Increasing interest is being paid by supervision researchers to the concept of self-efficacy as it pertains to supervision. Self-efficacy refers to a person’s level of confidence in his or her own ability to handle prospective situations (Bandura, 1997). Belief about one’s ability to carry out specific tasks influences learning and performance of tasks. In supervision, how the supervisor gives corrective feedback and what the supervisor emphasizes in supervision has been found to enhance the supervisee’s confidence and satisfaction with supervision (Bischoff et al., 2002; Ladany, Constantine, Miller, Erickson, & Muse-Burke, 2000).

Nonetheless, individuals vary in their comfort with providing and receiving corrective feedback. Some supervisees are more sensitive and uncomfortable with challenges, whereas others relish them. Rapid Reference 8.1 lists several questions for supervisors to use to explore their own comfort, as well as their supervisees’ comfort, with corrective feedback.

Although some challenging and confrontation may be necessary to stimulate the supervisee’s growth, constant correction can be detrimental to building the working alliance. Supervisors should strive to limit the amount of corrective feedback given at any one time as it can overwhelm supervisees and create non-productive anxiety. Taping a supervision session and counting the number of interruptions and corrections will help beginning supervisors to monitor this problem. A second option is to ask supervisees directly how they are experiencing corrective feedback or use the questions in the corrective feedback test in Rapid Reference 8.2.

One difficulty facing most mental health practitioners is focusing corrective feedback on behavior and away from personality. The best feedback, whether positive or negative, is specific, behavioral, and directly related to the learning goals of supervision rather than to global generalizations about the person. For example, it is more productive to say, “You seem to be having trouble getting your process notes done on time,” rather than saying “I think you are lazy,” or “You just don’t care.” Supervisees will respond better to specific feedback about behaviors they need to change than to global assessment of their personality. Rapid Reference 8.3 summarizes the characteristics of good and bad corrective feedback.

Therefore, supervisors need to hone their observational skills and learn to separate behavioral observations from their thoughts and feelings about the behavior. While this statement sounds simple, many supervisors in the mental health field have difficulty turning off the interpretive voice so essential today in diagnosis and assessment of patients.

Another common problem faced by supervisors is that in an effort not to sound critical or accusatory, they tend to be too tentative and use too many disclaimers, so the real message is lost. Studies have shown that feedback that is clear and specific without numerous qualifiers is more effective (Hulse-Killacky & Page, 1994).

Feedback will be heard and more readily accepted in a climate of caring and concern. Self-disclosure and empathetic responding will help supervisors defuse anxiety and facilitate openness. For example, statements such as “I know I struggled with this same problem when I first started out,” or “Sometimes it must feel pretty overwhelming,” might break the ice and make the supervisor seem more understanding and approachable.

Also, starting feedback with “I” statements rather than with “you” statements will decrease the accusatory feeling of the feedback and reduce defensiveness. For example saying “This is my assessment,” or “It seems from my perspective,” sounds a lot different than “You did or didn’t do that,” or “You are this or that.” Absolutely avoid beginning corrective feedback with statements such as “Other people think that you . . .” or “Everyone else does . . .” because these global anonymous generalities tend to rile supervisees and have no benefit in terms of actual behavioral change.

Pointing out discrepancies, that is, noticing differences between verbal and nonverbal communication or stated goals and action, is another accepted feedback skill. “As you talk about how well things are going with this family, your voice dropped and you appear sad.” Or “You tell me that you really want to get your paperwork done on time but after two weeks, I still don’t have your paperwork.”

One of the best suggestions for corrective feedback is sandwiching (Powell, 1993). Here unfavorable feedback is sandwiched in between positive comments. The main point is to keep feedback specific, behavioral, concise, and timely. Also, starting first with one or two specific comments that are positive before moving to any correction is usually appreciated. For example, “I like how you did . . .” However “I see you still struggle with . . .” so “and maybe you could try . . . next time. You seem to be moving in the right direction” (Powell, p. 189). Try to avoid the word but when delivering praise as it tends to negate all that comes before it. Also, it is recommended to place any general statement of praise at the end rather than the beginning of the feedback sandwich. Statements such as “You are doing a great job” when said first go unheard as people prepare to hear the proverbial “but” and all the exceptions. Instead, place specific statements of praise at the beginning.

A variation on sandwiching from the solution-focused model is to ask supervisees to name one or two things they liked and one or two things they didn’t like about what they did in a client session. Or ask a scaling question such as “on a scale of one to ten, rate how you think you are doing so far with this client [or with your clients in general].”

Another suggestion to try is Haim Ginott’s xyz formula in which parents give feedback to their children to correct behavior without criticizing the person (Goleman, 1995). The xyz formula is “When you do x, I think or feel y, and I want you to do z.” Supervisors can combine this technique with empathetic responding: “I know you are struggling with my feedback; however, when you say or do x . . . I think or feel y . . . and I wish you would do z.”

Metaphors, along with storytelling, are also effective tools for providing corrective feedback. They can be particularly helpful when trying to tackle complex thoughts and emotions as it is frequently easier to hear and understand corrective feedback when given in this way. For example, the supervisor could say, “It’s as if you are on a sinking ship and searching for a life preserver.” Or, employing the storytelling technique, “I had another supervisee who struggled with a similar situation with a client.” Rapid Reference 8.4 offers examples of each of these feedback skills.

An important facet to any successful coaching relationship is that the coachee owns the goals for change, and the relationship is a clearly defined contractual one. Therefore, one area in which coaching principles may assist clinical supervisors is in promoting the supervisee’s ownership of goals for supervision during the contracting phase of supervision.

Coaches work best with clear objectives and goals. Coaching won’t work if the energy and commitment for change belongs mostly to the supervisor or if the supervisor’s definition of success is noticeably different than that of the supervisee. Therefore, supervisor-coaches need a number of thought-provoking questions to challenge supervisees during the contracting phase. For example, ask each supervisee “What is it that you would like to get out of supervision? What will you need to know and be able to do to be a competent professional?”

Coaching requires trust, reciprocity, and a commitment to change. If there are issues between supervisor and supervisee that prevent trust and reciprocity, it will be almost impossible to establish a coaching relationship. Supervisors who wish to use the coaching model must work through such relationship problems first or bring someone else in as a consultant to do the coaching.

Rapid Reference Box 8.5 lists a number of coaching techniques that are transferable to clinical supervision.

The instant payoff technique (Landsberg, 1997) is an example of a coaching technique that is useful in situations where supervisors become prone to nagging and haranguing supervisees to try to convince them to solve a chronic problem. The purpose of the instant payoff technique is to move ownership of problems and solutions from supervisor to supervisee. The key point of the instant payoff technique is to have supervisees, not supervisors, define the problem and come up with their own personal ideas for a solution. Instead of supervisors attempting to persuade supervisees to see problems from their perspective and trying to motivate them to adopt the supervisor’s solutions, the supervisor as coach begins the problem-solving session by asking supervisees to describe the problem from their perspective. After that, supervisees are invited to identify as many obstacles to solving this problem as they can produce and then generate a list of likely solutions to each obstacle. Out of that list, supervisees may select the most promising idea for solving the problem, and it is this idea that becomes the basis for the last problem-solving step, creating an action plan that includes the exact dates and times for each step toward the solution.

At each step along the way with the instant payoff technique, the supervisor as coach serves more in the capacity of a consultant to the supervisee’s problems, rather than the actual solver of those problems. Hence, the energy for change belongs where it should—with supervisees, not supervisors.

Another well-known problem-solving method with broad application in supervision is brainstorming. Brainstorming requires the suspension of critical judgment in order to generate as many creative solutions to a problem as possible. Brainstorming can be employed at any time or in any situation given that most people are already familiar with the process, and it doesn’t require much time. Supervisors can insert brainstorming into case consultation, group supervision, or couple it with coaching techniques.

Situational problem solving (Komanski, 1999) is another particularly helpful method to free up energy for solutions to nagging problems. It could be used with one supervisee or a group of them. Situational variables can be divided into three groups: (1) blocks in the situation (e.g., inadequate resources, shifts in agency or organizational focus, state and federal laws, organizational guidelines, professional standards, loss of grant monies); (2) blocks that exist in others (e.g., stressed out staff, clients, and anxious or stressed administrators); and (3) blocks that exist in the supervisee (e.g., lack of skill/knowledge, low motivation, personal attitudes and beliefs). To apply situational problem solving, supervisors and supervisees examine a problem from the three perspectives and together develop a broad list of things that get in the way of attaining particular skills or completing tasks. As pieces of the puzzle unfold, new solutions or plans are then generated. The strength of this approach is that it normalizes and depersonalizes many problems and challenges supervisors to look beyond the supervisee’s personality as the root of all difficulties.

For example, many inexperienced supervisees struggle mightily with the proverbial problem of paperwork. Causes can run the gamut from being overwhelmed by the demands of client services and possessing an inability to organize time efficiently to no training in how to complete paperwork satisfactorily, continuous changes to the paperwork requirements, computer problems, negative attitude about paperwork on the part of other staff members, ingrained fears of writing, and perfectionism that precludes starting or prevents finishing anything written. Supervisors, along with supervisees, can generate a wide list of possible obstacles to completing paperwork, and, after that, supervisees may select the one obstacle from the list that best describes their personal problem with paperwork. (Note: They may wish to select more than one.) After choosing the obstacle, apply brainstorming to stimulate creativity. Next, have supervisees select the solution out of the brainstorming that sounds most workable and create an action plan based on it. After that, don’t forget to ask how they will reward themselves for effort expended.

One general caution for new supervisors is to be sure to leave sufficient time at any problem-solving session to create a plan for implementing suggested solutions. Many times much energy is spent on identifying problems and creating solutions, but little attention is given to implementation of solutions, resulting in motivation taking a nosedive. Watch the clock, and before the meeting adjourns, request that anyone involved in the problem-solving session take out their calendars and set actual dates and times for follow-up. Rapid Reference 8.6 summarizes the steps involved in good problem solving.

There are many causes for friction. Supervision is a multifaceted relationship with many intrinsic problems, such as dual relationships, role conflict, and role ambiguity. Tension in the relationship can indicate any number of troubles, such as concern for safety on the part of supervisees or the need for more or less structure, direction, or support from supervisors. Sometimes the issue is fit between supervisor and supervisee on style, approach, model, or methods. Other times it is an indication of the lack of skill on the part of the supervisor. Problems can go both ways.

The main point is for supervisors to understand that because supervision is a relationship of unequal power, supervisors have to act responsibly when trouble occurs and not let problems fester. Changing relationship dynamics takes openness on the part of supervisor (and supervisee), as well as creativity, honesty, and respect. Just as with clients, resolving difficulties also requires skill and the expenditure of considerable time and effort, along with a little inventiveness, but the return can be enormous. Rapid Reference 8.7 gives a number of suggestions for solving problems with supervisees.

Solving difficulties also requires assertiveness and a willingness to confront problems, no matter how tough. When experiencing problems in the supervisory relationship, the only truly effective way to resolve matters is to address them openly with supervisees. Nonetheless, supervisors are just like most people when faced with uncomfortable situations; they generally want to avoid strife. One common supervisory response to friction is to focus more on tasks and procedures and to talk more about what needs to get done in order to avoid any discussion of personal thoughts or feelings.

Supervisees may follow similar avoidance patterns by appearing in supervision with a list of clients they wish to cover and then racing through the list, not stopping for any feedback or discussion. Other avoidance strategies are rambling, jumping from topic to topic, ignoring the supervisor’s suggestions or being so busy they do not have time for supervision. For example, instead of expressing doubts, raising personal thoughts or feelings, or contradicting supervisors, supervisees use busyness to mask underlying problems. A wall of words can mean many things: a lack of trust, a response to the supervisor’s perceived criticalness or dogmatism, a lack of respect for the supervisor’s expertness, or a disagreement concerning the supervisor’s style, direction, or focus. Shulman (1993) coined the term illusion of work to describe this phenomenon.

When such behavior occurs, the obvious tactic is for the supervisor to stop and think, “What is this person telling me or not telling me by this behavior? ” Supervisors might also ask themselves, “What issues or problems are we not talking about right now? What does this wall of words represent?” As a result of such self-questioning, it follows that supervisors need to stop and challenge the supervisee’s behavior in supervision: “I hear all of the things you are doing that are going well, but I don’t hear about any difficulties? I wonder what that means? Is there something I am doing, or not doing, that causes you not to share? Do I seem too critical or dogmatic? Is there anything I can change that will make supervision go better for you?”

It is hard to generalize about what types of relationship issues will create the most difficulty for supervisors. However, there are several categories of supervisee responses to supervision that can be described as generally problematic: highly dependent, helpless, or too agreeable supervisees; closed, resistant, or defensive supervisees; externalizing and oppositional supervisees; and apathetic or uninvolved supervisees.

Parallel process is another model that can be helpful to supervisors as they try to understand and resolve relationship difficulties. The parallel process model suggests that problems between a supervisor and supervisee mirror problems the supervisee is having with clients. For example, a client in a crisis situation may feel overwhelmed by a number of contributing factors. Supervisees in response to the client’s state of helplessness may feel similarly stuck and so present themselves in supervision as overwhelmed and unable to assist the client. Applying parallel process, supervisors would note the similarity between the supervisee’s and client’s response to problems and so guide the supervisee to change actions as well as the session focus.