Despite its critical role in counselor training, empirical research on clinical supervision is generally limited (Bernard & Goodyear, 2003; Ellis & Ladany, 2007). This is also applied to an area of power dynamics in supervision. This study tested the relationship between the two aspects of power dynamics; namely, supervisors' power bases (i.e., sources of influencing others) and supervisory styles (i.e., typical ways of shaping supervision), based on the system's approach to supervision model (Holloway, 1995). This research was a correlational design. Students in masters' and doctoral counseling programs were asked to respond to an online questionnaire packet via Survey MonkeyTM. Of those who responded, 492 students who took supervision with professor or doctoral student supervisors constituted the sample. Varied numbers of participants were used for each analysis after missing or extreme data were deleted. Supervisors' usage of power bases and supervisory styles were measured by the adopted version of Interpersonal Power Inventory (Raven, Schwarzwald, & Koslowsky, 1998) and Supervisory Style Inventory (SSI; Friedlander & Ward, 1984), respectively. In part 1, results of factor analyses revealed four first-order power factors and two higher-order power factors (Soft & Harsh). Schmeid-Leiman's (1957) solution was also applied. In part 2, result of correlation analysis in revealed that supervisors' usage of Soft or Soft-type power factor (Idealized Expert) was moderately positively correlated to all three supervisory styles but that usage of Harsh or Harsh-type factors (Compensatory Obligation, Relational Power, & Collaborative Alliance) was only weakly correlated to supervisory styles, for majority of supervisors. Similarly, results of regression analyses revealed that supervisory styles did not significantly predict supervisors' usage of Harsh factor, but both supervisory styles and usage of ix Harsh factor significantly predicted usage of Soft factor at moderate and strong level, respectively. The interpersonally-sensitive styles predicted Soft factor slightly more strongly than the other styles. It was concluded that supervisors who engaged in supervision with any one of three supervisory styles also tended to use more Soft or Soft-type factor when there are disagreements, but rarely used Harsh or Harsh types.

Clinical supervision is integral to promoting the professional development of counselors-in-training and gatekeeping the counseling services provided by counselor trainees (Bernard & Goodyear, 2014). Despite the value of studying participants’ retrospective perceptions about or reflections upon supervision, the supervisory process in which supervision transpires is infrequently quantified and measured (Holloway, 1982; Holloway, 1987). As described by most developmental supervision models, clinical supervision is “a process with sequential and qualitatively distinct stages through which supervisors and trainees progress” (Littrell, Lee-Borden, & Lorenz, 1976, p. 134). In order to capture these stages and phenomena with observable and measurable units, the author used six states of interest to measure the supervision process, which exhibit the progressively complex nature of clinical supervision. The six states include: (a) social interfacing (non-skills phase), (b) reflecting on foundational competencies, (c) deepening case conceptualization, (d) processing the relational management, (e) overcoming personal and multicultural barriers, and (f) furthering professional development. These states underpin the codebook of this study and are used to conceptualize the supervision process. Although the interactions between the supervisor and supervisee are transient and difficult to grasp, supervisory interactions move from one state to another. Indeed, state-transitional dynamics of clinical supervision are subject to a constellation of factors that supervisors and supervisees initially bring in and constantly reinforce, such as supervisory styles, supervisee developmental levels, supervisory working alliance, and supervisee satisfaction with clinical supervision. By using Markov chain analysis, this study detects the overall transitional dynamics of supervisory dyads and investigates how transitional dynamics vary based on the aforementioned variables that manifest themselves as supervision dynamics unfold and closely interface with other supervision variables. Results of this study provide implications for clinical supervisors, counselor educators, and counselors-in-training.

The purpose of this study is to examine the interaction of two variables which may influence employee voting behavior. These variables are the leadership style of the supervisor and the employee personality trait of locus of control. The hypothesis held that the interaction of supervisory style and employee locus of control will result in significant differences in the vote in representation elections. The implicit assumption was that certain combinations of leadership styles and employee internality or externality would influence employee voting behavior. Based on the weight of the evidence, it was concluded that the interaction of supervisory style and employee locus of control does not influence voting behavior; that a significant relationship appears to exist between satisfaction with supervision and voting behavior; and that supervisory Consideration appears to be related to voting behavior, and may result in high levels of satisfaction with supervision.