ABSTRACT
Although developmental models of supervision have probably been the most influential over the past 20 years and have gen erated considerable research, critics have argued that the theory has not readily translated into concrete applications (Watkins, 1996). We would argue that concrete applications should not be equated with rigid, formulaic prescriptions for supervision techniques. Sometimes simple cookbook solutions and directions are not possible, or at least may be misleading. Simple, mechanistic models are easier to understand, while more complex ones require more time and effort to grasp and integrate; the more elegant the model, however, the greater the number of supervisory issues are addressed, and the broader and deeper the impact. On the other hand, focusing primarily on the trainee’s personal issues (in essence doing counseling or psychotherapy with the trainee) is generally a poor substitute for effective supervision (and is unethical). All people have a tendency to do what they know how to do, and in some cases that means supervisors will rely too heavily on counseling or psychotherapy skills in conducting supervision when they lack an understanding of the differences between the two processes.
