The Nature of Counselor Supervisor Nondisclosure

Abstract

This study examined the types of information counselor supervisors do not disclose to their trainees. Results from a national sample of 90 supervisors indicated that their nondisclosures fell into 12 categories, and that there were 9 reasons associated with these 12 types of nondisclosures.A primary role of counselor supervisors is to provide feedback to their trainees to enhance their learning and competence (Bernard & Goodyear, 1992;Blocher, 1983;Holloway, 1992). Because feedback could be limitless, yet time is limited, supervisors must choose to disclose only a subset of their reactions, thoughts, and feelings. Conversely, supervisors must choose to withhold or not disclose information to their trainees, presumably information that would detract from their learning. However, it is likely that, at times, supervisors do not share relevant growth-enhancing information with their trainees (e.g., salient information regarding the trainee's counseling skills or supervision behaviors), which could affect the efficacy of supervision. Although covert processes such as nondisclosures have been addressed generally in the counseling literature (e.g., Hill, Thompson, & Corbett, 19921, there has been little research on covert processes in supervision (Ladany, Hill, Corbett, & N u t t , 1996;Yourman & Farber, 1996). and no empirical studies that examine supervisor nondisclosures. Supervision theorists have to some extent addressed the role of covert processes in supervision. For example, Blocher (1983) noted that for supervision to be effective, communication patterns should be established through which both supervisor and trainee are able to express themselves with "minimal inhibitions and distortions" (p. 30). Bordin (1983) also indicated that to gain mutual trust and to build a stronger supervisory working alliance with the trainee, the supervisor should discuss her or his own experiences. Hence, if the supervisor is making very few disclosures in the supervision session, it is unlikely that an open and honest exchange is occurring.Alternatively, a reasonable argument could be made that not all supervisor nondisclosures should be disclosed. Some supervisor experiences, such as personal issues not relevant to supervision, even if thought about in supervision, would likely undermine the supervision process. Furthermore, supervisors who disclose too much information about themselves that has little to do with supervision, could weaken the supervisory relationship or negatively influence trainee growth. Therefore, supervisors must consider the effect that their nondisclosures could have on supervision effectiveness.We believed that the content of the thoughts, feelings, and reactions that supervisors do not disclose to their trainees would generally reflect aspects of the client-trainee-supervisor triad. Specifically, we reasoned that the content of the supervisor nondisclosures would generally pertain to the supervisor's personal issues and concerns (e.g., a personal family crisis), supervisor and trainee interactions (e.g...

Supervisors’ reports of the effects of supervisor self-disclosure on supervisees

“…Yourman (2003) also discussed anecdotal evidence that SRSD may ease supervisee shame and, therefore, increase a supervisee's willingness to self-disclose. Furthermore, research informed by supervisees' reports has demonstrated that when supervisors and supervisees did not self-disclose, communication was impeded, potentially imperiling the supervisory working alliance and supervisees' clinical work and development (Hess et al, in press;Ladany et al, 1996;Ladany & Melincoff, 1999). Ladany and Lehrman-Waterman (1999) also noted a relationship between SRSD and the working alliance: The greater the number of self-disclosures perceived by the supervisee, the stronger the supervisee perceived the supervisory working alliance.…”

“…Two of the findings (i.e., to enhance the supervision relationship, to model supervisee disclosure) provide empirical support for those theorized by Farber (2006) and thereby invite additional research to see whether they also emerge in other investigations. Participants' reasons for refraining from SRSD echo those found by Ladany and Melincoff (1999), suggesting that if supervisors fear that the SRSD is irrelevant to supervision or connects too closely to the supervisor's personal concerns, or if supervisees are not ready to hear or will react negatively to the SRSD, prudence may dictate that such SRSDs not be offered. Finally, the types of SRSDs reported by our participants mirror those found in the literature (Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, 1999).…”

“…Despite the empirical evidence demonstrating that SRSD can facilitate supervisee self-disclosure and the implicit knowledge that supervision rests on the willingness of supervisees to self-disclose their concerns and clinical experiences with supervisors, research shows that both supervisors and supervisees nevertheless hide information from each other (Hoffman, Hill, Holmes, & Frietas, 2005;Ladany et al, 1996;Ladany & Melincoff, 1999). Ladany and Melincoff, for example, found that 98% of supervisors withheld information from their supervisees, including negative reactions to supervisees, supervisors' own personal concerns, concerns that supervisors anticipated supervisees would react to negatively, positive reactions to supervisees' professional performance, and reactions to supervisees' clients.…”

“…Ladany and Melincoff, for example, found that 98% of supervisors withheld information from their supervisees, including negative reactions to supervisees, supervisors' own personal concerns, concerns that supervisors anticipated supervisees would react to negatively, positive reactions to supervisees' professional performance, and reactions to supervisees' clients. Research has identified the following reasons for supervisors refraining from such self-disclosures to supervisees: irrelevance of the information to supervision, pertinence of information to the supervisor's personal issues (i.e., supervisors withheld information that might be construed as personal), lack of supervisee developmental readiness to hear the information, and anticipated negative reaction from the supervisee (Hoffman et al, 2005;Ladany & Melincoff, 1999).…”

“…Research has also supported a connection between increased self-disclosure and a stronger supervision working alliance (Ladany & Lehrman-Waterman, 1999) and suggested that refraining from self-disclosure (supervisor or supervisee) may be detrimental to the working alliance and clinical work (Ladany et al, 1996;Ladany & Melincoff, 1999). The intervention should be used carefully, however, as reflected in Gray et al's (2001) assertion of its possible negative impact.…”