Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157 DOI 10.1007/s10447-009-9074-4 ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Trait Emotional Intelligence and Perceived Supervisory Working Alliance of Counseling Trainees and Their Supervisors in Agency Settings Joseph B. Cooper & Kok-Mun Ng
Published online: 31 March 2009 # Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2009
Abstract The present study investigated the relationships between supervisee and supervisor trait emotional intelligence (EI) levels and their perception of the supervisory working alliance. Data were collected from 64 supervisor-supervisee dyads among masters-level community counseling internship students and their site supervisors. Findings indicated that supervisees and supervisors with higher levels of trait EI tended to perceive the supervisory working alliance more positively. However, findings did not support the presence of an interaction effect between supervisee and supervisor trait EI on either supervisees’ or supervisors’ perceptions of the working alliance. Implications of the findings and directions for future research are discussed. Keywords Supervisory working alliance . Counseling supervision . Trait emotional intelligence . Supervisory dyad
Introduction Trait Emotional Intelligence (EI), defined as “a constellation of behavioral dispositions and self-perceptions concerning one’s ability to recognize, process, and utilize emotion-laden information” (Petrides et al. 2004, p. 278), has received increased attention for its role in human relationship and functioning (e.g., Schutte et al. 2001). Specifically, researchers have provided empirical evidence that trait EI is a personality variable related to the
J. B. Cooper (*) Department of Counseling, Marymount University, 2807 North Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22207-4299, USA e-mail:
[email protected] K.-M. Ng Department of Counseling, The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, 9201 University Blvd, Charlotte, NC 28223, USA
146
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
characteristics that build relationships and to the quality of those relationships (Smith et al. 2007). However, within the counseling literature, researchers have yet to investigate trait emotional intelligence (EI) in the supervisory relationship, a construct that has been recognized as the most important factor that contributes to supervision effectiveness and satisfaction (e.g., Ladany et al. 1999; Wheeler 2002). Although the covert and overt emotional experiences of the supervisory dyad have been perceived to be important in the formation of the supervisory relationship (Bordin 1983), no studies have empirically investigated if the ability to process and utilize this emotion-laden information is associated with the development of the supervisory relationship. Therefore, the present study was designed to investigate the relationships between supervisee and supervisor trait emotional intelligence (EI) and their perceptions of the supervisory working relationship. Supervisory Relationship The supervisory relationship is generally understood as a hierarchical, dynamic, and multilayered interpersonal process that reflects the feelings and attitudes the participants have toward one another and the manner in which they are expressed (Muse-Burk et al. 2001). As defined by Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002), the supervisory relationship is the medium within which supervisors train, guide, and encourage supervisees to develop their skills and to provide the necessary ingredients to facilitate what takes place within the supervision process. Bordin (1983) operationalized the supervisory relationship as a collaboration for change that involves a mutual agreement and understanding regarding the goals and tasks of supervision and the emotional bond between the supervisor and supervisee, and he termed this construct the supervisory working alliance (SWA). Because Bordin’s conceptualization is one of the few to formally define and operationalize the supervisory relationship (Ellis and Ladany 1997), the present study adopts his definition for this research. The rationale for utilizing Bordin’s (1983) conceptualization is also based on an understanding that the relationship is not only defined by the extent to which the goals and tasks are mutually agreed upon, but also is reflective of the emotional bond between the participants. He defined the emotional bond of supervision as the mutual “feeling of liking, caring, and trusting that the participants share” (Bordin 1983, p. 36). Bordin further hypothesized that the emotional bond is strengthened by the shared experience of the supervision process, and that this in turn facilitates the carrying out of the mutually agreedupon goals and tasks of supervision. Thus, Bordin’s conceptualization of the SWA recognizes the important role emotions play not only in the development of the working alliance, but also in the overall process and outcome of supervision. Following Bordin, subsequent scholars have also argued that emotions play an important role in the process of supervision (cf., James et al. 2004; Wetchler 1998). To date, however, only limited research has focused on the role of emotions in the SWA (Wester et al. 2004), and no studies have examined the relationship between trait EI and the SWA. Determinants of the Supervisory Relationship Given the importance of the supervisory relationship to the processes and outcomes of counseling supervision, researchers have sought to elucidate the specific supervisee and supervisor variables that are related to the development and maintenance of the relationship. Supervisee and supervisor characteristics include demographic variables (i.e., gender and age), developmental level, and personality variables (i.e., attachment styles and emotional
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
147
well-being) (cf., Lichtenbereg and Goodyear 2000; Muse-Burk et al. 2001; Neufeldt et al. 1997; Ramos-Sanchez et al. 2002; Riggs and Bretz 2006; Worthington and Stern 1985). For example, Worthington and Stern (1985) found that supervisees rated the supervisory relationship more positively when they were matched with supervisors who were of the same gender, and Ramos-Sanchez et al. (2002) found that supervisees with greater clinical experience were more likely to report a stronger working alliance with their supervisors. Inman (2006) found that trainees’ perceived supervisor multicultural competence contributed positively to their perceptions of the SWA. Yet, with the exception of male restricted emotionality (Wester et al. 2004), adult attachment (Kim and Birk 1998; Riggs and Bretz 2006), and trainee and supervisor emotional well-being (White and Queener 2003), limited studies have examined the impact of supervisor or trainee personality traits (i.e., personality patterns, emotional well-being, and attitudes and values) on the supervisory relationship itself. The study by Wester et al. (2004) on male supervisees’ restricted emotionality found that within the context of the supervisory relationship, male supervisees with higher levels of restricted emotionality were more likely to deal with psychological distress by becoming depressed or developing low self-esteem; however, they did not specifically examine the association between restricted emotionality and the SWA. In their study on attachment style and SWA among supervisory dyads, White and Queener (2003) found that only the supervisor’s attachment style positively predicted both supervisor and supervisee perceptions of the working alliance. Similarly, Riggs and Bretz (2006) found that regardless of the supervisee’s attachment style, the supervisor’s attachment style was significantly associated with the tasks and bond of the working alliance. However, in contrast to White and Queener, Riggs and Bretz only assessed the supervisor’s attachment style as perceived by the supervisee. Although more research is needed, the above studies support Bordin’s (1983) hypothesis that the personal characteristics of the supervisor and supervisee play an important role in the development of the emotional bond and the agreement of the goals and tasks of supervision. Given that trait EI is conceptualized as a personality trait and that emotional skills have been found to be positively related to development and maintenance of both personal and professional relationships (Brackett et al. 2004; Lopez et al. 2004; Wong and Law 2002), it makes sense to investigate the role that trait EI plays on the development of the supervisory working alliance. Emotional Intelligence The construct of EI was formally introduced into the literature in 1990 by Salovey and Mayer, who defined EI as “the ability to monitor one’s own and others’ feelings and emotions, to discriminate among them and to use this information to guide one’s thinking and actions” (p. 189). Since the publication of Salovey and Mayer’s initial paper, there have been several differing conceptualizations of EI in the literature (e.g., Bar-On 2000; Goleman 1995). Tett et al. (2005) divided these differing conceptualizations into two general categories: (a) ability EI and (b) dispositional or trait EI. Ability EI is assessed via intelligence-like tests and represents a set of cognitive skills used to perceive and process emotional information. Trait EI, or emotional self-efficacy, is a personality trait that encompasses emotion-related self-perceptions and dispositions, and is measured by selfreport inventories (Petrides and Furnham 2001). Whereas ability EI models capture what individuals are capable of doing, trait EI models capture how much of an individual’s awareness and understanding of their emotional skills translates into actual practice. Because of these distinctions, the current study focuses on trait EI, rather than ability EI.
148
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
Emotional Intelligence and Counseling Supervision As trait EI reflects the extent to which one understands and is aware of his or her emotional skills (Petrides and Furnham 2001), it stands to reason that those with higher levels of trait EI will be able to more effectively navigate the SWA by utilizing emotions to enhance specific interventions, inform decision making, and to facilitate the “building and repair” process (Bordin 1983) that characterizes the nature of SWA. Although there is a plethora of literature in the counseling discipline specific to emotions in counseling (for a review, see Greenberg and Pascual-Leone 2006), there are only limited theoretical and empirical papers in the counseling literature (Brack et al. 1997; James et al. 2004; Reilly 2000; Wetchler 1998, 1999) and in the clinical nursing literature (Akerjordet and Severinsson 2004; Savage 2003) that examine the role of emotions as it relates to the process of supervision. From these studies it seems evident that, within supervision, emotions play a key role in allowing participants to identify the specific issues that are important and in need of attention, to help ground new learning and the development of self-awareness, and to facilitate the development and maintenance of the empathic bond between those involved. Similarly, because no studies to date have examined the relationship between trait EI and the SWA within the counseling discipline, we reviewed research in other disciplines that has examined the influence of EI on professional and personal relationships. Overall, studies have found EI to be predictive of both the quality and strength of those relationships (Brackett et al. 2004; Brackett et al. 2005; Lopez et al. 2003; Schutte et al. 2001; Shipper et al. 2003; Wong and Law 2002). For example, in a series of studies that explored the influence of trait EI on interpersonal relationships, Schutte et al. (2001) found self-reported trait EI to be positively associated with such qualities as empathic concern, the ability to self-monitor, and marital satisfaction. Participants with higher trait EI scores desired more inclusion and more affection in their relationships and showed more cooperative responses towards their partners. Moreover, participants who perceived their partners as adept in recognizing and managing emotions in self and others reported greater relationship satisfaction compared to those participants whose partners were rated low in those same emotional skills. Congruent with the findings of Schutte et al., subsequent research by Smith et al. (2007) found trait EI to be associated with relationship satisfaction among cohabitating heterosexual couples over a 12-month period. Similar to the research findings on trait EI and personal relationships, investigations into the influence of trait EI on professional relationships (e.g., manager/subordinate relationships) have also found a positive association. For example, several studies have found self-reported EI to be predictive of conflict resolution skills among supervisors and staff, subordinate job performance, management effectiveness, and overall team cohesiveness (Jordan and Troth 2002; Rahim et al. 2002; Rapisarda 2002; Shipper et al. 2003). Jordan and Troth (2002) found that employees’ trait EI, specifically the ability to deal with emotions and the discussion and control of emotions, was positively related to the use of a collaborative conflict resolution style. Similarly, Rahim et al. (2002) found that the trait EI of the supervisors, specifically their self-awareness, self-regulation, empathy, and social skills, was positively associated with their subordinates’ use of problem-solving strategies. These studies indicated that trait EI, specifically the management of emotions and self-awareness factors, can enhance the effective use of problemsolving and conflict resolution skills within professional relationships, and that managers’ trait EI can have a positive impact on their subordinates’ ability to effectively solve problems. To date, only limited research exists on trait EI and mental health counselors. Martin et al. (2004) found trait EI both predicted counselor self-efficacy and differentiated counselors from non-counselors, suggesting that EI may be one of the primary attributes of counselors.
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
149
In a recent study that examined the relationship between counseling students’ empathy and their level of EI, researchers found that EI explained a significant proportion of the variance in counselor empathy (Miville et al. 2006). In sum, extant findings support the general view of the proposed role of emotions in both counseling and supervision. Emotional abilities are thought to be important because they serve a commutative function by conveying information about the participants’ thoughts and intentions, which can aid in the development and maintenance of the empathic bond between participants (Carter 2003; Wetchler 1999). There is a need for studies to examine the relationship between trait EI, a construct that reflects these elements and one that is receiving increased attention in human relationship functioning, and the SWA.
The Purpose of the Study Because trait EI represents the awareness and understanding of those skills used to assess the feelings and emotions in self and other, to discriminate among them, and to use this awareness to guide one’s thinking and actions, an understanding of the relationship between trait EI and the SWA can inform supervisors about the importance of paying attention to emotion-related dynamics as a way to foster the supervisory relationship. Because the SWA is critical to supervision outcome, it is important to gain a better understanding of the factors that potentially affect the supervisory relationship, which in turn plays a crucial role in the professional development of counselors-in-training and the provision of competent counseling services and client care. Therefore, the present study was designed to explore the relationship between trait EI and the SWA on a sample of agency/community counseling trainees and their site supervisors from programs accredited by the Council for Accreditation of Counseling and Related Educational Programs (CACREP). The goals of the study were to investigate (a) the relationships among supervisees’ and supervisors’ trait EI and supervisees’ perceptions of the SWA, and (b) the relationships among supervisors’ and supervisees’ trait EI and supervisors’ perceptions of the SWA. Because any supervisory relationship is interactive and takes place between two parties, we also investigated if there was any interaction effect between supervisees’ and supervisors’ trait EIs on their respective perceptions of the SWA. Based on extant empirical literature on trait EI in both personal and professional relationships, we hypothesized the following: 1. 2.
Both the supervisees’ and supervisors’ trait EIs will significantly predict the supervisees’ perceptions of the SWA. Both the supervisees’ and supervisors’ trait EIs will significantly predict the supervisors’ perceptions of the SWA.
As this was an exploratory study, we did not hypothesize the direction of the interaction effect between supervisors’ and supervisees’ trait EIs on either the supervisors’ or the supervisees’ perceptions of the SWA.
Method Participants and Procedures Participants for this study were a convenience sample of masters-level community counseling internship trainees and their site supervisors. Participants were recruited from CACREP-
150
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
accredited university counseling programs within the Southern geographic region of States in the U.S. according to the Association of Counselor Education and Supervision (ACES). To increase statistical conclusion validity, the decision was made to seek sample homogeneity by including only trainees who were completing their internships at community/agency-based sites, and to exclude students completing internship at school-based sites. The following procedures were undertaken. First, the community counseling internship instructors at respective universities were contacted electronically and were provided with a brief description of the study and an invitation to participate. Those agreeing to participate were mailed the research packets and instructed to forward an invitation of participation to their current internship students. Second, internship students who agreed to participate were given the research packets, which contained research material for both the student and their site supervisor. The supervisor and internship student packets each contained a cover letter, instruction sets, the survey instruments, and a stamped return envelope to return the survey material to the first author. The internship students were instructed to complete their packets so long as they had had at least three supervision sessions with their supervisors. The internship students were also instructed to give their site supervisor the supervisor packets to complete within one week of completing their own packet. The supervisor packets contained instructions to complete the research material within one week of their most recent supervision session with their supervisee. The supervisee and supervisor packets and surveys were coded with matching numbers to ensure anonymity but also proper matching of supervisor and supervisee data. Finally, a follow-up reminder was sent via the internship instructors two weeks after the initial implementation of the study. The reminder requested the students to return the completed surveys and also to remind their site supervisors to do likewise. A total of 312 packets was distributed to 27 CACREP-accredited university counseling programs. In all, 113 supervisee and 67 site supervisor surveys were returned, making a 36% response rate for supervisees and 21% response rate for site supervisors. Of the packets returned, 64 could be matched as supervisory dyads, so they became the database for the study. The supervisee sample consisted of 61 (95%) women and three (5%) men with an average age of 33.8 years (SD=11.8; range=23 – 64). They were predominantly Caucasian (64%), but also included African American (28%), Asian (3%), Latino (2%), American Indian (2%), and 1% other. Just under half (43%) were completing their first semester internship, with 34% and 23% completing their second and third semester internship, respectively. They reported an average of 10.4 (SD=9.2; range=3 – 40) supervision sessions with their site supervisors. The supervisor sample consisted of 55 women (86%) and nine men (14%) who ranged in age from 28 to 67 years (M=46.7, SD=10.7). They were predominantly Caucasian (86%), with the remaining including African American (9%), Latino (3%), and Asian (2%). Their years of supervisory experience ranged from one to 32 (M=8.8, SD=7.3), and they reported having completed an average of 11.2 (SD=9.6) supervision sessions with their supervisees. About 34% of the supervisors identified having a masters degree in counseling, 6.2% a doctorate in counseling, 26.6% a masters degree in social work, 12.5% a doctorate in psychology, 4.7% a masters in pastoral counseling, and 12.5% other qualifications. Instruments Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form (TEIQue-SF) The TEIQue-SF is a 30-item inventory based on the full form of the TEIQue (Petrides and Furnham 2003). Two items from each of the 15 subscales of the TEIQue were selected
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
151
based on their correlations with the total TEIQue subscale scores to constitute the short form. Respondents endorse the items using a 7-point Likert-type scale (1 = completely disagree to 7 = completely agree). Higher scores indicate higher levels of trait EI. Sample items include: “Expressing my emotions with words is not a problem for me,” and “I usually find it difficult to regulate my emotions.” Petrides and Furnham (2006) reported the internal consistency estimates of the TEIQUE-SF to be .84 for a male sample and .89 for a female sample. In the current study, Cronbach’s alphas were satisfactory for both internship students (.87) and site supervisors (.82). Working Alliance Inventory-Modified (Baker 1991) The WAI-M is a 36-item parallel forms self-report instrument used to evaluate the supervisors’ and supervisees’ perceptions of the SWA (Bordin 1983). Baker adapted the WAI-M from Horvath and Greenberg’s (1989) ‘Working Alliance Inventory’ by making minor changes to their measure of the therapeutic alliance to reflect the supervisory environment. Participants respond to a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (never) to 7 (always), with higher scores representing stronger alliance components. The WAI-M contains three 12-item subscales reflecting participants’ perceptions of the quality of the Goals, Tasks, and Bond of the working alliance. The total scores for supervisees’ and supervisors’ WAI-M, rather than the subscale scores, were used for the analyses in this study because of the high correlations among the subscales (rs >.71). Baker’s (1991) reliability estimates for the global scale of the supervisor version was .98 and .97 for the supervisee version. In the current sample, the alpha coefficients for the global scores were .93 for the supervisors and .96 for the supervisees.
Results The purpose of this study was to examine the contribution of supervisor and supervisee trait EI to the SWA as perceived by supervisors and supervisees, respectively. Prior to analysis, the data were examined for missing information, accuracy of data entry, outliers, normality of distribution, skewness, and kurtosis. There were no outliers and both the kurtosis and skewness tests indicated no serious departures from normality. However, examination of supervisor and supervisee WAI item histograms found that Items 1 and 17 for the supervisor WAI and Item 1 for the supervisee WAI reflected a non-normal, bi-modal distribution of scores, suggesting respondents were treating the items with ambiguity. In addition, these items were creating low to negative inter-item correlations with other scale items. Based on these findings, the authors decided to exclude from analyses Items 1 and 17 from the supervisor WAI and Item 1 from the supervisee WAI. The removal of these items resulted in a slight increase in the alpha coefficients from .93 to .95 for the global supervisor WAI and from .96 to .98 for global supervisee WAI. Next, the researchers analyzed the descriptive statistics of the study variables and explored the intercorrelations among them. Table 1 presents the correlation matrix, revised alpha coefficients, mean scale scores, ranges, and standard deviations of the study variables. Supervisors reported higher levels of trait EI compared to supervisees [t(126)=3.41, p=.001]. But, they did not differ in perceived levels of the working alliance [t(126)=.858, p>.05]. Three of the six correlations were statistically significant: supervisee EI and supervisee WAI, supervisor EI and supervisor WAI, and supervisee WAI and supervisor WAI. Individuals who reported higher levels of EI also perceived higher levels of the working alliance.
152
Int J Adv Counselling (2009) 31:145–157
Table 1 Listwise zero-order correlations and descriptive statistics of study variables Variable
1
2
3
1. Supervisee-TEI
-
2. Supervisor-TEI
−.12
-
3. Supervisee-GWAI
.20*
.04
-
4. Supervisor-GWAI
.10
.49**
.39**
4
-
M
SD
Range
167.12
17.92
126–201
176.66
13.43
140–201
209.00
26.55
138–245
205.32
21.62
138–237
N=64; TEI = Trait EI; GWAI = Global Working Alliance; Correlations **p
