| Course | PSY 540 Clinical Supervision |
|---|---|
| Module | Module 3 |
| Paper type | Relationship paper with case |
| Length | About 1,049 words, 6 pages |
| Format | APA 7 student paper |
| School | Aspen University |
| Program | Psychology and Addiction Studies |
| Updated | October 2026 |
Free sample paper for PSY 540 Module 3
What Supervisees Do Not Say: The Working Alliance, Nondisclosure and Repair in Supervision
Student Name
Psychology and Addiction Studies Program, Aspen University
PSY 540: Clinical Supervision
Instructor Name
Month Day, Year
What Supervisees Do Not Say: The Working Alliance, Nondisclosure and Repair in Supervision
Tess, the associate counselor at the fictional Sandia Valley agency, had been in supervision with Marisol for four months when Marisol reviewed a recording of one of Tess's sessions. In it, a client said quietly that some mornings she "didn't want to wake up." Tess moved on to another topic. In their supervision meetings since, Tess had described the client as "doing better" and had not mentioned the remark. This paper examines what the case reveals about the supervisory relationship.
The Working Alliance in Supervision
Bordin (1983) extended his model of the therapeutic working alliance to supervision. He proposed that a strong supervisory alliance rests on three elements: mutual agreement between supervisor and supervisee on the goals of supervision, mutual agreement on the tasks through which those goals will be reached and an emotional bond of trust, respect and care. Bordin argued that the alliance is built through explicit negotiation of goals and tasks early on and is tested and strengthened when strains arise and are repaired. He also listed goals that supervision commonly pursues, from mastering specific skills to understanding clients more deeply and becoming aware of one's own reactions.
Applied to Tess and Marisol, the three elements show where things stood. They had agreed on goals in Tess's supervision agreement, including building her confidence with risk assessment. They had agreed on tasks, including reviewing recordings. And Tess described the bond as good. Yet she had not raised the remark, which suggests the bond was not strong enough, or safe enough, for her to bring a mistake.
What Supervisees Withhold
Ladany et al. (1996) surveyed more than a hundred psychotherapy trainees about what they had not disclosed to their supervisors. Nearly all reported withholding something. The most common nondisclosures were negative reactions to the supervisor, followed by personal issues, clinical mistakes, evaluation concerns and general observations about the client. The most common reasons were that the matter seemed unimportant, too personal, or likely to provoke negative feelings, and that the trainee wanted to manage the supervisor's impression of them. Weaker alliances were associated with more nondisclosure.
| What is withheld | Common reason | What it risks |
|---|---|---|
| Negative reactions to the supervisor | Deference; fear of conflict | Unaddressed strain that weakens the alliance |
| Personal issues affecting work | Seems too personal | Reactions that shape sessions without being examined |
| Clinical mistakes | Impression management; fear of evaluation | Client harm going unnoticed |
| Concerns about evaluation | Power difference | Anxiety that blocks learning |
| Attraction or strong feelings toward clients | Shame | Boundary problems |
Why the Relationship Matters
Ladany et al. (1999) followed trainees over a semester and examined how the supervisory working alliance related to their self-efficacy and satisfaction. Changes in the emotional bond were related to how satisfied trainees were with supervision: as the bond strengthened, satisfaction rose. The alliance was not clearly related to changes in trainees' confidence in their counseling skills, which suggested that the relationship's main contribution may be to the quality of the supervisory experience and to the willingness to engage in it. For Tess, that willingness is exactly what was missing when she kept the remark to herself.
Responding to the Case
Marisol's first responsibility was the client. She asked Tess to contact the client before her next session to conduct a suicide risk assessment, and she reviewed the assessment with Tess the same day. The client reported passive thoughts of death without a plan or intent; Tess and the client agreed on a safety plan, and Marisol arranged to review the case weekly.
Her second responsibility was the relationship. Rather than opening with criticism, Marisol told Tess what she had seen in the recording and asked what had happened. Tess said she had frozen, felt she had made a serious error and then feared that raising it would confirm she was not ready for independent practice. Marisol acknowledged the fear, named the power difference directly and explained that a missed remark followed by honest reporting would never count against Tess, while hiding one would worry her far more. She also described a time early in her own career when she had missed a warning sign.
Making Disclosure Safer
The case led Marisol to change her practice with all three supervisees. She added a standing question to every meeting: what are you least eager to tell me today? She committed to reviewing a recording from each supervisee at least monthly, since a good relationship does not replace direct observation. She explained her evaluation process again, stressing what she would treat as cause for concern. And she began asking each supervisee, every few months, how supervision itself was going and what she could do differently, inviting the negative reactions that Ladany and colleagues found supervisees withhold most.
Signs the Alliance Is Under Strain
Strains in the supervisory alliance often show indirectly. A supervisee may begin presenting only cases that are going well, arrive late or unprepared, agree readily with every suggestion without acting on any or report that clients are "fine" without detail. In hindsight, Tess had shown two of these signs: she had shifted her case presentations toward her most stable clients, and her accounts of the client in question had grown shorter. Marisol had read these as signs of growing confidence. Watching for such patterns, and asking about them gently, can bring a strain into the open before it affects a client.
The Tension Within the Relationship
A safe relationship and an evaluative one pull in different directions. Supervisees have good reason to manage impressions when their supervisor writes their evaluations. The tension cannot be removed, but it can be named. Bordin's emphasis on negotiating goals and tasks openly offers one way through: when evaluation criteria are explicit and agreed, disclosing a mistake becomes part of meeting a goal rather than a risk to it.
Conclusion
The supervisory relationship rests on agreement about goals and tasks and an emotional bond, as Bordin proposed. Research by Ladany and colleagues shows that supervisees routinely withhold things from supervisors, including mistakes, and that the bond relates to how supervisees experience supervision. In Tess's case, a hidden mistake with risk implications was caught through recording review. Marisol protected the client first, then repaired the relationship and changed her practice to make disclosure safer.
References
Bordin, E. S. (1983). A working alliance based model of supervision. The Counseling Psychologist, 11(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011000083111007
Ladany, N., Ellis, M. V., & Friedlander, M. L. (1999). The supervisory working alliance, trainee self-efficacy, and satisfaction. Journal of Counseling & Development, 77(4), 447-455. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1556-6676.1999.tb02472.x
Ladany, N., Hill, C. E., Corbett, M. M., & Nutt, E. A. (1996). Nature, extent, and importance of what psychotherapy trainees do not disclose to their supervisors. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43(1), 10-24. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.43.1.10
Reading the PSY 540 Module 3 assignment instructions
The third module of PSY 540 usually asks for a paper on the supervisory relationship, often including the working alliance and supervisee disclosure. Treat the Module 3 instructions in your Aspen course as the guide; Tess and Marisol are teaching inventions. Define the supervisory alliance using a named model. Report research on what supervisees withhold and why. Connect the relationship to outcomes such as satisfaction and learning. Apply the ideas to a case, including a rupture and how it might be repaired. Describe what supervisors can do to make disclosure safer. Give APA 7 references throughout, and never lose sight of the fact that the supervisor also grades. A case that involves risk to a client shows most clearly why the relationship matters, because a hidden mistake there can do real harm.
How this PSY 540 Module 3 example is built
Tess, a composite associate counselor, did not tell her supervisor, Marisol, that a client had mentioned "not wanting to wake up" and she had not followed up. Bordin's Counseling Psychologist article supplies the alliance model of goals, tasks and bond. Ladany and colleagues' Journal of Counseling Psychology study shows how common nondisclosure is and what trainees most often withhold. Ladany, Ellis and Friedlander's Journal of Counseling and Development study connects the bond to satisfaction. A five-row table lists common nondisclosures and reasons. The case shows how the omission came to light, how Marisol responded and what she changed to make disclosure easier, including a standing question in every meeting and monthly recording review for all three supervisees.
Reading the PSY 540 Module 3 grading rubric
Relationship papers earn credit for a clear model of the alliance, research on nondisclosure reported accurately and a case that shows how the relationship affects client care. This example uses Bordin's three elements and applies each to the case. It reports what supervisees commonly withhold and why, including fear of evaluation. The case is realistic: a hidden mistake with risk implications, discovered later. The supervisor's response protects the client first and then repairs the relationship. The paper acknowledges the tension between a safe relationship and the supervisor's duty to evaluate rather than pretending it away. The supervisor's admission of her own early mistake models the openness she asks for, a detail that turns principle into practice.
Common PSY 540 Module 3 mistakes, and how to avoid them
Relationship papers often describe the alliance warmly without addressing what goes wrong. Include ruptures and nondisclosure. Report research findings accurately, with what was studied and who took part. Acknowledge the power difference: supervisors evaluate, and supervisees know it. In a case, protect the client first, then attend to the relationship. Describe specific supervisor behaviors that make disclosure safer, such as asking directly about mistakes and admitting your own. Avoid presenting a good relationship as a substitute for oversight; reviewing recordings catches what a trusting supervisee may still not mention. Revisit the supervision agreement after any rupture, since the goals and tasks Bordin describes may need renegotiating once trust has been tested.
Write yours, or have the desk draft it
This paper is an original model document written by our desk, not a submitted student paper and not an official Aspen University document. Read it for the moves, then write your own to the instructions in your classroom. If you want one built to your exact prompt and rubric, the first custom sample is free and arrives in 24 to 48 hours.
More PSY 540 and Psychology and Addiction Studies sample papers
- PSY 540 Module 1: Foundations of Clinical Supervision
- PSY 540 Module 2: Models of Supervision
- PSY 540 Module 4: Individual Supervision
- PSY 540 Module 5: Group and Triadic Supervision
- PSY 540 Module 6: Multicultural Supervision
- PSY 540 Module 7: Ethical and Legal Issues
- PSY 540 Module 8: Technology and a Personal Model
- ADC 630 Module 4: Solution-Focused Techniques in Practice
- PAC 302 Module 5: Substance Use Screening Instruments
- ADC 515 Module 5: Implicit Associations and Approach Tendencies
- PAC 330 Module 8: Family Treatment Methods
PSY 540 Module 3 questions, answered
What does PSY 540 Module 3 usually ask for?
Aspen's PSY 540 covers the supervisory relationship in this module, so a paper on the working alliance, disclosure and repair is typical. Read your Module 3 prompt.
What is the supervisory working alliance?
Bordin described it as mutual agreement on the goals of supervision and the tasks for reaching them, together with an emotional bond between supervisor and supervisee.
Do supervisees hide things from supervisors?
Yes. Ladany and colleagues found nearly all trainees surveyed had withheld something, most often negative reactions to their supervisor, and often clinical mistakes.
Where can I find a free PSY 540 Module 3 sample paper?
This page has the full paper: the working alliance, research on nondisclosure and a case of a hidden mistake and its repair.
How can supervisors encourage disclosure?
By setting clear expectations, asking directly about mistakes and reactions, responding without punishment, reviewing recordings and modeling openness about their own errors.