42

The Clinical Supervisor, 31:42–60, 2012Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0732-5223 print/1545-231X onlineDOI: 10.1080/07325223.2012.670077

Address correspondence to Rebecca Goldberg, 175 President’s Circle, Box 9727, Mississippi State, MS 39762. E-mail: rgoldberg@colled.msstate.edu

Facilitating Effective Triadic Counseling Supervision: An Adapted Model for an Underutilized Supervision Approach

REBECCA GOLDBERG Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, Mississippi, United States

ANDREA DIXONGeorgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia, United States

ChERyL PENCE WOLFUniversity of Florida, Gainesville, Florida, United States

The current standards of accreditation boards, licensure, and certifications or credentialing bodies, such as the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (2010), Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (2009), and the National Board for Certified Counselors (2005), promote various types of supervision for counselors-in-training, counselors, and counselor educators. Largely missing from the literature is the concept of triadic supervision, a means of conserving both time and money for the parties involved. The authors overview three supervision approaches (Bordin, 1983; Kleist & Hill, 2003; Schutz, 1958), and present an adaptation of them into one model of triadic supervision. Recommendations for counselor education training and supervision practices, ethical concerns, and evaluation processes are provided.

KEYWORDS clinical supervision, counselor education, triadic supervision

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 43

INTRODuCTION

Clinical supervision occurs for most, if not all, counselors-in-training (e.g., mental health, marriage and family, school counseling and guidance) in accredited academic settings, as well as professional counselors in clinical practice settings who are working toward licensure, certifications, and other professional credentials (Aten, Madson, & Kruse, 2008). The overarching goals of supervision are maintaining professional standards and client welfare (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). Mental health services are part of self-regulating professions, meaning that professional counselors self-govern and assure society that in doing so they will maintain the public’s safety beyond their own interests. Self-regulation occurs by means of national accreditation boards, such as the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP; 2009), state licensure boards, and state and national certification and professional credentialing agencies, including the Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification (CRCC; 2010) and the National Board for Certified Counselors (NBCC; 2005).

Accreditation, licensure, and certification or credentialing bodies vary in terms of supervision requirements in counseling, but they all address the necessity of clinical supervision for both graduate counseling students and postgraduate counselors who are working toward clinical licensure, certifications, and other professional credentials. Although there is variation among internship requirements within the helping professions, in this article we are focusing on the counseling field, which does not include undergraduate interns. Rather, counseling interns refers to current graduate students and prelicense/postgraduate professionals that must accrue additional supervision hours before they can achieve licensure. Counselors-in-training enrolled in clinical practica and internships in CACREP-accredited programs, for example, must receive one hour per week of either individual or triadic supervision, in addition to 90 minutes of required weekly group supervision, for the duration of the clinical experience (CACREP, 2009). In contrast, the licensing board in the state of Florida, the Board for Clinical Social Work, Marriage and Family Therapy, and Mental health Counseling, requires that registered counseling interns receive one hour of individual and/or triadic supervision with an approved, qualified supervisor for every 15 hours of counseling performed (Florida Department of health, 2008). This can be compared to the licensing board in the state of Mississippi, which requires one hour of supervision with a Board-qualified supervisor for every 25 hours of direct service with clients for postgraduate counselors (Mississippi State Board of Examiners for Licensed Professional Counselors [MS LPC], 2005). Certifications are offered through various professional credentialing bodies, and they provide evidence of sufficient education, best practices, and ethical guidelines for members within the helping professions who are focusing on particular client populations; one such example is the code of ethics for the Commission on Rehabilitation

44 R. Goldberg et al.

Counselor Certification (CRCC; 2010), which stipulates that rehabilitation counseling supervisors must regularly meet with supervisees seeking certification. The NBCC Code of Ethics (2005) reads that the supervisory experience must be maintained, but the specific supervision contract is to be created by the counseling supervisor and supervisee. The American Counseling Association (ACA; 2005) indicates that regular meetings must occur between supervisor and supervisee, yet the term regular is not defined. Accreditation, licensure, and certification or credentialing bodies offer professional standards by which we must practice, but they do not provide mandated methods or strict styles of supervision that are required to be utilized. Just as counselors have autonomy in selecting theoretical approaches that best meet clients’ needs, it is our belief that clinical superviors should have that same autonomy when selecting appropriate supervision styles to employ with supervisees. We do not believe that professional organizations should require that one particular supervision model is prescribed because supervisees need individualized attention and structure that are situation- and person-specific. The challenge, then, becomes applying the professional standards for clinical supervision but facilitating them in ways that meet individual supervisees’ needs as well as the constraints of the supervisor.

Whether lack of time or money is the main concern, many counselors, counselors-in-training, and supervisors are opting for triadic, as opposed to individual, supervision (Lawson, hein, & Getz, 2009; Stinchfield, hill, & Kleist, 2007). Triadic supervision entails one supervisor working with two supervisees simultaneously, using a configuration similar to that of individual supervision (Stinchfield et  al., 2007). Most accreditation, licensure, and certification or credentialing bodies allow for triadic supervision, but they do not specify guidelines on how to work with two supervisees at the same time. how to interpret various professional standards is the supervisor’s responsibility. This is made more difficult by the fact that there is little information in the literature regarding triadic supervision, with few specific models for undergirding the process (Stinchfield et al., 2007). In addition, most counselor education programs do not provide specialized training in the processes of effective triadic supervision. hopefully, more literature on the topic will enable counselor training programs to utilize triadic supervision.

Based on the growing need for triadic supervision relationships, which have potential to save both money and time, it is important to consider how the dynamics of the supervision process change when two supervisees are working with one supervisor, and how best to facilitate triadic supervision. historically, supervision models and theories have been considered in a one-on-one or group context (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). however, triadic supervision represents something in between these two more traditional approaches that have historically been approved by and utilized in many CACREP-accredited programs. According to the CACREP 2009 standards, triadic supervision acts as a tutorial and mentoring relationship, and occurs

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 45

between a counseling professional and two counseling students whereby all three individuals participate equally (Stinchfield et al., 2007). This is similar to group supervision in that the supervisor is also a counseling professional who engages with students as a tutor and mentor. however, group supervision is different from triadic supervision in that it requires at least 3 student trainees (not to exceed 12 students per group) (CACREP, 2009), and the dynamics of more people makes it such that not every student necessarily receives an equal chance for participation and attention as they do in triadic supervision (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008; Borders, 1991; Stinchfield et  al., 2007). Thus, we believe that triadic supervision deserves more attention than the counseling supervision literature has addressed previously.

ChALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITh TRIADIC SuPERvISION

As a unique approach to clinical supervision, triadic supervision has distinctive challenges and limitations that are specific to this practice. Multiple researchers (hein & Lawson, 2008; Oliver, Nelson, & ybanez, 2010) agree that one major challenge related to triadic supervision is that, because of the lack of research, theory development, and professional literature specifically addressing the unique challenges of triadic supervision, supervisors are likely not receiving adequate training in this area. All professional organizations’ codes of ethics and guidelines for best practices include the requirement that counselors and supervisors only practice areas in which they have had training (e.g., ACA, 2005; Florida Department of health, 2009; MS LPC, 2005; NBCC, 2005). Interpretation and understanding of the professional standards must be done competently by the supervisor; competence is usually determined by educational training and clinical experience. Skills needed for leading and facilitating triadic supervision differ from those required for individual supervision. Working with two individuals can prove to be more complex and difficult than providing supervision for one supervisee, and supervisors’ training should include preparation for working in triadic supervisory relationships for ethical practice (hein & Lawson, 2008; Oliver et  al., 2010). Without proper organization and management strategies that are specific to triadic counseling supervision, the supervisees may feel that the supervisor is unprepared and perceive the sessions to be chaotic (Newgent, Davis, & Farley, 2004).

Another limitation of triadic supervision is that it may not be appropriate for all supervisees (Oliver et al., 2010). Supervisees who do not believe in the benefits of peer feedback, for example, may not function well in triadic counseling supervision relationships. Triadic supervision can also be problematic if one or both supervisees feel the need to speak individually with a supervisor due to personal reasons. For example, one supervisee may experience shyness or fear speaking when another supervisee is present or

46 R. Goldberg et al.

the issues brought up in supervision may touch on personal issues or cause adverse emotional reactions that would cause discomfort in divulging with the other supervisee. Furthermore, possible triangulation may emerge between the participants, creating separation from playing two participants against each other. In addition, animosity and/or competition can exist between the two co-supervisees, which may cause one or both to limit their contributions to the supervision session or provide more critical feedback. There may also be an intellectual disability or developmental delay with one supervisee or a significant difference between maturity levels which can hinder the progress of one or both supervisees. Moreover, when the supervisees have different levels of clinical experience (e.g., one supervisee is a practicum student and the other is an intern), the individual with more training might feel that triadic supervision is unhelpful because of the co-supervisee’s minimal counseling experience (Newgent et al., 2004).

Within this article we address the more ambiguous issues associated with the implementation of triadic supervision in the field of counseling and we overview three current approaches for practicing counseling supervision. Based on these existing methods, we propose a new model of triadic supervision that is suggested for use with counselors and counselors-in-training. In addition, we offer recommendations for counselor education training and supervision practices. Because there is a clear lack of counselor education literature that focuses on the issue of triadic supervision, we hope to remedy this gap within this article; open a discussion that might serve to punctuate the importance of this topic; and facilitate ethical, intentional, and competent triadic counseling supervision.

APPROAChES OF TRIADIC SuPERvISION

Reflective Model of Triadic Supervision

Kleist and hill (2003) proposed a model for conducting supervision with two supervisees entitled the Reflective Model of Triadic Supervision (RMTS). Stinchfield and colleagues (2007) proposed the RMTS model based on live supervision reflecting teams (Andersen, 1987, 1991). These reflecting teams provide a unique learning experience for counselors-in-training to both give and receive immediate feedback on their perceptions and proposed interventions while working with clients, and stress the importance of allowing for reflection during the supervision process. The main goal of reflection during supervision is to foster learning, with the chief aim being that of introducing a plethora of ideas and suggestions into the supervision session. During supervision, reflection is a skill that is used to highlight communication patterns, express individual reactions to content and process, and offer alternative impresssions regarding varying counseling and

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 47

supervision situations (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). Reflection can also be used to encourage further queries and processing regarding such issues as case conceptualization, professional development, and meaning-making (Oliver et al., 2010; Stinchfield et al., 2007).

With the addition of another counselor or student in the supervisory relationship as well as the extra input provided by that person, reflection in triadic supervision allows for enrichment and expansion of any conversation, and should encourage multiple perspective-taking within the supervisees as well as development of their professional counselor identities (Andersen, 1987, 1991; Stinchfield et al., 2007). Triadic supervision can also be very helpful in promoting inner and outer dialogue for the participants involved (Stinchfield et al., 2007), both of which are necessary components for the reflection process (Andersen, 1987, 1991). We believe that there is an apparent parallel between reflecting teams and triadic supervision. Inner dialogue occurs within the self and is informed by external ideas and suggestions. Outer dialogue occurs interpersonally when two or more individuals are communicating and engaging in the construction of meaning. The supervision session allows for both inner and outer dialogue to occur regularly, as an individual engages in outer dialogue with the other two supervisory participants and inner dialogue while listening to the other members speak. Generally, individuals tend to pay more attention to outer dialogue than inner dialogue (Andersen, 1987, 1991; Stinchfield et  al., 2007), and it is our belief that the practice of triadic supervision expands outer dialogue, thereby benefiting participating individuals.

The authors of the RMTS model proposed that triadic supervision should consist of one faculty supervisor meeting with two supervisees for 1.5 hours weekly during the course of each 16-week academic term (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007). In conjunction with one another, the supervisor and supervisees collectively decide upon the structure, framework, format, and processes of the supervision sessions. Supervisors’ duties also include discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of a triangular supervisory relationship, overt encouragement of the reflective process, and the benefits and limitations of sharing supervision with an individual’s peer (Stinchfield et al., 2007). During each session, supervisees are encouraged to first process urgent counseling concerns and then show videotapes of counseling sessions to promote discussion. The supervisees rotate weekly the chance to show the first tape. Based on data collected by Stinchfield and colleagues (2007) upon implementation of the supervision model they describe, their research shows that some counseling students found that the multiple perspectives received from triadic supervision were preferable to the experiences they had in either individual or group supervision. The students described feeling overwhelmed by the number of other students in group supervision, and found that trust was easier to develop and manage within triadic supervision, as compared to group supervision. For more detail

48 R. Goldberg et al.

related to the RMTS model, readers are encouraged to consult Stinchfield and colleagues (2007).

SuperviSory working alliance model

According to Stinchfield and colleagues (2007), triadic supervision is unique in its structure and, in order to be successful, certain elements must be navigated and contracted upon beginning the supervision process. The RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007) foci on relational structure and the importance of contracting is similar to Bordin’s (1983) Supervisory Working Alliance Model (SWAM) that consists of goal, task, and bond. In the SWAM (Bordin, 1983), the supervisor and supervisee mutually decide upon which goals to set for the supervisory experience and which tasks will be carried out in order to elicit change. The participants in the supervisory relationship must have the shared bond with which to carry out the supervision successfully and engage in a strong working alliance with one another (Bordin, 1983; Wood, 2005). Goals are objectives for change that both the supervisor and supervisee not only agree upon, but also value because they will ultimately enrich the trainee’s experience of supervision and counseling (Wood, 2005). Examples of individual goals may include the supervisee gaining mastery over a particular counseling skill or taking risks in the supervision sessions. Group goals may include mutual collaboration and positive feedback between participants. Tasks are also decided upon by both supervisor and supervisee and include specific means of achieving both the individual and group goals set for supervision (Wood, 2005). Bordin asserted that the therapeutic bond develops through the supervisor and supervisees working collaboratively on common tasks in order to obtain shared goals. In addition, the supervisory bond is strengthened through shared emotional expression (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008).

Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation Approach

using Schutz’s (1958) Fundamental Interpersonal Relationship Orientation (FIRO) approach, we consider three main interpersonal process issues to keep in mind when engaging in triadic supervision: inclusion, control, and affection. Affection was later termed as intimacy by researchers studying the FIRO approach (Doherty & Colangelo, 1984; hafner & Ross, 1989; Parr, 2000). Individuals seek ways in which to achieve these needs, but the needs do not motivate everyone equally. Inclusion promotes peoples’ need to participate in egalitarian human interaction with others, which requires that individuals have acute ideas of self-identity. The feeling of inclusion serves as a baseline for healthy existence, helping to maintain balanced relationships (hafner & Ross, 1989; Schutz, 1958). Control is related to how power is shared in relationships. Schutz (1958) believed that in order for the FIRO approach to be effective, power must be equally balanced among all parties involved in a relationship.

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 49

To have an imbalance of control can lead to individuals’ dissatisfaction with their relationships (hafner & Ross, 1989; Schutz, 1958). Affection or imtimacy is the FIRO’s third component and involves both imparting and receiving meaningful communications. According to Schutz (1958), relationships without affection are comprised of individuals who are not engaging in intimate interactions, which are necessary for healthy relationships.

Although the FIRO approach has been used typically in counseling interventions to understand interpersonal relationships, namely in group and family therapies (Doherty & Colangelo, 1984; hafner & Ross, 1989; Sprenkle, 1999), we feel that its foci of inclusion, control, and intimacy can easily be applied to counseling supervision. Placing emphasis on supervision processes is more important than specific content, such as using particular interventions or standardized theoretical approaches with supervisees (Sprenkle, 1999). Creating personal connections while understanding the influence of those relationships are processes that we feel should be given attention in counseling supervision. While we contend that the RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) each have useful components individually, we also propose that they could be much more functional if integrated into an adapted model of triadic counseling supervision.

AN ADAPTED MODEL: INTEGRATING ThREE APPROAChES FOR TRIADIC SuPERvISION

When supervisees in RMTS are in the reflective role, they must maintain passivity and are only permitted to engage in inner dialogue and are, therefore, at risk of feeling isolated from co-supervisees and supervisors (Stinchfield et al., 2007). Because of these perceived limitations or weaknesses of RMTS, paying close attention to inclusion can aid supervisors in counteracting the feeling of exclusion within triadic supervision sessions. Engaging in a triadic supervisory relationship extends an individual counselor’s professional resource network by one more person; with that comes exposure to alternative perspectives and worldviews, different clinical techniques and interventions, and various approaches to case conceptualization, the outcomes of which can certainly be used by each supervisee to benefit clients. Control is experienced when an individual has some power with regard to what transpires and actually makes a difference in his or her social environment (Schutz, 1958). Rather than controlling the session as a supervisor would in the RMTS, creating an environment with mutual inclusion and control can contribute to balanced relationships between the supervisor and supervisees (hafner & Ross, 1989). In triadic supervision, this can be accomplished by utilizing postmodern, constructivist, and social constructionist approaches (hoffman, 1992; McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2000) such as feminist (Enns, 2004), narrative (White & Epston, 1990), and

50 R. Goldberg et al.

solution-focused theory (de Shazer, 1988). These paradigms encourage egalitarian relationships in which power is shared among the parties involved (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). Supervision becomes a collaborative effort, rather than one defined by an imbalance of power. Finally, individuals seek affection or intimacy, or gaining a sense of being liked or loved by others through personal communication (Miller & Stiver, 1997). Friendships and intimate relationships often serve to fulfill this need, and qualities within a triadic supervisory relationship can also produce feelings of affection or intimacy (hafner & Ross, 1989; Schutz, 1958).

The triadic supervisory relationship can certainly satisfy the need for affection or intimacy, provided that the supervisor and supervisees in the triangular relationship are supportive of one another and are vocal in pointing out one another’s successes. Bordin’s (1983) SWAM, in which goal, task, and bond contribute to the working alliance, also addresses these issues. he proposes that if the supervisor is willing to collaborate with his supervisee(s) on the terms of the supervision experience, it will set the stage for a relaxed, candid supervision experience. We believe the concepts of SWAM (Bordin, 1983) and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) can be integrated with those of the RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007) to address the aforementioned concerns (see Figure 1).

FIGURE 1 Adapted model of triadic supervision.

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 51

Adapted Model of Triadic Supervision

Figure 1 represents the authors’ adapted model of triadic counseling supervision. It is a visual representation of the egalitarian relationship between supervisor and supervisees, in which structure and reflective feedback, the components of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), bond, goal, and task, the components of SWAM (Bordin, 1983), as well as inclusion, control, and affection or intimacy, the components of FIRO (Schutz, 1958) are central components of supervision. These elements are addressed by means of collaboration, mutual decision making, showing support and trust for one another, and pointing out one another’s successes. In this model, goals and tasks to be carried out are decided upon together, which can promote a strong working alliance between supervisor and supervisees. It is important that all three parties in the supervision relationship adopt the aforementioned components, as each person is responsible for creating and maintaining a positive supervision environment.

Ethical Considerations

One major risk in triadic supervision is that of confidentiality not being maintained. It is the supervisor’s job to maintain safeguards ensuring privacy of clients, which becomes harder to do when there are more parties in the supervision process. The most common ethical policy violated by trainees is confidentiality (Fly, van Bark, Weinman, Kitchener, & Lang, 1997). Supervisors can help maintain clients’ confidences by asking supervisees to use general descriptions when presenting clients, including using first names only and supplying basic demographic characteristics, and nothing specific that would clearly identify their client (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). Often, supervision entails showing videotapes of counseling sessions with clients. In order for this to occur, counselors must secure their clients’ informed consent for taping and disclosure, making it more difficult to maintain client confidentiality. All three members of the triadic supervisory relationship must have great trust in one another’s ability to uphold the ethical standards of confidentiality. The RMTS provides for a solution to complications with confidentiality and disclosure, encouraging individual sessions if the supervisee feels that that he or she needs to present an issue too personal for the supervisory triad (Stinchfield et al., 2007).

Recommendations for Counselor Educators and Counseling Supervisors

By combining the components of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958), mental health professionals can engage in triadic supervision with differing structure than

52 R. Goldberg et al.

has been previously supplied by the literature. Guidelines from accreditation, licensing, and credentialing boards have not directly addressed a model or framework from which to conduct triadic supervision. Faculty members and professional supervisors may coalesce the elements of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958), which can provide supervisors with an intentional foundation for doing triadic supervision. They can deliberately use one supervisee’s case presentation as a means to convey a teachable moment to the second participating supervisee, aiding in the vicarious learning of that second supervisee. For example, supervisors can use the structure of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007) to guide the triadic supervision sessions while including the collaborative nature of SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and by focusing on the interpersonal relations of FIRO (Schutz, 1958). The supervisor must manage reflection in the sessions so that each supervisee feels inclusion and control; this can be helped by ensuring that each individual’s goals and tasks are clear and reasonable and that each individual is participating equally. Bond and affection or intimacy are fostered when the members of triadic supervision value one another’s opinions. If the supervisor were to exploit this trust, the possibility for successful reflection, inclusion, control, goal, and task diminishes. Creating the combined framework of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et  al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) can also be very helpful for the students participating in the process, helping them to be more reflective and increasing their knowledge base through both inner discourse and interaction with others, meeting the interpersonal need of inclusion. It is our belief that counselors will form stronger identities and benefit from greater comprehensive learning as a result of the adapted model of triadic supervision that we propose in this article.

Triadic Supervision at Work: A Case Example

In order for counseling supervisors to better understand the potential uses of triadic supervision, we provide a case example which involved one doctoral student supervisor and two school counseling supervisees. First, before supervision begins, it is critical to remember that within the adapted triadic supervision model, the supervisor does not prescribe the structure and format of supervision; rather, he or she collaborates with the supervisees to determine what will work best for their specific internship situation(s), which also includes an overview of the summative and formative assessment and evaluation components of the supervision process. Formative evaluation includes regular verbal feedback that emphasizes the supervisee’s progress with regard to his or her acquisition of counseling skills and overall professional growth and development as a counselor-in-training (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008); it stresses processing evolution, or developing through

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 53

experience, as opposed to final outcomes. Summative evaluation is a more formal process that is provided at the midpoint and/or end of a supervision relationship; it may determine whether or not the counselor trainee has successfully completed his or her practicum or internship experience (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). Both formative and summative evaluations are important within supervision; however, the use of formative assessment can enable supervisees to make continuous improvements throughout the supervision experience.

In the adapted triadic supervision model, the three parties mutually decide upon individual and group goals and tasks that will elicit growth and change for the developing supervisees, based on national counseling standards and program expectations. It is also necessary that the relation-ships between the supervisor and supervisees, and between the supervis-ees themselves, are working alliances, giving merit to the strength of the relationships and applying the concepts of goal, task, and bond (Bordin, 1983; Wood, 2005). This alliance can be nurtured through acts of genuine-ness and authenticity, such as supportive confrontation and empathic understanding, which promote trust, and expressions of supportive encour-agement for one another. Tending to each supervisee’s level of inclusion is an important task of the supervisor, in order to ensure that no one super-visee monopolizes the supervision session. By giving each party equal control over supervision goals and the course of supervision, respect for one another becomes more possible, and the intimacy between all three can be strengthened.

As an example of triadic supervision at work, the third author of this article implemented the adapted model of triadic supervision over a 15-week semester during 1.5- to 2-hour weekly sessions with 2 full-time school counseling interns within a CACREP-accredited program. Due to the limited number of available supervisors and the scheduling constraints of all three individuals, they selected to implement triadic supervision using the adapted model. The triad designed the sessions similarly to those utilized in the RMTS approach (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), including a description of the number of participants, meeting length, presentation of video/audio recordings, processing urgent concerns, and receiving feedback from supervisees. In RMTS, the supervisor decides on the format of the supervision sessions and supervisees rotate presenting their counseling video/audio recordings on a weekly basis. In this case, the adapted model allowed for more collaboration, permitting the supervisees to have voice in the format and structure of the sessions.

The supervisor introduced the adapted model to both supervisees and together they developed a supervision contract which established the parameters of the triadic supervision experience. This contract included meeting times and location, the procedures to cancel sessions, confidentiality, individual and group supervision goals, and the evaluation process.

54 R. Goldberg et al.

Supervisees were also given the option to have individual sessions if desired or necessary throughout the semester. All parties agreed that each session would be a collaborative effort and that ongoing feedback from the supervisor and other supervisee would be aimed at skill development, case conceptualization, and self-awareness. The adapted triadic supervision model also afforded the non-presenting supervisee the opportunity to identify effective counseling skills, present alternatives, and recognize transference issues. The supervisor and both supervisees agreed that constructive verbal feedback delivered in a supportive and positive manner would be most effective. These goals, tasks, and bonds created the working alliance adapted from the SWAM approach (Bordin, 1983).

In addition, the supervisees were given the opportunity to decide the structure of the sessions. Rather than take turns with specified time limitations for each supervision session, they opted to be more flexible and allow the order of their case presentations to be based on their personal and/or student needs for each week. For example, a suicidal student issue took precedence over an update about a weekly anger management group. At the beginning of each session, the supervisees identified the client/student issues that they wanted to discuss during supervision and together, the group decided which issues to cover first. This ensured the immediate needs of the supervisees were met and the more pressing client issues were addressed. This egalitarian and collaborative process allowed the supervision to be a facilitation of ideas and ongoing feedback among the three participants, emphasizing the supervisees’ level of control, inclusion, and intimacy adapted from the FIRO approach (Schutz, 1958). The supervisees had several opportunities to adjust and add new skills throughout the semester rather than receive more directive or prescriptive feedback from the supervisor. For example, balancing challenge with support was a skill that was addressed throughout the semester for both supervisees. Each supervisee had at least one student where they repeatedly adjusted their levels of challenge throughout the semester. For example, each supervisee needed to challenge a student with low grades or poor behavior, yet support him or her in understanding the outside dynamics that could be contributing to these problems such as family issues that impacted grades or anger issues causing outbursts in class. Rather than just noting the low grades, the supervisees were encouraged to identify the root cause with each of the students and then find ways to challenge the students’ growth and support their progress. During this process, the supervisees acknowledged the need for their own adjustment, identified it in the other supervisee, and together found useful ways to increase their therapeutic effectiveness in challenging and supporting their students.

Because both supervisees were in similar clinical settings, they also shared resources and ideas that they were able to take back their respective school programs. They agreed that the shared ideas enriched their learning

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 55

and clinical experiences even more than verbal suggestions from an individual supervisor, because they were able to participate in several of the ideas together. For example, the supervisees spent a day shadowing each other at school to better understand the similarities and differences of their respective high school internship sites. They also scheduled joint visits to local alternative schools and the community college to learn more about community resources for their students. Finally, the supervisees at both schools updated their respective school counseling and guidance Web sites and collaborated on ideas to improve the online dissemination of information at each school by providing each other with helpful links and technical assistance.

There was a substantial benefit in having two school counseling interns contribute to the issues that required a more specialized knowledge of the school systems. Lawson, hein, and Stuart (2009) found in their qualitative review of their triadic supervision model that the additional perspective was one of the most valuable aspects of triadic supervision. Within this case example, the supervisees were able to receive and offer alternative viewpoints on student issues that they presented in supervision. It was not only helpful to receive different perspectives so they could learn to work more effectively with students, but it was also an opportunity to offer insights and practice their case conceptualization skills from varying vantage points. Both supervisees were able to identify patterns that emerged in their own counseling styles as well as the other supervisee’s style. For example, supervisee A was very counseling-oriented with her students; supervisee B felt that her students did not require individual personal/social counseling; therefore, she typically provided video recordings of academic reviews with her students. Supervisee A provided helpful examples of how supervisee B could slow down and use her counseling skills to better understand from where the student’s low grades were stemming. The suggestions helped supervisee B understand that she was missing opportunities to be more effective with her students and identify underlying issues that were affecting their academic performance.

The additional perspectives were helpful, but the supervisor also had to ensure that there was a fair balance of contributions from each supervisee. In this case example, supervisee A was very attentive and proactive during all of the supervision sessions. Supervisee B presented as more passive and was continually prompted to provide feedback when discussing supervisee A’s client/student issues. To promote balance, the supervisor often encouraged the supervisees to make the initial comments in response to a video/audio recording or presentation which allowed them to practice their peer feedback skills before the supervisor offered observations. While hein and Lawson (2008) found that self-awareness improved in triadic supervision when compared to individual supervision, this case example represented some limitations with regard to personal disclosure from the supervisees. Throughout

56 R. Goldberg et al.

the semester, supervisee A repeatedly disclosed that she was experiencing increasing agitation and frustration with a female student she was counseling on a weekly basis. Because supervisee A had experienced a similar frustration with a different student in a previous clinical setting, the supervisor recognized a pattern emerging. When the supervisor suggested that there seemed to be a theme of annoyance at supervisee A’s lack of control, she agreed and added details of other events that had bothered her as well, and then requested to end the discussion. Although the insights from supervisee B were helpful, her presence in the triadic supervision session seemed to limit supervisee A’s willingness to explore personal issues affecting her therapeutic effectiveness in more detail. During a check-in with her the following week, in the tenth supervision session, supervisee A stated that she had found it difficult to admit to herself that she had control issues, yet the discussion from the supervision session the week before helped her acknowledge it. Throughout the remaining weeks, she was able to work with her students more effectively through her increasing presence and attending skills in the counseling sessions. She became generally more positive in her counseling and supervision sessions and seemed to be excited about the prospect of obtaining a full-time position in the school where she was working.

At the end of the semester, summative evaluations offered a written overview of the supervisor/supervisee’s performance throughout the semester through quantitative and qualitative feedback. For example, the supervisee quantitative assessment included a rating scale from one to five that measured the performance of professional skills and collaboration with the others in triadic supervision. The qualitative assessment provided an opportunity to elaborate on supervisees’ assets and areas needing growth. While ongoing formative feedback throughout the semester offered the opportunity to improve the supervisees’ skills, the final written summary was intended to document the overall performance and offer additional feedback for all three individuals.

The final supervision session was held with each supervisee individually. This allowed for more candid discussions about each supervisee’s individual experience during her internship and supervision. While both supervisees agreed that the adapted triadic supervision model was beneficial, they also discussed how the other supervisee helped or limited her development over the semester. For example, supervisee A felt disappointed that she had shared more of her resources with supervisee B such as scheduling the visits to community agencies and updating the counseling Web page, and she felt the ideas had not been reciprocated. The supervisor was able to validate supervisee A’s concerns, yet offer her additional perspectives on the distribution of resources, insights, and feedback shared throughout the triadic supervision model over the semester.

Overall, the use of the triadic model was beneficial to the supervisor and both supervisees because it provided for a single weekly supervision

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 57

session while capitalizing on the experience, insights, and resources of an additional person. The collaborative and egalitarian nature of the adapted triadic supervision model allowed for personal growth and development of each participant involved in the supervision contract.

Triadic Supervision at Work: Evaluation of the Process

While the earlier approaches lend support for the use of triadic supervision, the current adapted model integrates the RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) to offer a comprehensive and effective approach that may enhance the supervision experience of both the supervisor and supervisees. The collaborative nature of the adapted model allows for flexibility, additional perspectives, alternative interventions, and useful feedback in the supervision session. It allows more equality than RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007) in designing the structure of each session dependent on the needs of the supervisees. however, while the supervisees have more ownership and control, the responsibility to balance the ongoing formative feedback and adhere to professional and ethical guidelines still remains with the supervisor. The supervisor must create a relationship where the supervisees feel inclusion, control, and intimacy, while ensuring the balance of inputs in a non-directive way, as described in the FIRO model (Schutz, 1958). In RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), the supervisor may take a more directive approach. however, in the adapted model, the supervisor remains supportive but not commanding in an effort to maintain a more equal balance of power. A supervisor should ensure the discussions remain relevant to supervision; however, it can be done in a way that reminds the supervisees of their mutually agreed upon individual and group goals and tasks, as in the SWAM (Bordin, 1983), rather than given as a command that creates a hierarchical divide.

Although much of the process is designed to be egalitarian, there is an inherent inequality when the supervisor has the ultimate role as evaluator, which may impact the academic progress of a supervisee. Evaluation can pose a problem with regard to the bond between supervisor and supervisee(s), in that supervisors act as gatekeepers for the profession (Bordin, 1983). This can counteract the egalitarian connection formed between supervisor and supervisee(s), as the process of assessing another’s work—or having one’s own work assessed—can produce discomfort, trepidation, and tension for those participating. In order to address this potential problem, triadic supervisors can manage the balance of inputs within the supervision session and introduce new feedback dynamics into their sessions by asking supervisees to not only receive, but also give, feedback to one another (Lawson, hein, & Stuart, 2009). In addition, the supervisees are encouraged to supply the supervisor with feedback,

58 R. Goldberg et al.

making the evaluative nature of the situation reciprocal. In this case example, supervisees rated the supervisor on her abilities to provide helpful feedback, establish clear individual and group goals, assist in counselor development, address professional issues, and share relevant professional experiences. They discussed their evaluations with the supervisor in person and submitted their ratings in writing to the practicum and internship clinical coordinator.

CONCLuSION

As certain components must be negotiated at the beginning of the triadic supervisory relationship, such as acknowledging the inner and outer dialogue and the three roles of supervision, supervisees become involved in helping to create the confines of supervision (Andersen, 1987; Stinchfield et  al., 2007). The involvement in their own supervision arrangements can create a situation whereby those supervisees feel more invested in the process and participate more sincerely, thereby facilitating their growth and development as counselors. This also meets the interpersonal need for control over one’s surroundings, which can be accomplished through using postmodern, constructivist, and social constructionist approaches (hoffman, 1992; McAuliffe & Eriksen, 2000), including feminist (Enns, 2004), narrative (White & Epston, 1990), and solution-focused theory (de Shazer, 1988). The tenets of these theories include appropriate self-disclosure, respect for multiple truths and realities, and egalitarian counseling and collaborative supervisory relationships (Bernard & Goodyear, 2008). The supervisor shows care and consideration for the supervisees’ preferences by involving them in the construction of supervision, meeting their interpersonal needs for affection or intimacy.

using the three approaches of RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) in conjunction with one another will enable the members of the supervisory triad to not only uphold professional standards using a designated framework, but also concurrently attend to the interpersonal processes of inclusion, control, and affection/intimacy, as well as the collaborative efforts of goal, task, and bond. Future research is required to appraise the success of combining RMTS (Kleist & hill, 2003; Stinchfield et al., 2007), SWAM (Bordin, 1983), and FIRO (Schutz, 1958) into the adapted model of triadic supervision considering the prospective experiences of the parties involved, as well as the potential advantages of engaging in such. In addition, counselor educators, supervisors, and researchers would greatly benefit from comparing conventional forms of dyadic supervision with the adapted model of triadic supervision, with consideration for the development of case conceptualization skills within and between the supervisees present in the triad.

Facilitating Effective Triadic Supervision 59

REFERENCES

American Counseling Association. (2005). ACA code of ethics. Alexandria, vA: Author. Andersen, T. (1987). The reflecting team: Dialogue and meta-dialogue in clinical

work. Family Process, 26, 415–428. Andersen, T. (1991). The reflecting team: Dialogues and dialogues about the

dialogues. New york: Norton. Aten, J. D., Madson, M. B., & Kruse, S. J. (2008). The supervision genogram: A tool

for preparing supervisors-in-training. Psychotherapy: Theory, Practice, Research, Training, 45(1), 111–116.

Bernard, J. M., & Goodyear, R. K. (2008). Fundamentals of clinical supervision (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Borders, L. D. (1991). A systematic approach to peer group supervision. Journal of Counseling and Development, 69, 248–252.

Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 35–42.

Commission on Rehabilitation Counselor Certification. (2010). Code of professional ethics for rehabilitation counselors. Schaumburg, IL: Author.

Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs. (2009). CACREP standards. Alexandria, vA: Author. de Shazer, S. (1988). Clues: Investigating solutions in brief therapy. New york: Norton.

Doherty, W. J., & Colangelo, N. (1984). The family FIRO model: A modest proposal for organizing family treatment. Journal of Marital and Family Therapy, 10, 19–29.

Enns, C. Z. (2004). Feminist theories and feminist psychotherapies: Origins, themes, and diversity (2nd ed.). Binghamton, Ny: haworth.

Florida Department of health. (2009). Chapter 491, F.S. Rule 64B4, F.A.C. Tallahassee, FL: Author.

Fly, B. J., van Bark, W. P., Weinman, L., Kitchener, K. S., & Lang, P. R. (1997). Ethical transgressions of psychology graduate students: Critical incidents with implications for training. Professional Psychology: Research and Training, 28, 492–495.

hafner, R. J., & Ross, M. W. (1989). The FIRO model of family therapy: Implications of factor analysis. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 45(6), 974–980.

hein, S., & Lawson, G. (2008). Triadic supervision and its impact on the role of the supervisor: A qualitative examination of supervisors’ perspectives. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48(1), 16–31.

hoffman, L. (1992). A reflexive stance for family therapy. In S. McNamee & K. J. Gergen (Eds.), Therapy as social construction (pp. 7–24). London: Sage.

Kleist, D. M., & hill, N. R. (2003). The reflective model of triadic supervision. unpublished manuscript.

Lawson, G., hein, S. F., & Getz, h. (2009). A model for using triadic supervision in counselor preparation programs. Counselor Education and Supervision, 48, 257–270.

Lawson, G., hein, S. F., & Stuart, C. L. (2009). A qualitative investigation of supervisees’ experiences of triadic supervision. Journal of Counseling and Development, 87(4), 449–457.

60 R. Goldberg et al.

McAuliffe, G., & Eriksen, K. (Eds.). (2000). Preparing counselors and therapists: Creating constructivist and developmental programs. Alexandria, vA: Association for Counselor Education and Supervision.

Miller, J. B., & Stiver, I. P. (1997). The healing connection: How women form relationships in therapy and in life. Boston: Beacon Press.

Mississippi State Board of Examiners for Licensed Professional Counselors. (2005). Rules and regulations. yazoo City, MS: Author.

National Board for Certified Counselors. (2005). Code of ethics. Greensboro, NC: Author.

Newgent, R. A., Davis, h., & Farley, R. C. (2004). Perceptions of individual, triadic, and group models of supervision: A pilot study. The Clinical Supervisor, 23(2), 65–79.

Oliver, M., Nelson, K., & ybanez, K. (2010). Systemic processes in triadic supervision. The Clinical Supervisor, 29(1), 51–67.

Parr, P. E. (2000). The family FIRO model: Exploring relationship needs of “at-risk” families. American Journal of Family Therapy, 28(3), 255–264.

Schutz, W. C. (1958). Fundamental interpersonal relationship orientation: A three dimensional theory of interpersonal behavior. New york: holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Sprenkle, D. h. (1999). Toward a general model of family therapy supervision: Comment on Roberts, Winek, and Mulgrew. Contemporary Family Therapy, 21(3), 309–315.

Stinchfield, T. A., hill, N. R., & Kleist, D. M. (2007). The reflective model of triadic supervision: Defining an emerging modality. Counselor Education and Supervision, 46(3), 172–183.

White, M., & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New york: Norton.

Wood, C. (2005). Supervisory working alliance: A model providing direction for college counseling supervision. Journal of College Counseling, 8, 127–137.

Copyright of Clinical Supervisor is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or

emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.

However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.