trainees practicum, at the latest.
Ethical Issues In Supervision
Goodyear and Rodolfa (2012) explain that, The manner in which
supervisors exercise their ethical responsibilities can have multiple effects,
including those on (a) the supervisory relationship (b) the supervisee, (c) the
clients being served by the supervisees, and (d) even the general public (Goodyear
and Rodolfa, p. 270). Moreover, Bernard and Goodyear posit five key moral
principles that all supervisors should fulfill: respect for autonomy, beneficence,
nonmaleficence, justice, and fidelity (Bernard and Goodyear, 2014). In order to
uphold these principles it is important for me as a supervisor to be aware of
instances when any of these are not being appropriately met. This awareness
should result in a self-evaluation and subsequent dialogue with my supervisees
and/or personal supervisor. Furthermore, ethical issues can be greatly reflected in
the evaluation of the supervisee, confidentiality of issues in supervision, and
differentiation between supervision from psychotherapy, among others.
Cumulatively, I posit that each of the issues aforementioned and those omitted are
connected to awareness. I am responsible of maintaining a high level of
awareness to ensure that no deviant behavior transpires in my supervision. Also,
in being transparent about the process of supervision it is crucial to make

15

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

supervisees aware of informed consent. The supervisees should be aware and well
informed about the process of supervision (i.e. goals of supervision, evaluation,
gatekeeping responsibilities, etc.) as well as ensuring their clients are aware of
informed consent and how being supervised may affect them (Bernard and
Goodyear, 2014). In addition, remaining informed about new and best practices
for supervision will ensure that no ethical boundaries are inappropriately crossed.
Conclusion
Supervision, much like counseling, is both art and science. In order to provide
efficient, well-informed supervision, one must first understand the systematic
operation of supervision, and then skillfully apply those to the process. As a
supervisor one must concurrently maintain three distinct relationships: a
relationship with the supervisee, a relationship with the supervisees clients, and a
relationship with ones supervisor (if receiving supervision of supervision,
typically present for novice supervisors). As a neophyte supervisor, I have being
immersed deeply into supervision as both an individual supervisor and also a cosupervisor implementing live supervision. Within both contexts the factor that
remains constant, is that of systems. The supervisory relationship will always be
connected to several other relationships such as the supervisee and client. What
transpires within one level of the system has the ability to affect levels above and
below it. While at this point during my supervisory career, I have been able to
decipher the multiple levels that comprise supervision; I project that more time in

16

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

the role of supervisor will elucidate for me how these level interact and affect
each other. Through continued readings, practice, and observation I believe that I
will refine and establish my style of supervision
.

References
Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2014). Fundamentals of clinical supervision
(5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, N.J: Merrill/Pearson.
Campbell, J. (2000). Becoming an effective supervisor: A workbook for
counselors and psychotherapists. Philadelphia, Pa.: Accelerated
Development.
Etringer, B. D., Hillerbrand, E., & Claiborn, C. D. (1995). The transition from

17

Jean-Carlos P. L.

Supervision Philosophy

novice to expert counselor. Counselor Education and Supervision, 35, 4

17.
Goodyear, R. K., & Rodolfa, E. (2012). Negotiating the complex
ethical terrain of clinical supervision. In S.J. Knapp, M.C. Gottlieb, M.M.
Handelsman, & L.D. VandeCreek (Eds.), APA handbook of ethics in
psychology: Practice, teaching, and research (Volume 2) (pp. 261276).
Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Liese, B. S. and Beck, J. S. (1997). Cognitive therapy supervision. In C. E.
Watkins, Handbook of Psychotherapy Supervision (pp. 114133). New
Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.
Sherry, P. (1991). Ethical issues in the conduct of supervision. The Counseling
Psychologist, 19, 566-584.
Sommers-Flanagan, J., & Sommers-Flanagan, R. (2012). Counseling and
psychotherapy theories in context and practice: Skills, strategies, and
techniques. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
White, V., & Queener, J. (2003). Supervisor and supervisee attachments and
social provisions related to the supervisory working alliance. Counselor
Education & Supervision, 42,203218

18