IJSP Number 2, 2020

14 18. Supervision is likely enhanced where a positive supervisor-supervisee real relationship exists; 19. Supervisee motivation for supervision is likely enhanced when the supervisor engages in strategic self-disclosure; 20. To increase the likelihood of supervisee skill/identity enhancement, provide supervisees with both new and corrective learning experiences; 21. To contribute to developmental consolidation, engage supervisees in repeatedly testing out their skills and perspectives; 22. Where culture is integrated into supervision and made an integral part of supervisory discourse, supervision effects are likely to be enhanced; 23. If supervisors are open to value differences and engaging in values discussions with their supervisees, supervision effects are likely to be enhanced; 24. Supervisors are likely to resolve alliance ruptures when addressing them in an empathic, flexible, and non-confrontational way; 25. Supervisees are likely to benefit from group supervision if a strong level of group cohesion is developed and maintained. Sources : Taken/adapted from Watkins [1, pp. 166–170]; [2, p. 30]; [37, p. 146]. Supervisee and supervisor characteristics/ features. Tables 3, 4, and 5 identify those common supervision relationship characteristics/features so important, respectively, for the supervisee, supervisor, and the supervisor-supervisee dyad. These tables perhaps further reinforce what Hess, Hess, and Hess [59] said so plainly and powerfully over a decade ago: “The relationship, the relationship, the relationship…is everything in supervision…” (p. 164). Openness, receptivity, connection, and reflection stand out with regard to the supervisee (Table 3), relational engagement, facilitation, and responsiveness for the supervisor (Table 4), and the creation of mutual trust, a work bond, personal bond, and allegiance (i.e., supervisor-supervisee belief in supervision; [7], [60]) for the developing dyad (Table 5). Much of what we see reflected across these three tables seems to give loud voice to two quintessential variables — the alliance and real relationship — as being the relational heart of supervision, core common factors that, again, are seemingly shared across the entirety of the supervisory spectrum [16], [35], [39], [58-61]. The alliance, first proposed almost 60 years ago by Fleming and Benedek [62], is well recognized as involving three components: (a) the supervisory bond; (b) goals agreed upon to guide supervision; and (c) tasks used in pursuing those goals. A collaborative structure, the alliance is a pact or compact between supervisor and supervisee, its focus being the work of supervision. Research into the alliance, about 30 years strong now, has been construct supportive, with results generally being as theoretically expected [59], [63]. The real relationship, introduced into the supervision literature within the past decade [58], gives focus to the non-work aspects of the supervisory relationship (e.g., social conversation, friendly interest and concern) and the supervisor-supervisee personal bond.