Supervisees’ experiences in supervision vary remarkably. To capture such variability, Ellis and colleagues offered a framework for understanding and assessing inadequate, harmful, and exceptional supervision. Although their framework was supported, it did not offer a nuanced understanding of these supervision experiences. Using consensual qualitative research–modified, this study sought to obtain a rich description of inadequate, harmful, and exceptional supervision. Participants (N = 135) were presented with definitions and provided responses (n = 156) to open-ended questions describing their inadequate (n = 63), harmful (n = 30), and/or exceptional (n = 63) supervision experiences. Supervisees reporting harmful experiences described supervisors as neglectful and callous, whereas inadequate supervision reflected inappropriate feedback, unavailability, and unresponsiveness. Conversely, exceptional supervision involved safety, clinical paradigm shifts, and modeling specific techniques or theories. Implications for supervision research, theory, and practice are discussed.
American Psychological Association. (2015). Guidelines for clinical supervision in health service psychology. American Psychologist, 70(1), 33–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038112
2.
BernardJ. M.GoodyearR. K. (2019). The fundamentals of clinical supervision (5th ed.). Pearson.
3.
BreeseL.BoonA.MilneD. (2012). Detecting excellent episodes in clinical supervision: A case-study, comparing two approaches. The Clinical Supervisor, 31(2), 121–137. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2013.730012
4.
CookR. M.EllisM. V. (2021). Post-degree clinical supervision for licensure: Occurrence of inadequate and harmful experiences among counselors. The Clinical Supervisor, 40(2), 282–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2021.1887786
5.
DenzinN. K. (1978). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. McGraw-Hill.
6.
De StefanoJ.HutmanH.GazzolaN. (2017). Putting on the face: A qualitative study of power dynamics in clinical supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 36(2), 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1080/07325223.2017.1295893
7.
EllisM. V. (2001). Harmful supervision, a cause for alarm: Commentary on Gray et al. (2001) and Nelson & Friedlander (2001). Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 401–406. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.401
EllisM. V.AyalaE. E.KotaryB.BergerL.HanusA. (2015a). Exceptional clinical supervision: Testing a taxonomy and assessing occurrence. Paper presented at the 123rd Annual Convention of theAmerican Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, CA.
10.
EllisM. V.BergerL.HanusA. E.AyalaE. E.SwordsB. A.SiemborM. (2014). Inadequate and harmful clinical supervision: Testing a revised framework and assessing occurrence. The Counseling Psychologist, 42(4), 434–472. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000013508656
11.
EllisM. V.CreanerM.HutmanH.TimulakL. (2015b). A comparative study of clinical supervision in the Republic of Ireland and the United States. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(4), 621–631. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000110
12.
EllisM. V.HutmanH.ChapinJ. (2015c). Reducing supervisee anxiety: Effects of a role induction intervention for clinical supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 62(4), 608–620. https://doi.org/10.1037/cou0000099
13.
FouadN. A.GrusC. L.HatcherR. L.KaslowN. J.HutchingsP. S.MadsonM. B.CollinsF. L.Jr.CrossmanR. E. (2009). Competency benchmarks: A model for understanding and measuring competence in professional psychology across training levels. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 3(4 Suppl), S5–S26. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015832
14.
FriedlanderM. L.SiegelS. M.BrenockK. (1989). Parallel processes in counseling and supervision: A case study.Journal of Counseling Psychology, 36(2), 149–157. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.36.2.149
15.
GrayL. A.LadanyN.WalkerJ. A.AncisJ. R. (2001). Psychotherapy trainees’ experience of counterproductive events in supervision. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 371–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.371
16.
HendricksS.CartwrightD. J. (2018). A cross-sectional survey of South African psychology interns’ perceptions of negative supervision events. South African Journal of Psychology, 48(1), 86–98. https://doi.org/10.1177/0081246317698858
17.
HillC. E. (Ed.). (2012). Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena. American Psychological Association.
18.
HillC. E.ThompsonB. J.WilliamsE. N. (1997). A guide to conducting consensual qualitative research. The Counseling Psychologist, 25(4), 517–572. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000097254001
19.
InmanA. G. (2006). Supervisor multicultural competence and its relation to supervisory process and outcome. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 32(1), 73–85. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-0606.2006.tb01589.x
20.
KangosK. A.EllisM. V.BergerL.CorpD. A.HutmanH.GibsonA.NicolasA. I. (2018). American Psychological Association guidelines for clinical supervision: Competency-based implications for supervisees. The Counseling Psychologist, 46(7), 821–845. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000018807128
21.
LadanyN. (2014). The ingredients of supervisor failure. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 70(11), 1094–1103. https://doi.org/10.1002/jclp.22130
22.
LadanyN.FriedlanderM. L. (1995). The relationship between the supervisory working alliance and trainees’ experience of role conflict and role ambiguity. Counselor Education and Supervision, 34(3), 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.1995.tb00244.x
23.
LadanyN.Lehrman-WatermanD.MolinaroM.WolgastB. (1999). Psychotherapy supervisor ethical practices: Adherence to guidelines, the supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction. The Counseling Psychologist, 27(3), 443–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000099273008
MagnusonS.WilcoxonS. A.NoremK. (2000). A profile of lousy supervision: Experienced counselors’ perspectives. Counselor Education and Supervision, 39(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6978.2000.tb01231.x
26.
MehrK. E.LadanyN.CaskieG. I. L. (2015). Factors influencing trainee willingness to disclose in supervision. Training and Education in Professional Psychology, 9(1), 44–51. http://doi.org/10.1037/tep0000028
27.
NelsonM. L.BarnesK. L.EvansA. L.TriggianoP. J. (2008). Working with conflict in clinical supervision: Wise supervisor’s perspectives. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(2), 172–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.2.172
28.
NelsonM. L.FriedlanderM. L. (2001). A close look at conflictual supervisory relationships: The trainee’s perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 48(4), 384–395. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.48.4.384
29.
Ramos-SánchezL.EsnilE.GoodwinA.RiggsS.TousterL. O.WrightL. K.RatanasiripongL. K.RodolfaE. (2002). Negative supervisory events: Effects on supervision and supervisory alliance. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 33(2), 197–202. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.33.2.197
30.
SpanglerP. T.LiuJ.HillC. E. (2012). Consensual qualitative research for simple qualitative data: An introduction to CQR-M. In HillC. E. (Ed.), Consensual qualitative research: A practical resource for investigating social science phenomena (pp. 269 –283). American Psychological Association.
31.
WorthenV.McNeillB. W. (1996). A phenomenological investigation of “good” supervision events. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 25–34. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.25
