IJSP Number 4, 2022

13 5.2. Supervisor ’ s Multicultural Competency or Lack Thereof This theme captured two different types of supervisory practice with opposite outcomes. The first type was illustrated by data that described the supervisor ’ s high level of cultural sensitivity and abilities to effectively facilitate multicultural dialogue in supervision with international trainees. On the oth er hand, the “lack thereof ” type not only caused rupture in supervision but also resulted in some psychological damage to international trainees. Our data identified a few different indicators through which supervisors demonstrated high levels of cross- and multicultural competency. They included (1) sensitivity and cultural humility to the supervisee ’ s cultural background, and openness to learn, (2) efforts in understanding the supervisee ’ s unique needs, (3) advocacy for supervisees (e.g., visa issue), and (4) sharing of similar identities or experiences with the supervisee. Several supervisees ( n = 5) recalled that their supervisors recognized and accepted international supervisees ’ indirectness in communication and applied the acceptance when interacting with them. Other international trainees ( n = 4) recalled experiences in which supervisors approached them with cultural humility and openly expressed admiration, empathy, and validation toward the trainee ’ s extra efforts. In addition, another supervisee (#6) also reported that their supervisors had “inquired as to my needs regarding visa work and how to best support me as well as other needs such as acculturation and offered help and support. ” Some supervisors had taken actions to advocate for their international supervisees (e.g., writing a letter in support of the supervisee ’ s visa petition; #5). Supervisees also described that supervisor ’ s self-disclosure, such as supervisors ’ underprivileged identities and associated difficulties, helped to enhance trust in supervision. The abovementioned actions taken by the supervisors were described by their international supervisees as indicators of the supervisor ’ s multicultural sensitivity and competency. Our data also suggested a few different ways through which supervisors were perceived as lacking adequate cultural competency and causing harm to supervisees. First, a large number of our participants ( n =7) reported negative experiences associated with their supervisor ’ s being overly concerned about their language or being punitive toward the supervisee ’ s language proficiency compared to their American peers. The supervisee #7 recalled that: “ During the 1st year of training in group supervision, my supervisor said I should let my clients know my English deficit/accent to model the concept of no one is perfect to my clients. First, this particular supervisor approached my English barrier from a deficit perspective rather than viewing it from a growth mindset (e.g., I am multilingual). Second, this supervisor did not understand in Asian culture how we save face and give face to other people in group setting. The fact that the supervisor said this in front of other trainees shamed me. It was never addressed after that because it was truly hurtful. ” Second, some supervisors ’ being oblivious to the power differential, ignoring the values and influences of the supervisee ’ s culture, and imposing their preferred interpersonal style on international supervisees was captured as another common theme in many negative critical incidents ( n = 6). Supervisee#3 shared her experiences in which the supervisor failed to consider the supervisee ’ s culture and