There are several popular approaches to clinical supervision that beginning supervisors might mistakenly assume are the only viable choices available. Therefore, it is important to discuss these approaches and delineate significant pitfalls and problems that exist with each of them before turning to current supervision research and writing.

In this supervision model, clinical supervisors are selected or appointed because they are excellent therapists, clinicians, or counselors, not because they have training in supervision. Supervisors using this model say to themselves, “I am a competent clinician; therefore, I will be a competent supervisor. I will just do with my supervisees what my supervisors did with me.” Usually the no-model model represents a reactive, retrospective approach to supervision. The focus is on putting out fires in severe cases and depends heavily on supervisees’ ability to identify their problems and willingness to ask for help with them. The following statement embodies this supervision approach: “Let me know if you have any problems. My door is always open.”

The expert model of clinical supervision is the traditional model of supervision found within the medical community. This model proposes that the clinical supervisor is a master and the intern or trainee a blank slate who learns how to do the work by following this expert around, watching and imitating the expert’s actions. In this approach, it is assumed the supervisor, as the expert, has all the knowledge and therefore directs the work of supervisees without question. During case consultation supervisees are asked to report what they have done with their patients, and the supervisor critiques these actions and makes corrective suggestions, which gives the process a right and wrong character.

In this approach, clinical supervisors consider themselves in charge and, as a result, direct all activities of supervisees under their care, regardless of their expertise and level of experience. In other words, they treat all supervisees in the same way. Developmental needs, individual differences, and differing levels of competence are not taken into consideration. Nor does the supervisor attempt to experiment with different methods and techniques that may be preferred by supervisees of differing backgrounds and experience. Many times supervisors take this approach because they experience the role of clinical supervisor as a burden. As a result, they are not actively engaged in planning nor do they give supervision the time required. Others follow this approach because they mistakenly believe they have to treat everyone the same in order to be fair.

Unknowingly, many clinical supervisors approach supervisees as patients by thinking of them in terms of DSM-IV-R diagnostic categories and the five axes, particularly Axis II. When mistakes occur or problems develop, the hunt is on for finding pathology in supervisees, not in relationship factors or the situation (Hawkins & Shohet, 2003). It is important to understand that approaching supervisees through the medical model of personality assessment as used in clinical practice is not transferable to supervision. The first problem with applying this model to supervision is that it is designed to assess and treat mental illness. Hopefully, most supervisees are mentally healthy and not impaired by psychological illness. Second, it is not a model designed to teach or train individuals or to promote teamwork and motivation. Last, rarely do supervisees appreciate interpretations or assessments of their behavior by supervisors that are more appropriate for psychotherapy patients. In most cases, rather than being open to the supervisor’s feedback and suggestions, supervisees may become angry or withdraw. Finally, in a handful of employment situations, even if one is asked to supervise a person for whom an Axis II diagnosis is in some way appropriate, clinical supervisors are still left to figure out how to help this person best serve his or her clients. Therefore, supervisors need to seek out models designed for supervision, not psychotherapy. It is important to make a distinction between the two.

Because clinical supervision is a different relationship than psychotherapy or counseling and has different qualities and characteristics, there is an obvious need for a model of supervision separate from that utilized with clients. To create such a viable model of supervision, there are a number of factors to consider.