Lessons from Triadic Supervisors: Maximizing Effectiveness

The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision Volume 7 Number 3 Article 6 2015 Lessons from Triadic Supervisors: Maximizing Effectiveness Andrew Felton University of Wyoming, Michael Morgan University of Wyoming, Mary Alice Bruce University of Wyoming, Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.wcsu.edu/jcps Part of the Higher Education Commons, Other Social and Behavioral Sciences Commons, and the Student Counseling and Personnel Services Commons Recommended Citation Felton, A., Morgan, M., & Bruce, M. (2015). Lessons from Triadic Supervisors: Maximizing Effectiveness. The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision, 7(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.7729/73.1107 Lessons from Triadic Supervisors: Maximizing Effectiveness Abstract Through this hermeneutic-phenomenological qualitative study, 10 supervisors of a CACREP accredited program identified emergent themes and challenges of triadic supervision: relationship dynamics, feedback, time management, contextual learning, and matching of supervisees. The researchers offer specific methods to approach these challenges within triadic supervision to maximize effectiveness. Keywords Supervision, Triadic, Effectiveness Author's Notes Correspondence addressing this article should be sent to Andrew Felton: This article is available in The Journal of Counselor Preparation and Supervision: https://repository.wcsu.edu/jcps/ vol7/iss3/6 As an essential aspect of counselor preparation, supervision calls for models that demonstrate consistent effectiveness (Borders, 2012; Kemer, Borders, & Willse, 2014). As of 2001, the standards of the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP, 2016) have endorsed triadic supervision as a suitable training and supervision practice. With greater numbers of state counseling licensing boards accepting triadic supervision as an alternate to individual supervision (Oliver, Nelson, & Ybanez, 2010), researchers continue to explore this model which consists of a supervisor and two supervisees meeting simultaneously (Goldberg, Dixon, & Wolf, 2012; Hein & Lawson, 2008). As triadic supervision receives growing attention in the literature, guidelines for how to make best use of this model are critically needed. Although the model itself seems clear, the overarching structure and process of triadic supervision appears to vary widely in practice. Therefore, the purpose of this qualitative study was to investigate and understand practicing supervisors’ experiences, with a goal of identifying commonplace challenges faced in triadic supervision, and offering pragmatic ways to address those challenges Background Since the 1900’s, mental health professionals have recognized clinical supervision as crucial for their professional development and effective work with clients (Kemer et al., 2014; Tomlin, Weatherston, & Pavkov, 2014). Across social work, psychology, and counseling as well as couples and family therapy, various supervision modalities are used (Hein & Lawson, 2009). Researchers carefully investigate core components, and new structured models are brought forward to enhance supervision practice (Oliver et al., 2010). Several promising models of triadic supervision have emerged in the counseling field (Goldberg et al., 2012; Lawson, Hein, & Getz, 2009; Stinchfield, Hill & Kleist, 2007). Lawson et al. (2009) drew on group supervision techniques to structure triadic supervision identifying collaborative relationships as central for supporting appropriate feedback exchanges. Goldberg et al. (2012) emphasized structuring sessions to pay particular attention to relationship dynamics, the ability to be vulnerable and understood, among members of the triad. According to Nuttgens and Chang (2013), differences in attitude and behavior that may be most likely to affect relationship dynamics revolve around ethics, gender, sexual attraction, power differentials, strength of skills, and emotional maturity. Stinchfield, Hill, and Kleist (2007) also concentrated on structure, using reflecting teams as a basis for feedback and understanding. Thus, similarities exist across models, most particularly related to the focus on thoughtful structuring of relationship dynamics, feedback and time management. Overall, several empirical studies (Borders et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2012; Stinchfield, Hill, & Kleist, 2010) have identified a number of advantages, although challenges also exist in triadic supervision. Stinchfield et al. (2010) discovered triadic supervision fostered a degree of trust among the participants that often led to meaningful and productive working relationships. As a result, members of the triads were able to understand the perspectives of the others and did not have to defend or explain themselves. Triadic supervision generally has resulted in insightful, valuable, challenging feedback while supportive to the growth of supervisees (Borders et al., 2012; Goldberg et al., 2012). Triadic supervisors have noted that feedback between and among the triad often complemented each other and created a dynamic synergy that enhanced learning and fostered a sense of community within the time constraints of a supervision session (Oliver et al., 2010). Another benefit of triadic supervision is peer role-modeling (Borders et al., 2012). Lawson, Hein, and Stuart (2010) found the additional perspective of another supervisee helped bring forward ideas that neither supervisors nor the other supervisee had considered or tried. This diversity of views, along with the potential for indirect learning and peer support, are advantages found in group supervision (Lee & Everett, 2004), leading Borders (2012) to recommend that triadic supervisors recognize and understand the relationship dynamics and issues pertinent to group work. However, Lee and Everett (2004) noted that group supervision, with the greater number of supervisees, suffers from increased challenges to develop a safe climate, and to provide significant time and focus for each supervisee. Triadic supervision may avoid some of the drawbacks inherent in a group format, while still retaining some of the benefits. Recent studies have also identified some challenges with triadic supervision. Triads of supervisees with disparate skills and personalities might fail to build sufficient trust and inhibit feedback, thus impeding progress and stifling the potential of both supervisees (Hein, Lawson & Rodriguez, 2011). With mismatched supervisees, power differentials also emerged as a concern. Specifically, the supervisor’s power, combined with the social or academic power potentially held by a higher-functioning supervisee seemed to affect relationship dynamics and the balance of time spent focused on each supervisee (Hein & Lawson, 2008; Hein et al., 2011; & Stinchfield et al., 2010). However, the primary challenge may be role confusion and uncertainty affecting supervisors who attempt to apply the norms (...truncated)