MANAGING AND RESOLVING CONFLICT

IN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM

Alan W. Korinek
Thomas G. Kimball

ABSTRACT: The purpose of this article is to offer a brief review of

relevant literature on conflict in the therapist-supervisor system. The
authors discuss factors that contribute to conflict and the principal
areas of disagreement in the supervisory system. Additionally, the authors present several ideas regarding what a supervisor can do proactively to prevent conflict within supervision. Finally, various ways to
address and resolve supervisor-trainee conflict, including terminating
the supervisory relationship, are discussed.
KEY WORDS: marital and family therapy supervision; supervisor; training; therapistin-training; conflict management; conflict resolution.

Conflict is a word that often evokes negative images. Conflict in

the context of a helping relationship, such as the relationship between
a supervisor and a trainee, seems especially incongruent and problematic. Just the thought of it can create discomfort, anxiety, and dissonance. The actual experience of conflict in such a relationship may
raise the issue of fit between a supervisor and a trainee.
Although constant conflict within marital and family therapy supervision may signal the need to reconsider fit and perhaps even to
terminate the relationship between supervisor and trainee, the mere
presence of conflict does not imply the need for either option. Conflict
and disagreement between supervisors and trainees is inevitable; at
Alan W. Korinek, PhD, LMFT, is Associate Director of the Texas Tech University
Health Sciences Center Employee Assistance Program, TTUHSC, Department of Neuropsychiatry, 3601 4th Street, Lubbock TX 79430 (alan.korinek@ttuhsc.edu). Thomas G.
Kimball, PhD, LMFT, is Associate Director of Research and Organizational Interventions, Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center Employee Assistance Program,
Department of Neuropsychiatry, 3601 4th Street, Lubbock, TX 79430 (Thomas.Kimball@
ttuhsc.edu). Reprint requests should be sent to the first author.
Contemporary Family Therapy 25(3), September 2003 2003 Human Sciences Press, Inc.

295

296
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

the same time, conflict that is not resolved in a satisfactory manner

can be damaging and destructive, not only to those in the supervisory
system, but to others as well (e.g., clients).
The purpose of this article is to offer a review of pertinent literature
on dealing with conflict in the therapy supervisor system and to identify
common factors associated with conflict that occur between supervisors
and trainees. The authors focus on the literature that applies specifically to supervision within the field of Marriage and Family Therapy
(MFT). Literature from other related disciplines was utilized where
appropriate. Additionally, the authors present several ideas regarding
steps a supervisor can take to minimize conflict within the supervisory
system. Finally, the authors discuss ways to address and resolve supervisor-trainee conflict. Although the article is focused more specifically
on supervision within the MFT field, the concepts presented are seen
to have broader application to the general field of psychotherapy and
the supervision and training of its therapists.

FACTORS THAT CONTRIBUTE TO CONFLICT

IN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM
It is important to note that conflict in interpersonal relationships
is inevitable due to the interdependency that exists within such relationships. The definition of conflict offered by Hocker and Wilmot (1995)
underscores the role interdependency plays in the creation and maintenance of conflict: Conflict is an expressed struggle between at least
two interdependent parties who perceive incompatible goals, scarce
rewards, and interference from the other party in achieving their goals
(p. 20). The trainee depends upon the supervisor to impart knowledge
and provide skills training that will prepare the trainee to do therapy.
The trainee also needs supervision hours and credit in order to meet
important goals (e.g., course credit, licensure, and/or membership in a
professional organization). Similarly, the supervisor may depend upon
the trainee as an important source of professional identity, work responsibility, and income.
Interdependency by itself does not create conflict; rather it sets
the stage for conflict to occur. As Hocker and Wilmot (1995) noted,
conflict transpires when there is the perception of incompatible goals,
scarce rewards, and interference from the other party in achieving
ones goals. In other words, conflict is manifested when needs and goals
of supervisors and trainees collide (Liddle, 1988).

297
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

One mutual need that may create conflict is the desire to be

perceived as competent. Liddle (1988) stated, Fear of exposing ones
personal, interpersonal, cognitive, and professional inadequacies; performance anxiety; competitiveness with colleagues . . . are the most
obvious and intensely felt concomitants of being supervised and conducting supervision (p. 154). Many supervisors, especially those new
to the role, may lack confidence in themselves. The inevitable challenges to their conceptual models of therapy and/or their style of supervision can lead to symmetrical escalations that permeate every aspect
of training (Schwartz, 1988).
Incompatible goals can also result in conflict. Both trainer and
trainee have expectations for the training experience. The degree of
fit between these sets of expectations often determines the degree of
adjustment in the relationship (Schwartz, 1988). For example, the supervisors goal may be to foster the trainees development and growth,
perhaps by expanding the new therapists repertoire of interventions
and perspectives of cases. The trainees goal, however, may be to conserve as much energy as possible due to a myriad of competing demands.
Another example of competing demands occurs when the supervisor
is focused on the trainees personal and professional growth and the
trainees main focus is on obtaining a credential. Such differences in
goals are almost sure to create conflict.
Differences in learning styles, therapy orientation, and personality
are also common sources of conflict in the supervisory relationship.
These differences may include disparities in learning styles (visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, tactile) and in personality and working styles as
suggested by the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (Myers, 1980). Conflict
can also occur with trainees who previously learned other ways to
intervene with clients (Alderfer & Lynch, 1986). Shifting from an individual to a systemic model or from a deficit to a strength model can
be difficult for a trainee. Moskowitz and Rupert (1983) found that
conflicts over differences in preferred model of therapy are far more
difficult to resolve satisfactorily than conflicts created by the supervisors style of supervision. Similarities between trainers and trainees
can also be a source of difficulty in the supervisory relationship. The
closer they are in age, years of clinical experience, and academic degree,
the more difficulty they may experience in attempting to establish and
define a complementary teacher-student relationship (Schwartz, 1988).
Role ambiguity and role conflict are other sources of difficulty in
the supervisory system. Role ambiguity is the lack of clarity regarding
the expectations for ones role, the methods for fulfilling them, and

298
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

the consequences for effective or ineffective performance. Role conflict

occurs when one faces expectations requiring behaviors that are mutually competing or opposing (Biddle, 1979). Olk and Friedlander (1992)
found that role ambiguity is more prevalent across training levels, but
it typically diminishes with increasing experience. Role conflict, on the
other hand, is an issue for advanced trainees. In the role of student,
they are expected to follow the supervisors directives, but as therapists
and colleagues, they are expected to demonstrate a capacity for autonomous decision-making.
Another potential source of conflict between a supervisor and a
trainee is an unconscious attempt to pattern the supervisory relationship after past relationships where there was unfinished business
(Alderfer & Lynch, 1986). Freud (1958) used the term transference
to refer to clients displacement or projection onto their therapist of
feelings, impulses, and fantasies from important relationships. Therapists reactions to clients transferences (i.e., their own displacements
or projections onto clients) Freud termed countertransference. Many
authors within the MFT field (e.g., Liddle & Saba, 1983, 1985; Schwartz,
Liddle, & Breunlin, 1988) prefer the term isomorphism to describe
how interactions between supervisor and trainee may resemble interactions between the trainee and the client(s) and/or the trainee and
members of his or her family. Significant problems can occur when
supervisors are not aware of the presence of isomorphic processes
(Rigazio-DiGilio, 1997; Schwartz, Liddle, & Breunlin, 1988).

PRINCIPAL AREAS OF DISAGREEMENT

BETWEEN SUPERVISORS AND TRAINEES
Although conflict between a supervisor and trainee may occur for
any of the reasons discussed above, it is the authors observations that
conflict very often manifests itself around disagreements related to the
trainees clinical work. In this section, the authors will discuss the
aspects of clinical work that they have experienced to be sources of
conflict.
Case conceptualization is a common source of disagreement between supervisors and trainees. For example, in a case where one
partner presents with symptoms of depression, the trainee may view
the case as one in which the individual with depression needs individual
therapy and/or medication, while the supervisor conceptualizes it as a
case for which couple therapy is appropriate. It is common for beginning

299
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

therapists, especially those with a strong individual therapy approach,

to diminish the role of the other person or disregard one person to form
an alliance with the other.
Another area of clinical work where disagreements often occur is
the area of therapeutic intervention. The trainee may wish to intervene
by making a referral to a psychiatrist for a medication evaluation or
by excluding the clients partner, while the supervisor may want to
direct the couple to interact with one another so that underlying system
dynamics (e.g., pattern of blame-withdraw) may emerge. Trainees
sometimes feel reluctant to address issues of domestic violence, substance abuse, and/or sexual dysfunction, and they may delay asking
questions. As one trainee said, If I ask about sex and drugs, I might
have to do something about it, and I may not know what to do.
Conflict also occurs over case management issues. For example,
the supervisor could have specific requirements regarding the format
and quality of clinical case notes. As quality is much more subjective
in nature, disagreement regarding the adequacy of the case notes may
occur. Whereas the trainee believes the case notes are sufficient, the
supervisor could disagree and insist that they be done differently (e.g.,
include more or less detail). The insistence that case notes be written
differently may be solely a matter of the supervisors personal preference and/or it may stem from concerns regarding liability issues (e.g.,
requirement/standards of the Joint Commission on Accreditation of
Health Care Organizations or other professional accrediting bodies).
A more critical issue arises when deciding to notify another agency
(e.g., child protective services, probation department, police) about a
client or client system. The trainee may be reluctant to do so for fear
of losing the case; the supervisor may be hyper-vigilant to such issues
to avoid liability.
The supervision process itself can become a place where disagreements arise. Supervisors and trainees may disagree, for example, about
the structure of the supervision hour. For example, conflict emerges
when the trainee wishes to devote the majority of the time to talking
about one or two specific cases, while the supervisor wishes to spend
some of the hour reviewing the case notes to ensure that they are in
accordance with agency/organizational standards. Family therapists
pioneered videotape supervision; however, trainees often want to show
only their best work and may bring only one or two videotapes to
supervision. Furthermore, talking about what went on in the therapy
session will reveal the therapists biases and insecurities. Thus, a
trainee may want to give verbal descriptions of his or her work with

300
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

a client, while the supervisor insists that the trainee show a videotape
of the session.
Live supervision of the trainees work is another arena for conflict
between supervisors and trainees. Various authors (e.g., Elizur, 1990;
Schwartz et al., 1988) discuss the potential for conflict when live supervision is used. Initially, trainees typically feel nervous and are conscious
of the supervisor behind the mirror or at the monitor. Taking a midsession break to consult with the supervisor or receiving a phone call
with instructions can heighten the trainees anxiety. For supervisors,
live supervision can also be a very stressful experience. Tension in the
client system is easily transferred into the supervisory relationship
and vice versa, creating deadlocks that are difficult to resolve (Elizur,
1990). Furthermore, conflict over who is responsible for the client may
arise. Gottlieb (1995) notes that with so-called vertical models of supervision (e.g., Haley, 1976, 1996), the lines of responsibility are very clear.
Conversely, supervisors, who use a horizontal model or a more collaborative/team approach, may face issues of responsibility that are often
unclear. For example, whether a trainee can act independently or must
first consult with the supervisor is an important issue that needs addressing.

PREVENTIVE MEASURES TO MINIMIZE

CONFLICT IN THE SUPERVISORY SYSTEM
Although conflict in the supervisory system is inevitable, the amount
of conflict that supervisors and trainees experience can be reduced and
managed. The following paragraphs delineate several things that a
supervisor can do to minimize the frequency and intensity of conflict
with her or his trainees.
First, supervisors should make an effort to join well with their
trainees. Alderfer and Lynch (1986) state, The relationship between
the supervisor and the trainee has more impact on the success of the
process of supervision than any other factor (p. 70). In the initial stage
of the supervisory relationship, supervisors join with their trainees by
using their language and accepting their epistemologies (Schwartz,
1988). Supervisors can also assess each trainees unique learning style,
using this type of assessment to determine how best to meet the individuals training needs (Rigazio-DiGilio & Anderson, 1994). Although it
may be necessary to challenge a trainees framework of therapy at
some time, to do so immediately invites defensiveness, transference,
and resistance.

301
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

A supervisor should maintain a good connection with a trainee by

displaying a positive and supportive attitude. Snyders (1986) stated
that one cardinal rule in supervisory interactions should be that the
therapist as a person should always be supported and respected, however much his or her functions may be challenged, provoked, amplified,
or criticized (p. 18). Supervisors should try to identify, support, and
catalyze trainee strengths. A supportive environment for training is
further enhanced when supervisors reduce the evaluative focus of supervision (Schwartz, 1988). Supervisors who function as deficit detectives create considerable anxiety for their trainees (Liddle, 1988). One
suggestion is for the supervisor to define the supervisory relationship
by implying or stating overtly early on that she or he believes the
trainee is, or has the potential to be, a good therapist. Supervisors may
wish to exercise caution in making such statements since if this is done
too quickly or too facilely the potential to create genuine conflict may
arise particularly if it becomes apparent that the trainee is not performing as a potentially good therapist. In such cases supervisors may think
about other means to support their trainee such as providing them with
honest and respectful feedback about their skill level. Another suggestion is for the supervisor to display an attitude about the trainees
performance that implies that while there is an investment in the
trainees development, the supervisors identity as a competent trainer
is not dependent upon the trainees performance or the clients outcome.
Supervisors should also be careful not to blend support with criticism
or add criticism as a caboose at the end of positive statements, as
doing so will negate the support.
A second way to minimize conflict in the supervisory relationship is
to create a good supervision contract. An effective supervision contract
outlines logistics, clarifies the supervisory relationship, identifies goals,
describes supervision methods, reviews clinical issues, complies with
credentialing requirements, and specifies evaluation procedures (Storm,
1997). A useful contract will also include provisions for renegotiating
the contract or resolving supervision disagreement. Some supervisors
include a provision to include third parties to help in conflict resolution
(Fine & Turner, 1997). Provisions for terminating the supervisory relationship should also be spelled out in the contract, including grounds
for termination. Finally, if supervision is leading toward licensure,
certification, and/or designation, it is wise to include a specific statement that participation in supervision does not guarantee that the
supervisor will endorse or support the trainee.
Balancing hierarchy and power is a fourth way to minimize conflict
in the supervisory system. Although the supervisory relationship is

302
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

hierarchical by its very nature (Hicks & Cornille, 1999; Nichols, 1988)
and the supervisor must have final say in case management matters
since she or he bears legal responsibility (Huber, 1994), supervisors
can mind the power inherent in their evaluative position, thereby
increasing the trainees personal agency and leveling the hierarchy
(Fine & Turner, 1997). One way to level the hierarchy is to develop a
contract that stipulates shared responsibility between supervisor and
trainee for change, learning, and evaluation (Wheeler, Avis, Miller, &
Chaney, 1985). In any event, trainees should be given increased autonomy as the supervision process progresses. In the later stages of training, when trainees have demonstrated the capacity to generate sound
clinical alternatives, supervisors should function more as consultants
(Liddle, 1988; Nichols, 1988). To avoid the resistance that often accompanies insufficient autonomy, a supervisor might tell a trainee, Now
that you have had some experience, I will expect you to bring up the
issues that you want to discuss. Unless you tell me differently, I will
assume that everything is okay.
When thinking about power in supervisory relationships, the supervisor is encouraged to pay special attention to diversity issues. Trainees and supervisors may experience anxiety about gender, race, and
ethnic biases. If not managed effectively, this type of anxiety can interfere with both the supervisory relationship and the therapy process
(Watson, 1993). Given that male and female therapists often have
different experiences in therapy (Warburton, Newberry, & Alexander,
1989), supervisors will do well to recognize and overtly challenge gender
issues as they occur in therapy or supervision (Wheeler et al., 1985).
Supervisors who attend to self-of-supervisor issues and exercise
humility are also in better positions to minimize conflict in the supervisory relationship. Although supervisor and trainee both bear some
responsibility for the quality and tone of the supervisory relationship,
the greatest responsibility belongs to the supervisor (Alderfer & Lynch,
1986). The quality of the relationship depends upon the supervisors
willingness to pay attention to person of the supervisor issues in
supervision (Watson, 1993). Maintaining such a self-focus may pose a
dilemma for some supervisors, as it requires stepping down from the
expert position and becoming vulnerable. At the same time, supervisors
who take responsibility for monitoring their own behavior provide a
good example for trainees to follow in their work with clients.
An attitude of humility on the part of supervisors can promote
less conflictual relationships with trainees. When supervisors show
fallibility and are willing to admit their own mistakes, while at the

303
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

same time maintaining a sense of leadership and confidence, it serves

to create a noncompetitive atmosphere and prevents an increasing
cycle of blame and demoralization (Breunlin, Liddle, & Schwartz, 1988;
Schwartz, 1988).
Another way to create less conflicted supervisory relationships
involves knowing when to confront and when to refrain from confrontation. The inevitability of conflict in the supervisory relationship means
that potential battles abound, but not every battle needs to be fought.
Schwartz (1988) observed that trainees who value dialectical exchanges
sometimes will strongly challenge a supervisors suggestion, only to
follow the suggestion in the therapy room. Two important battles worth
waging in supervision are the battle for structure and the battle for
initiative (Boylin, Anderson, & Bartle, 1992; Whitaker & Napier, 1977).
Though originally conceptualized as issues in a therapists work with
clients, these battles also occur in supervision. The battle for structure
establishes the supervisors position in the supervisory system as the
facilitator of growth and change, while the battle for initiative is over
the responsibility for that growth. Winning the battles for structure
and initiative does not preclude the development of a more collaborative
relationship between a supervisor and her or his trainees. As noted
previously, the supervisory relationship should become more collaborative and the trainee more independent as she or he gains confidence
and competency.

WAYS TO HANDLE AND RESOLVE CONFLICT

Thus far, the inevitability of disagreement and conflict in supervision has been discussed, along with ways to minimize them. Such
conflict may be overt, but it is much more likely to be covert, especially
at low levels of disagreement. Ratliff, Wampler, and Morris (2000) used
the term dissensus to describe occasions of misunderstanding and
disagreement that commonly occur during supervision. In this study
involving supervisors and trainees within two MFT programs, the authors identified different types of supervisor responses to dissensus
and placed them into two general categories: (1) attempts to influence;
and (2) statements of judgment. The latter category is more confrontive.
Trainee responses to dissensus all fall into one category, attempts to
comply, and they varied in terms of the degree of compliance.
Ratliff and associates (2000) found that although dissensus in supervision is common, supervisors or trainees rarely acknowledged dif-

304
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

ferences of opinion. Instead, supervisors and trainees would engage in

a lower level of dissensus and then proceed to other topics without an
explicit acknowledgement of error by the trainee or explicit criticism
by the supervisor. The most confrontive supervisory responses were
rarely used, being reserved for instances where other tactics of influence
and judgment had been unsuccessfully employed, and there were no
instances of explicit non-compliance by trainees.
Ratliff and colleagues (2000) also argued that the tactics used by
supervisors and trainees relate to strategies used in the presentation
of self (Goffman, 1967). Trainees wish to present themselves both as
competent in the therapy room and cooperative in the supervision room.
Consequently, the trainee may agree with the supervisors comments,
but then defend in-session behavior as appropriate to the context (i.e.,
Yes, I hear what youre saying, but . . .). Supervisors tactfulness in
supervision may be demonstrated by their ability to refrain from introducing explicit contradictions when trainees present themselves as
both competent and cooperative. The tactful supervisor may even take
the blame for a failed intervention, suppressing the urge to blame the
therapist. Such a collaborative dance between supervisor and trainee
continues until such time as the latter appears unresponsive to the
supervisor, in which case the supervisor may escalate the confrontation
making the conflict more overt (Ratliff et al., 2000). A trainee who feels
attacked and belittled by the supervisor could eventually refuse to
carry out the supervisors suggestions and directives, begin avoiding
supervision sessions, and/or terminate supervision.
An awareness of these dynamics allows supervisors to exercise
greater care in using responses that facilitate, rather than frustrate, the
attainment of important goals in supervision. If a supervisor escalates
confrontation too quickly, the end result may be increased dependency
on the part of the trainee. Warning signs of increasing dependence by
a trainee include asking many questions (especially in response to a
question from the supervisor), deferring continually to the supervisor,
and being unwilling to discuss or challenge a directive given by the
supervisor (Ratliff et al., 2000).
Metacommunication, defined as communicating about the process
in a relationship (Watzlawick, Bavelas, & Jackson, 1967), is an important conflict resolution skill. Most disagreements in supervision are
really issues of dissensus that can be easily resolved (Ratliff et al.,
2000); however, dissensus that is not resolved may develop into overt
conflict. If conflict reaches a level at which it poses a threat to the
viability of the supervisory relationship and the trainees development,

305
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

the supervisor should take the initiative. Using the skill of metacommunication, the supervisor addresses the situation in a straightforward
but respectful manner. Effective metacommunication involves the supervisor taking appropriate responsibility for self as the conflict is
processed and strategies for resolving the conflict are developed.
A form of metacommunication that may serve to prevent an escalation in conflict involves regularly asking for feedback regarding the
supervisory process (Todd, 1997a). The usefulness of the practice, however, depends upon the sincerity of the supervisor who is making the
request. Supervisors who wish to hear only positive feedback will likely
receive little feedback at all. Todd (1997b) stated, Ideally the supervisor should ask for the feedback that the supervisor considers most
relevant to the supervisor, while leaving enough questions open-ended
and unstructured to allow feedback expressed from the point of view
of the trainee (p. 245). For example, the supervisor might say, I think
its important as we go along that we continue to talk about whats
happening in supervision. I wonder how youre feeling about it. It is
important for supervisors to remember that they can only ask trainees
to provide such feedback; the trainee must choose whether or not to
do so.
Ideally, conflict resolution in the supervisory relationship will be
a collaborative, win-win process. Much has been written about this
subject and most readers probably will be quite familiar with it. To
review, successful employment of a win-win approach often begins
with adopting a different metaphor for dealing with disagreement.
Elgin (1997) noted that the metaphors most often used (e.g., disagreement is combat or disagreement is a contest) imply a zero-sum game
where every disagreement has to end with a winner and a loser
(p. 80). Instead she suggested the metaphor disagreement is carpentry, which emphasizes building a meaningful solution together and is
collaborative rather than competitive (Elgin, 1997).
Win-win conflict resolution includes six steps: (1) Identify the
problem and unmet needs; (2) Make a date to discuss the problem
and needs; (3) Describe the problem and needs from each persons
perspective; (4) Consider the other persons point of view; (5) Negotiate a
solution; and (6) Follow up the solution (Adler & Towne, 1996). Trainees
should be encouraged to invest in the process and offer possible solutions. In these interactions, supervisors must be especially careful in
monitoring power issues (Fine & Turner, 1997). A supervisor, cognizant
of his or her legal responsibility for case management, may reserve the
right to choose the solution from those generated, but that possibility

306
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

should be explained prior to engaging in the process. Otherwise, trainees may feel that their contribution to the process was in vain.

WHEN DISAGREEMENTS AND CONFLICT

CANNOT BE RESOLVED
Although the goal is to settle disagreements and resolve conflicts
that occur within the supervisory system, there are those times when
neither can be accomplished. Todd (1997b) asserted that a good supervisory contract will consider, and provide for, the possibility that conflict
between a supervisor and a trainee cannot be resolved and supervision
will terminate. The easiest form of premature termination is ending
supervision by mutual consent. Ideally, the situation is recognized
sooner rather than later, for the longer the supervisory relationship
has continued, the more involved termination will be (Todd, 1997b).
Difficult but important questions must be addressed (e.g., Will the
trainee receive full credit for the hours, and/or will the supervisor send
in an evaluation?). When a specific number of hours of supervision is
required by an outside agent or by law, late termination may be especially problematic.
Unfortunately, there is relatively little guidance in the literature
regarding the process of termination in supervision. Mead (1990) lists
four supervisory tasks that should be undertaken in the event that
termination becomes necessary: (1) Summarize the progress made by
the trainee; (2) Discuss further needs for training and supervision; (3)
Promote generalization from supervision; and (4) Resolve interpersonal
issues between the supervisor and trainee and bring supervision to
closure (Mead, 1990, p. 127). Accomplishing these tasks when tension
is high may be difficult. Todd (1997b) encouraged supervisors to avoid
abandonment when ending supervision by at least attempting to achieve
the four supervising tasks. He also suggested that the situation may
improve if the supervisor places the trainees supervision experience
into a larger context, framing it as one step in a long-term process.
The context of supervision can also make a significant difference in
the termination process. For example, the termination of a supervisory
relationship within a graduate training program can have far different
consequences for the trainee than the termination of a supervisory
relationship by which a therapist in private practice is attempting to
gain an additional license. With a graduate program, the trainees
degree and career may be at stake. The high level of dependency, and

307
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

the fact that the trainee is likely to be at a much earlier stage of

development, dramatically increases the degree of vulnerability experienced by the trainee. Supervisors will wish to be sensitive to such
vulnerability and factor it into their functioning at every stage of the
supervisory process. Also, the greater the vulnerability, the more essential it is that expectations and grounds for termination are spelled out
in a supervision contract. For graduate programs, such stipulations
are normally included in the programs policies and procedures and
communicated clearly to everyone who is either in the program or
interested in becoming part of the program. MFT programs are wise
to provide such information in order to avoid legal liability in cases of
litigation over termination of a student.
In rare instances, a supervisor may feel compelled to counsel a
trainee out of the profession (Mead, 1990). Given the usual complexity
of such situations, Todd (1997b) advocated taking as much time as is
necessary to ensure that the most possible and most peaceful outcome
is achieved. As stated earlier, honest and respectful feedback is suggested. In addition, regular consultation with knowledgeable parties
(e.g., legal counsel) may be an essential part of the process.

DISCUSSION
Conflict within the supervisory relationship is inevitable, but it
does not have to be destructive or disrupt learning. The authors have
discussed several important things a supervisor can do both to minimize
the frequency and severity of conflict and to resolve conflict when it
does occur. By applying these principles and practices, supervisors can
create and maintain relationships with trainees that are as mutually
satisfying as possible.
Most of what has been written in this article applies to all styles
and types of therapy supervision. It should be noted however, that
there are some important differences between individual supervision
and group supervision. The obvious difference is that with group supervision there are multiple people with whom the supervisor interacts
at any given time. Moreover, the supervisor is responsible for many
individuals, which makes the supervision experience more complex for
everyone involved. Methods to minimize conflict in group supervision
include being familiar with group dynamics, communicating and clarifying expectations for group functioning, and providing opportunities
to discuss group process.

308
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Another issue arises where there are multiple supervisors providing supervision for the same trainee, either consecutively or at the same
time. For example, a trainee could be transferred to a new supervisor at
the beginning of a new semester within a MFT training program or a
trainee could be supervised by both a supervisor candidate and an
approved supervisor. In the former case, it is the responsibility of the
supervisors to ensure a smooth transition and that personal preferences
regarding supervision do not disregard the trainees current skill level.
In the latter case, supervisors are wise to initially negotiate appropriate
boundaries and roles to ensure clear lines of communication and accountability for the trainee.
As Ratliff and associates (2000) found, making overt the differences
between supervisors and trainees perturbs the system and possibly
leads to open conflict. Escalating confrontations too quickly may increase a trainees dependence on the supervisor, drive the trainee out
of supervision, and/or stifle the trainees growth and autonomy (Nichols,
1988). The urgency of the confrontation (e.g., the welfare of a client)
and the stage of the trainees development are factors that should be
carefully weighed during conflict resolution.
For the future, the authors suggest that the process of supervision
be further examined and clearly described so that supervisors can be
comfortable being open about the challenges of supervision. Generally,
more rigorous studies are needed focusing on how disagreements and
open conflicts in the supervisory system are handled (or not handled)
and the nature of conflict within supervision. Such future studies could
be modeled on the Ratliff et al. (2000) study discussed in this article
and focus on the process of handling conflict in supervision.
The authors offer these additional recommendations:
Training programs, where the bulk of supervision takes place,
might consider addressing the relationship between faculty and
student and how that affects the supervisory-trainee relationship.
Due to the power imbalance that naturally exists within the
supervisory relationship, university faculty members would be
wise to reevaluate how trainees and supervisors are held accountable for their supervisory relationships.
In more private settings, supervisors may want to continue their
supervision of supervision hours indefinitely, instead of ending
once they have received the Approved Supervisor status.
Most importantly, supervisors and trainees would do well to

309
ALAN W. KORINEK AND THOMAS G. KIMBALL

strive to develop the types of relationships that promote healthy

communication and open dialogue about differences so that professional growth continues and quality care is promoted.

REFERENCES
Adler, R. B., & Towne, N. (1996). Looking out/looking in: Interpersonal communication
(8th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
Alderfer, C., & Lynch, B. (1986). Supervision in two dimensions. Journal of Strategic
and Systemic Therapies, 5, 7073.
Biddle, B. J. (1979). Role theory: Expectations, identities, and behaviors. New York:
Academic Press.
Boylin, W. M., Anderson, S. A., & Bartle, S. E. (1992). Symbolic-experiential supervision:
A model for learning or a frame of mind? Journal of Family Psychotherapy, 3, 4359.
Breunlin, D. C., Liddle, H. A., & Schwartz, R. C. (1988). Concurrent training of supervisors
and therapists. In H. A. Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook
of family therapy training and supervision (pp. 207224). New York: Guilford Press.
Elgin, S. H. (1997). How to disagree without being disagreeable: Getting your point across
with the gentle art of verbal self-defense. New York: John Wiley.
Elizur, J. (1990). Stuckness in live supervision: Expanding the therapists style. Journal
of Family Therapy, 12, 267280.
Fine, M., & Turner, J. (1997). Collaborative supervision: Minding the power. In T. C.
Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy,
and pragmatics (pp. 229240). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Freud, S. (1958). The dynamics of transference. In J. Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 12,
pp. 97108). London: Horvath Press. (Original work published 1912)
Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. New York: Anchor.
Gottlieb, M. C. (1995). Ethical dilemmas in change of format and live supervision. In
R. H. Mikesell, D. Lusterman, & S. H. McDaniel (Eds.), Integrating family therapy:
Handbook of family psychology and systems theory (pp. 561569). Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Haley, J. (1976). Problem-solving therapy: New strategies for effective family therapy.
San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Haley, J. (1996). Learning and teaching therapy. New York: Guilford Press.
Hicks, M. W., & Cornille, T. A. (1999). Gender, power, and relationship ethics in family
therapy education. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21, 4556.
Hocker, J. L., & Wilmot, W. W. (1995). Interpersonal conflict (4th Ed.). Madison, WI:
Brown & Benchmark.
Huber, C. H. (1994). Ethical, legal, and professional issues in the practice of marriage
and family therapy. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Liddle, H. A. (1988). Systemic supervision: Conceptual overlays and pragmatic guidelines.
In H.A. Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy
training and supervision (pp. 153171). New York: Guilford Press.
Liddle, H. A., & Saba, G. (1983). On context replication: The isomorphic relationship of
training and therapy. Journal of Strategic and Systemic Therapies, 2, 311.
Liddle, H. A., & Saba, G. (1985). The isomorphic nature of training and therapy. In J.
Schwartzman (Ed.), Families and other systems (pp. 2747). New York: Guilford
Press.
Mead, D. (1990). Effective supervision: A task-oriented model for the developing professions
New York: Brunner/Mazel.

310
CONTEMPORARY FAMILY THERAPY

Moskowitz, S., & Rupert, P. (1983). Conflict resolution within the supervisory relationship. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 14, 632641.
Myers, I. B. (1980). Gifts differing. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Nichols, W. C. (1988). An integrative psychodynamic and systems approach. In H. A.
Liddle, D. S. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy training
and supervision (pp. 110127). New York: Guilford Press.
Olk, M. E., & Friedlander, M. L. (1992). Trainees experiences of role conflict and role
ambiguity in supervisory relationships. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 389
397.
Ratliff, D. A., Wampler, K. S., & Morris, G. H. B. (2000). Lack of consensus in supervision.
Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 26, 373384.
Rigazio-DiGilio, S. A. (1997). Integrative supervision: Approaches to tailoring the supervisory process. In T. C. Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor:
Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 195216). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Rigazio-DiGilio, S. A., & Anderson, S. A. (1994). A cognitive-developmental model for
marital and family therapy supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 12, 93118.
Schwartz, R. C. (1988). The trainer-trainee relationship in family therapy training. In
H. Liddle, D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy
training and supervision (pp. 172182). New York: Guilford Press.
Schwartz, R. C., Liddle, H. A., & Breunlin, D. C. (1988). Muddles in live supervision. In
H. A. Liddle, D. C. Breunlin, & R. C. Schwartz (Eds.), Handbook of family therapy
training and supervision (pp. 183194). New York: Guilford Press.
Snyders, R. (1986). Emancipatory supervision in family therapy. The Clinical Supervisor,
4, 325.
Storm, C. L. (1997). The blueprint for supervision relationships: Contracts. In T. C.
Todd & C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy,
and pragmatics (pp. 272282). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Todd, T. C. (1997a). Self-supervision as a universal supervisory goal. In T. C. Todd &
C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 1725). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Todd, T. C. (1997b). Problems in supervision: Lessons from supervisees. In T. C. Todd &
C. L. Storm (Eds.), The complete systemic supervisor: Context, philosophy, and pragmatics (pp. 241252). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Warburton, J., Newberry, A., & Alexander, J. (1989). Women as therapists, trainees,
and supervisors. In M. McGoldrick, C. M. Anderson, & F. Walsh (Eds.), Women in
families: A framework for family therapy (pp. 152165). New York: Norton.
Watson, M. F. (1993). Supervising the person of the therapist: Issues, challenges and
dilemmas. Contemporary Family Therapy, 15, 2131.
Watzlawick, P., Bavelas, J. B., & Jackson, D. D. (1967). Pragmatics of human communication: A study of interactional patterns, pathologies, and paradoxes. New York: Norton.
Wheeler, D., Avis, J. M., Miller, L. A., & Chaney, S. (1985). Rethinking family therapy
education and supervision: A feminist model. Journal of Psychotherapy and the
Family, 1, 5371.
Whitaker, C. A., & Napier, A. Y. (1977). Process techniques of family therapy. Interaction,
1, 419.