Supervisors' and Supervisees' perceptions of the effectiveness of family therapy supervisor interpersonal skills

Supervision: Research, models, and competence.

“…Differences in MBTI profiles have been found between supervisors and supervisees (Carey & Williams, 1986;Craig & Sleight, 1990), and supervisee preference for relationship-oriented versus task-oriented supervision (Lochner & Melchert, 1997), but the MBTI has yielded inconsistent results regarding the effects on supervisee evaluation (Carey & Williams, 1986;Handley, 1982). In addition, some evidence exists for matching effects for theoretical orientation between supervisors and supervisees on the supervisory relationship (Kennard, Stewart, & Gluck, 1987;Ramos-Sánchez et al, 2002) and preference for supervisory style (Lochner & Melchert, 1997) but appears to have less impact than other relationship factors (Schacht, Howe, & Berman, 1989;Wetchler, 1989). Bernard and Goodyear regarded these studies as indications of individual differences in information processing and suggested that supervisors need to develop the ability to flexibly respond to supervisees with differing cognitive or learning styles.…”

The Supervisory Relationship: An Identification of the Primary Elements in the Relationship and an Application of Two Theories of Ethical Relationships

“…They name respect and safety as important elements in the supervisory relationship. Later authors reiterate the necessity of these elements in supervision (Olson & Pegg, 1979;Heath, 1982;Liddle & Schwartz, 1983;Schwartz, 1988;Pirotta & Cecchin, 1988;Haas et al, 1988;Nichols, 1988;Liddle, Davidson, & Barrett, 1988;Wetchler, 1989). Respect can be experienced both by the supervisor's communicated belief in the potential of the supervisee and by her counting as valuable and relevant his past experience as an individual and as a professional.…”

“…A final recurring theme in the discussion about trust is that of the importance of clear communication which leads to a confidence on the part of the supervisee in the mutual understanding that is a part of the relationship. This includes such things as clear feedback about the supervisee's performance, clarity about the supervisory contract, and explicit articulation of the meaning behind particular interventions in live supervision (Farmer, 1987;Liddle, Davidson, & Barrett, 1988;Wetchler, 1989).…”